[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21668-21691]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2000

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follow:

                              H. Res. 288

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference 
report rule for S. 1059, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration. In addition, the rule 
provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type 
of rule that we grant for every conference report we consider in the 
House. The conference report itself is a strong step forward as we work 
to take care of our military personnel and provide for our national 
defense.
  I have always admired the patriotism and dedication of the young men 
and women in the armed forces, especially given the poor quality of 
life that our enlisted men and women face. But today, we are doing 
something to improve military pay, housing, and benefits.
  It has always been kind of sad, we ask these young people to 
technically give up their life for their country, but yet we really 
have not treated them in the way that most of us would like to be 
treated. Their pay has not been good. They live in housing that has 
been virtually World War II almost, substandard housing in some cases. 
A lot of them have had to take second jobs just to exist because they 
are married and they cannot make it on their pay.
  So we are helping to take some of this load off of them, and we are 
helping to take some of them off of food stamps with this bill by 
giving them a 4.8 percent pay raise. We have added $258 million for a 
variety of health care efforts.
  We are boosting the basic allowance for housing, as I said, 
increasing retention pay for pilots, which is another big problem we 
have had. We are having a very difficult time retaining good pilots in 
the military. We are prompting the GAO to study how we can do better.
  But along with personnel, we have taken care of our military 
readiness. We live in a dangerous world today, and Congress is working 
to protect our friends and family back home from our enemies abroad.
  We are providing for a national missile defense system, something 
that we have never had and that a lot of people think we have. A lot of 
people think we are protected if a warhead comes in from China or North 
Korea or Iraq or Iran, but, no, we are not. So with this

[[Page 21669]]

bill, we are going to provide the beginnings of that protection for 
this country if that day ever comes.
  In light of the recent news about security breaches at our weapons 
laboratories, we are creating a National Nuclear Security 
Administration to prevent enemy nations from stealing our nuclear 
secrets. We are boosting the military's budget for weapons and 
ammunition. We are providing $37 billion for research and development 
so our forces will have top-of-the-line equipment for their job.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the 
underlying conference report because now more than ever we must improve 
our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I graciously yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for allowing me to speak at this point.
  As my colleagues know, I am the ranking member of the Committee on 
Armed Services. From the beginning of this year, the very first 
hearing, I said that this should be the year of the troops. To the 
credit of the Committee on Armed Services, on a very bipartisan effort, 
it is the year of the troops.
  We have had, as my colleagues know, serious recruiting problems and 
even more serious retention problems. I am not just talking about 
pilots; I am talking about young men and young women who have put 
several years into the military and decide to get out.
  The old saying is, and it is so true, ``you recruit soldiers'' or in 
the case maybe Marines, sailors, airmen, ``but you retain families.'' 
For instance, the Army has been cut some 36 percent, but the 
operational tempo has increased 300 percent. We are wearing the troops 
out.
  I had breakfast about a year and a half ago with some noncommissioned 
officers of the United States Navy, and they told me about the 
dispirited attitude of the young men and women who work with them, the 
feeling that they were not remembered. This bill is a tribute to them. 
This bill is one where truly we do remember them.
  It is our job under the Constitution to raise and maintain the 
military and to write the rules and regulations therefor, and we have 
done a magnificent job. I am very proud of it. I am very proud of the 
bipartisanship. I am very proud of the effort made. I especially 
compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), our 
chairman, for his outstanding efforts.
  This is a good bill. The Department of Energy portion that deals with 
nuclear weapons is under our jurisdiction. That has been a very 
important part of our effort.
  To some, it will not meet with their full approval. But I think we 
took a giant step forward. I am for this bill, for the troops, for the 
families.
  I might say, in addition to the pay raises, the pay raise, the pay 
tables, pension reform, we have done superb work for the barracks, 
family housing. I think it deserves great, great support.
  Regarding the Department of Energy effort, I think it is good. Could 
it be better? Sure. But legislation is a matter of compromise. So I 
support the bill and all of its portions. I hope this rule will be 
adopted overwhelmingly because this is a major step in the national 
security of our country.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that it is my intention to 
support this conference report. The National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2000 contains a number of provisions that are critical 
to the maintenance of our national defense forces. Most important among 
them is a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise and additional pay 
raises targeted to mid-grade officers and NCOs to improve retention and 
hopefully stem the loss of some of the best and brightest and most 
valuable members of our armed services.
  The quality-of-life issues addressed in this package are, in a word, 
essential to the men and women who serve in uniform and to their 
families. As Members of this body point out repeatedly, it is 
unconscionable that service men and women should be paid at rates so 
low that they depend upon food stamps to feed their families, or the 
military housing is oft times decrepit or substandard.
  This bill may not resolve all of those issues, but at least it puts 
us on the road to fixing a problem that cannot and should not be 
tolerated.
  This conference report is not without controversy, however. The 
ranking member of the Committee on Commerce has raised some serious 
concerns about the provisions in the conference report, which establish 
a new National Nuclear Security Administration to manage DOE's weapons 
programs.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is especially concerned 
that this provision was added in conference over the objections of the 
Committee on Commerce and Committee on Science who have jurisdiction 
over this matter; and he has indicated that it is his intention to 
offer a motion to recommit to strike language from the conference 
report.

                              {time}  1030

  Members should listen very carefully to his arguments against these 
provisions which are opposed by the Secretary of Energy, the National 
Governors Association, and the National Association of Attorneys 
General. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will also voice 
strong objections to the process by which these provisions were 
included in this conference report. His views deserve the attention of 
the House, and I urge Members to pay close attention. There will, of 
course, be Members who will oppose his motion to recommit because they 
do not want to put any barriers in the path of the passage of this very 
good bill. His objections do not, however, lie against the remainder of 
the bill, and those provisions deserve the strong support of the House.
  This conference report authorizes $8.5 billion for military 
construction and military family housing programs. It authorizes full 
funding for a proposed program to construct or renovate over 6,200 
units of military family housing, and the construction or renovation of 
43 barracks, dormitories and BEQs for the single enlisted. The 
conference report also increases authorization amounts for procurement 
accounts to provide for a total of $55.7 billion as well as for 
research and development to provide for a total of $36.3 billion.
  This increased funding will provide $171.7 million for further 
development of the B-2 fleet, $252.6 million to procure F-16C aircraft 
and $319.9 million for F-16 modifications. In addition, the conference 
report commits to funding an acquisition of the critical next-
generation air dominance fighter. It authorizes $1.2 billion for 
research and development on the F-22 Raptor, $1.6 billion for six low-
rate initial production aircraft, and $277.1 million for advanced 
procurement for 10 LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The conferees are 
to be congratulated for their support for this critical program.
  I am also pleased that the conferees have included $990.4 million for 
procurement of 12 V-22s and $182.9 million for V-22 research and 
development and $25 million to accelerate development of the CV-22 
special operations variant. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference 
report. The conferees have brought us a bill which enhances quality of 
life for our men and women in uniform, a bill which protects core 
readiness and a bill which wisely and aggressively addresses the need 
to replace aging equipment and to find ways to keep our weapons systems 
second to none in the world. I commend this conference report to my 
colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
North Carolina for her leadership on this and my gratitude for yielding 
me the time. I am pleased to support this very appropriate rule for 
consideration of S. 1059, the fiscal year 2000 DOD authorization 
conference report, a major piece of legislation for this Congress. I 
particularly want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their 
diligent,

[[Page 21670]]

bipartisan, very thorough work to make sure that we significantly 
improve the support given to our men and women in uniform.
  They are the ones doing the hard work. They are the ones in harm's 
way. They are the ones taking the risk. That deserves to be supported 
to the fullest extent possible. I am grateful for the continued close 
working relationship that these gentlemen have had with the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence in ensuring that our fighting forces 
have access to the best, the most timely, and the most accurate 
intelligence that we can get. Eyes, ears, brains are actually very 
crucial to our national security.
  This legislation reflects our commitment to those capabilities. Force 
protection, force enhancement, force projection: these are the results, 
these are the needs, and these are what we are getting. Americans most 
recently have watched our troops in action in Kosovo. You might have 
the impression from what I would call photo-op TV that Kosovo is some 
kind of a big win. Unfortunately, the view emerging from the ground in 
Kosovo is not quite so rosy.
  Further, the administration is pursuing policies that could 
ultimately endanger the chances for a long-term peace and stability in 
that region in my view and the view of others. Official U.S. policy 
toward Kosovo is in fact built upon three very uncertain principles: 
one, Kosovo should remain an ethnically diverse province; two, Kosovo 
should not become independent; and, three, the Kosovo Liberation Army, 
the KLA, should give up its arms and disband. These principles face 
serious challenges in the field, on the ground.
  U.S. policy refuses to recognize even the possibility that the 
Kosovars will eventually vote to declare independence from Yugoslavia. 
That is a possibility that should not be discounted. Similarly, the 
administration is naively assuming that the KLA will simply roll over 
and disband. In my view, the U.S. has no end game strategy. For the 
sake of the Americans and our allies on the ground in Kosovo, I urge 
the administration to rethink our situation there and base decisions on 
fact, not on wishful thinking.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox Committee, I am satisfied with 
the provision in this legislation establishing a semiautonomous agency 
to run the weapons program at the Department of Energy under the 
Secretary's leadership. Critics have suggested that this change could 
cause the sky to fall with respect to public health, safety, and 
environmental matters. To the contrary, I say.
  The Cox Report demonstrates that the sky has already fallen and our 
national security has been placed at great risk as a result. Given the 
deeply troubling circumstances surrounding reports of espionage at our 
national labs, I believe it is very proper for Congress to move 
expeditiously in enacting new safeguards.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conference report also 
includes a provision based on an amendment I offered with the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) requiring an end to the permanent presence 
of U.S. troops in Haiti. As our defense leaders have made clear, the 
Clinton administration's insistence on maintaining a permanent troop 
presence in Haiti has strained an already overburdened military, has 
unnecessarily put our troops at risk there, and has focused on 
humanitarian projects more appropriately undertaken by nongovernmental 
organizations who are ready, willing and able to do the job.
  In the face of our efforts to force a withdrawal by year's end, the 
Clinton administration has finally announced an end to the permanent 
presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, to be replaced with periodic 
deployments as needed, as is customary everywhere else in the Western 
Hemisphere. This action does not, I repeat, does not signal an end to 
U.S. military involvement or to U.S. support for the democratic process 
in Haiti but, rather, it is a more realistic policy to provide the help 
Haiti so desperately needs as our neighbor in the Caribbean.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members should note that this legislation 
contains a significant increase in counterdrug funding for DOD. Once 
again, Congress has taken the lead to win the war on drugs, filling the 
vacuum left by a just-say-maybe message from the Clinton 
administration. And we are getting results, if you read the papers. 
This is a good bill. I urge its passage. I commend those involved.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  Mr. SISISKY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1059, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and, of course, the 
rule. I would like to take a few minutes to tell our colleagues why.
  First, I am pleased to report that in my opinion members were treated 
equitably. Members on our side of the aisle were given the same 
consideration as members on the other side. That is not to say 
everybody got everything they wanted. They did not. Neither did I.
  Second, this conference report builds on the President's proposal to 
increase defense spending by $112 billion over the next 6 years. To 
redress shortcomings in recruiting and retention, this bill provides a 
4.8 percent pay raise, pay table reforms for middle grade personnel and 
retirement reform in what may be the best compensation package for our 
military since the 1980s. The bill also addresses the budget shortfalls 
that have dogged the weapons research and development and procurement 
programs of the Department of Defense. In fact, by providing $4.6 
billion in increases for weapons, related research and development and 
procurement, I believe we may have turned the corner and begun the 
long, steady recovery that is both needed and overdue. Particularly 
noteworthy is the emphasis on precision stand-off weapons that reduce 
risks to our troops and, at the same time, risks to innocent civilian 
populations.
  Third, I am particularly pleased that we have rejected the status quo 
and begun the long and difficult task of management and accountability 
reforms for the national security functions of the Department of 
Energy. In my opinion, there is no disagreement as to whether such 
reforms are needed, and to delay starting the reform process while 
waiting on unanimity or drafting perfection would in my opinion be 
irresponsible. Admittedly, the provisions proposed in this conference 
report are not perfect, nor does everyone agree. But, on balance, they 
are a good first start on what will prove to be a long and difficult 
process in the years ahead.
  More importantly, there is nothing in this bill that would amend 
existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations, nor is 
there any intent to limit the States' established regulatory roles 
pertaining to the Department of Energy operations and ongoing cleanup 
activities. Thus, I do not believe the DOE reform provisions are 
antienvironmental nor do I believe they should be used as the basis for 
rejecting this conference report.
  Finally, our naval forces have shrunk from nearly 600 ships in 1987 
to 324 ships today. At the same time, the number of missions for these 
ships have increased threefold. Worse, the administration's budget 
would lead to a 200 ship Navy, well below the force level of 300 ships 
called for by the Nation's military strategy. This bill allows the Navy 
to dedicate more of its scarce shipbuilding dollars to the construction 
of needed warships by providing significantly more cost-effective 
acquisitions through the following measures:
  The early construction of an amphibious ship for the Marines at a 
great price; procurement for the final large, medium speed roll-on/
roll-off ship, LMSR, before the line closes; cost-saving expanded 
multiyear procurement authority for the DDG-51 destroyer program; long-
term lease authority for the services of new construction, noncombatant 
ships for the Navy; and expanded authority for the National Defense 
Features program to allow DOD

[[Page 21671]]

to pay reduced life-cycle costs of defense features built into 
commercial ships up-front.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that bills are compromises, and that good 
bills make good promise compromises. S. 1059 is such a bill. It is a 
balanced bill with good compromises. In the strongest terms, I urge the 
adoption of the conference report.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for yielding me the time and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
pointing out a number of the important issues and details that are what 
this bill and conference report are about.
  I rise in very, very strong support of our rule, of our military, and 
of this bill. The gentleman from Virginia and I just returned from a 
trip where we went to, among other places, North Korea. If our citizens 
in the Eighth District, home of Fort Bragg, would look at a city whose 
tallest buildings have missiles on top of them, where our Air Force 
base has patriot missile batteries on the ready 24 hours a day, where 
14,000 pieces of artillery are trained on the South, 80 percent of 
which are aimed at Seoul only 40 kilometers away from the demilitarized 
zone, if they could see in the eyes of the young men and women who are 
standing face to face with the North Koreans every day as a deterrent 
to terrorism and rogue nations, there would be no question in their 
mind as to our continued and increased support for the military.
  Kosovo and Bosnia have brought to our attention the need to correct 
imbalances and deprivations that the military has suffered because of 
budget shortfalls in recent years. This authorization is more than $8 
billion over the administration's request, and an additional $18 
billion over a greatly reduced budget for defense in 1999. The 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and members of both parties have 
worked diligently, courageously and with much forethought to rebuild 
our military. That is what this rule is about. We have a volunteer 
force. We should maintain a voluntary and not a draft force. In order 
to do that, we must do things that are included in this bill, 
increasing pay, improving health care benefits, restoring REDUX, doing 
things that we owe to our military to correct years of neglect.

                              {time}  1045

  This bill beefs up and strengthens areas that have been eroded over a 
number of years. It addresses major issues that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) has mentioned, but it also deals with such 
basics as ammunition and spare parts. So this is a broad-based, common-
sense, very necessary piece of support for our men and women in 
uniform. In order for them to maintain the superiority, the commitment 
and to provide the protection for a world that is very, very dangerous, 
we should support them by unanimously passing this rule and this bill. 
They protect us; we need to support them.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule which sanctifies bad 
behavior. There was no real conference held on this legislation. 
Members of the conference who were entitled to be present to 
participate were not invited and were informed when they showed up that 
there was no conference to be held, the matter had been disposed of, 
and that we could simply go our way.
  Now let us look at what the rule does. The rule waives points of 
order on two things: One, germaneness and the other, scope of the 
conference. In each instance the conferees, without holding a meeting, 
contrived to concede the House rules on both points, so now they need a 
waiver. Why do they need a waiver? They need a waiver because they 
wrote something which is not germane, which was never considered in 
either body and which exceeds the scope of the conference.
  Now I want to express respect for my friend, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who is a very decent and honorable Member of 
this body, but I want to say that what has been done here is, first of 
all, an outrage, and it is a gross abuse of the powers of the committee 
and a gross disregard to the rights both of other committees and of 
this body to know what is going on and to have an input into a matter 
of important concern.
  Now let us talk about the substance. This proposal in its title 32 
recreates essentially the Atomic Energy Commission, one of the most 
secretive, one of the most sneaky, and one of the most dishonest 
agencies in government. They lied to everybody, including themselves, 
and the Congress of the United States, the Executive Branch. They 
suppressed tracks, and they have created in every area over which they 
had jurisdiction a cesspool, environmentally and otherwise. The areas 
which they had jurisdiction over drip hazardous waste and are 
contaminated beyond belief. Mixed wastes, high-level and low-level 
nuclear wastes contaminate these areas because of the fact that they 
diligently suppressed all facts with regard to what they were doing and 
how they were doing it, and I will be glad to discuss in greater detail 
because I do not have time now the behavior of that agency.
  We are now setting up an entity which will be totally exempt from the 
supervision of the Secretary and which will be totally exempt from the 
supervision of this body. What they are going to do is to create a 
situation where now they can lie in the dark, as they did before in the 
days of the Atomic Energy Commission, and efforts to control this 
agency will be brought to naught by the absolute power that is being 
invested in them to suppress the facts to everyone.
  Now who is opposed to this? First of all, every environmental agency 
and every environmental organization; second of all, the 
administration; third of all, the National Governors' Association; and 
fourth of all, the Organization of Attorneys General, 46 of whom sent 
us a letter denouncing what is being done here with regard to State, 
Federal environmental laws and the splendid opportunity for severe and 
serious misbehavior by this new entity.
  If my colleagues want to vote for the good things in the bill; and 
there are many good things, I supported this bill: pay raises and other 
things which would benefit us in terms not only of our concern for our 
military personnel, but also our concern for seeing to it that our 
defense needs are met; vote for the motion to recommit because the only 
thing it does is to strike title 32. The rest that it keeps are the 
good things that are in this legislation.
  So I offer my colleagues a chance to undo what was done in a high-
handed arrogance by the committee and in a rather curious and 
remarkable and unjustifiable rule, one which is going to deny everybody 
in this country an opportunity to know what is going on inside that 
agency.
  Now if we are talking about security, let me just tell my colleagues 
that the security of the AEC stunk. I was over in a place called 
Arzamas-16, the place where the Russians made their nuclear and 
thermonuclear weapons. I saw there a bomb that looked exactly like the 
bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima. I told the guy: That looks 
familiar. They said it is an exact copy of the bomb that was dropped in 
Hiroshima. So when they tell us that the recreation of the secrecy and 
the inbrededness of the AEC and the secretiveness that this legislation 
will authorize is going to assure the national security, do not believe 
them. History is against it, and I would just ask my colleagues to 
understand the secrecy that they are talking about is not against the 
Russians or against anybody else. It is secrecy which they intend to 
use to prevent my colleagues, and I, and the Members of Congress, the 
Members of the Senate from knowing what is going on down there. If my 
colleagues want to see to it that we continue our efforts to protect 
the security of the United States, to see to it that things are done 
which need be done in terms of protecting the security interests of the 
United States, they can vote for my amendment and should, but if they 
want to protect the

[[Page 21672]]

environment, then they you must vote for my amendment.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my colleague.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I share the respect that all Members of 
this House have for the dean of the House, and I always appreciate his 
willingness to stand up for what he believes in, as we recently saw 
when he led efforts to oppose gun control despite the sentiments of 
most of his party. As much as anyone in this body, the gentleman from 
Michigan is responsible over the years for the management structure of 
the Department of Energy, and he does not want to see that changed, and 
I think we can all understand someone coming from that position. But 
study after study, report after report, have reached a different 
conclusion. As a matter of fact, I know of at least 20 studies, reports 
and in-house reviews in the Department of Energy that have all found 
that the Department of Energy management structure is a mess and hurts 
our security, safety, and national security.
  I point to the President's own study which came out just this summer 
conducted by his foreign intelligence advisory board, and they 
concluded, quote, DOE's performance throughout its history should be 
regarded as intolerable, and they also found, quote, the Department of 
Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of 
reforming itself, end quote. Now what they went on to say is we can do 
one of two things. One is that we can take all the nuclear weapons 
program completely out of the Department of Energy and set up a whole 
new agency, or we can create a semi-autonomous agency inside DOE with a 
clear chain of command and hope to solve some of these problems. This 
conference report takes the President's own commission's 
recommendations and implements them down to the letter.
  Now what that does is it gives the nuclear weapons agency two things 
that it has never had under DOE. One, it has a clear focus on its 
mission so that the same people who worry about refrigerator coolant 
standards and solar power and electricity deregulation day to day are 
not going to be interfering in the nuclear weapons work.
  Secondly, it provides accountability so that we have for the first 
time a clear chain of command so that when an order is given it is 
followed; and if somebody messes up, they are held responsible and we 
can get rid of them. And that is one of the most important safeguards 
we can have to protecting the environment, to having a clear line of 
accountability and safeguards.
  The gentleman from Michigan says, oh, this just goes back to the old 
Atomic Energy Commission. I would say that no more will we ever go back 
to some of the problems of the past any more than we are going to go 
back to pouring motor oil out on the ground or we are going to go back 
to allowing cars to create all the smog that they can create. We are 
not going to, and I personally, Mr. Speaker, am offended by the 
suggestion that the people who work at the Pantex plant in my district, 
who live in the area, whose children go to school in that area, are 
going to be so careless in disregarding the safety of the drinking 
water and the other things in that area that they are just going to 
pollute willy nilly.
  Now I think there are some important points to be made on the 
environment. Number one, this bill says that every single standard, 
environmental standard, that applies before the bill applies after the 
bill; it does not change.
  Secondly, this bill says that the Secretary of Energy can set up 
whatever oversight he wants by whoever he wants, and they can look at 
every single thing that goes on throughout the weapons complex, and 
they can make whatever policy recommendations they want to make, and 
the Secretary of Energy can order anything to happen dealing with the 
environment or any other subject. The only change is that these 
oversight people, unless they are within the new agency, cannot order 
things to be changed, they cannot implement the directions. Policy can 
be set by anybody that the Secretary wants, but the implementation goes 
down the clear chain of command.
  Some of the concerns that have been raised to this bill have been by 
some attorneys general who are worried about some new court challenge 
on matters that have been already established under court rulings. Let 
me make it clear, this bill does not change any of the waivers of 
sovereign immunity that the attorneys general have been concerned 
about; and there is a letter that will be made part of the Record later 
in which the chairman of our committee and the chairman of the Senate 
committee clearly say we are not changing one single environmental 
standard. And I would also put as part of the Record at that time a 
letter from the attorney general of Texas who once he had a chance to 
look at the actual legislation and what the real intent is says he no 
longer has any concerns or objections, and I would suggest that if my 
colleagues have a chance to talk to all the attorneys general and tell 
them what is really going on, that any of those concerns certainly melt 
away.
  Mr. Speaker, I just make two final points. Number one is that we have 
all been embarrassed and dismayed and shocked at the security headlines 
which we have seen across the papers this year. For us to walk away and 
say we cannot do anything about it, it is too complicated, we are just 
going to let DOE roll along its merry way, is an abdication of our 
responsibility to fix one of the greatest national security problems 
with which we have been confronted.
  The second point I would like to make is this: The gentleman from 
Michigan's motion to recommit is not like an ordinary bill. It is a 
conference report. The only effect of the motion is to require us to 
open the conference back up. That means everything in the conference 
from the pay raise to the retirement reform to the V-22 to whatever my 
colleagues care about in this bill is jeopardized because we have got 
to open everything back up, go back into negotiations with the Senate, 
and all of the wonderful strides to improve our national security are 
threatened by the motion to recommit.
  So I would suggest that it is our responsibility to fix DOE, it is 
our responsibility to make sure this bill goes forward unimpeded and to 
vote against the motion when it is offered.

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                               State of Texas, September 15, 1999.
     Hon. Floyd D. Spence, Chairman,
     House Armed Services Committee,
     Congress of the United States, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Warner, Chairman,
     Senate Armed Services Committee,
     Congress of the United States, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Spence and Senator Warner: I have received 
     a copy of your September 14, 1999 letter to Michael O. 
     Leavitt and Christine O. Gregoire addressing concerns 
     regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the 
     conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act 
     (NDAA) for Fiscal year 2000, on the safe operation and 
     cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites.
       Your letter addresses my two principal concerns with Title 
     XXXII of S. 1059:
       That this legislation not supercede, diminish or set aside 
     existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity; and that it 
     be clear that under Title XXXII the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration (NNSA) will comply with the same environmental 
     laws and regulations to the same extent as before the 
     reorganization.
       After reading your letter, I am satisfied that this 
     legislation was neither intended to affect existing waivers 
     of federal sovereign immunity nor to exempt in any way the 
     NNSA from the same environmental laws and regulations as 
     applied before reorganization.
       I also have been advised that your letter will be made part 
     of the legislative history of Title XXXII of S. 1059 by being 
     submitted during the conference debate on this legislation, 
     thus being made part of the Congressional Record. As such, 
     this letter will provide confirmation that this legislation 
     leaves unaltered existing waivers of federal sovereign 
     immunity as well as existing environmental laws and 
     regulations.
       Given the explanations made in your September 14, 1999, 
     letter as well as the submission of your letter as part of 
     the Congressional Record to be included in the legislative 
     history of this statute, I have no continuing objection to 
     this legislation. I appreciate your efforts to make the 
     intent of Title XXXII of S. 1059 clear. Please do not 
     hesitate

[[Page 21673]]

     to contact me if you have any further questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Cornyn,
                                        Attorney General of Texas.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Committee on Armed 
Services, I rise in strong support of the national defense 
authorization conference report, and I would like to thank the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and of course the staff of the committee for all 
the hard work that they put into this conference report. The report 
addresses the quality of life, the readiness and the modernization 
shortfalls that the men and the women in our Armed Forces are currently 
facing. The report also addresses the important issue of domestic 
violence in the military.
  Mr. Speaker, as we all know, one occurrence of domestic violence is 
one too many, and unfortunately reports show that in 1994 in every 
1,000 marriages 14 spouses were the victims of spouse abuse, and I am 
pleased that the conferees from both Chambers worked in a bipartisan 
manner to address this important issue. The language in the conference 
report gives the services the opportunity to take on the crime of 
domestic violence and to protect victims of domestic violence as they 
never have before. It gives the Department of Defense and the services 
the opportunity to develop relationships with non-military victims' 
community and to draw on the expertise of local domestic violence 
organizations to aid in designing their own programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the conference 
report.

                              {time}  1100

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think every Member should be proud to vote for this 
conference report. I think this report is a great manifestation of our 
ability to work in a bipartisan manner and do something that is 
important for the country, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), 
my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and all the 
Members, Democrat and Republican, who worked on this particular piece 
of legislation, because today we live in a very dangerous world. That 
is extremely clear now.
  China is trying to step into the superpower shoes that have been left 
by the Soviet Union. Terrorism is becoming more deadly, more 
technologically capable, and we are seeing new challenges around the 
world; and against that backdrop we have cut defense dramatically.
  The defense force structure that we have today is just about half of 
what it was in 1992. We have gone from 18 Army divisions to 10; 24 
active fighter air wings to 13; and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Sisisky) said, almost 600 ships down to 324 and dropping.
  Unfortunately, the half that we have left is not as ready as the full 
force that we had in 1992. We have a $193 million shortage in basic 
ammo for the Marines; a $3.5 billion shortage in ammo for the Army. Our 
mission-capable rates have gone down almost 10 percent across the board 
in the services; that is the ability of an aircraft to take off from a 
carrier or from a runway, run its mission and come back and land 
safely. That is now down to an average of about 70 percent. That means 
about 30 of every 100 planes in our services cannot take off a runway 
and do their mission because of a lack of spare parts, a lack of 
maintenance, or just having a real old aircraft that has not been 
replaced.
  In fact, we did have 55 crashes, peacetime crashes, last year with 
the military, resulting in over 50 deaths of our people in uniform. So 
we are flying old equipment, and we are having to take very valuable 
resources, these spare parts, the few spares and repair parts that we 
have, and our trained personnel who can still fix aircraft and other 
equipment and move them to the front lines when we run an operation 
like Kosovo.
  So against that backdrop, we have put an additional $2.7 billion into 
the modernization accounts, and we put extra money in the pay raise. We 
have a 4.8 percent pay raise. We put money in readiness. Across the 
board, we have spent what I consider to be the bare minimum; but in 
this case, Mr. Speaker, the bare minimum is absolutely necessary. It 
would be a tragedy to defeat this bill for some reason, for some turf 
fight or some other reason that has nothing to do with national 
security.
  Let me just say with respect to the DOE section of this bill and the 
reform that we did, let me just remind my colleagues about the tragedy 
that occurred a couple of years ago. After we had identified an 
individual who was identified as a spy in our nuclear weapons 
laboratory, and the head of the FBI, Mr. Freeh, had gone to the 
Assistant Secretary of Energy and a couple of weeks later to the 
Secretary of Energy and said, get this guy away from classified areas, 
take away his access to our nuclear secrets, 14 months later somebody 
turned around and said, is that spy still next to the nuclear weapons 
vault? And somebody went over and checked and, yes, he was.
  We tried to figure out why he hadn't been fired, and there was such a 
mess and such a confusion that nobody was sure. Everybody thought the 
other guy was going to get the spy away from our nuclear secrets. 
Presumably he was upgrading for 14 months, over a year, the nuclear 
secrets that he had moved out earlier and nobody was there to stop him.
  That was the confusion that we saw. That is the confusion that we 
fix. Let us pass this conference report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity not to comment on this 
legislation but to comment on the Republican leadership's unwillingness 
to recognize reality in the scheduling of the House of Representatives.
  As people may be aware, there is a hurricane headed toward this area, 
and yet the Republican leadership refuses to adjourn the House at the 
end of proceedings today, thereby forcing Members to attend a hurricane 
party here in Washington, D.C. in the capitol tomorrow.
  It is very likely that the Washington, D.C. airports will be closed 
tomorrow if the hurricane does, in fact, continue on its path, thereby 
preventing Members from the southeast who may want to be with their 
constituents at the time of this national emergency from doing so, and 
preventing Members from other parts of the country who may actually 
want to be able to go home this weekend and spend time with their 
constituents from doing so.
  I find it extraordinarily shortsighted on the part of the Republican 
leadership to recognize that there is a hurricane headed straight 
toward Washington, D.C. The House should be adjourned at the end of 
today so that Members will not be trapped in Washington and be unable 
to be with their constituents in the next 5 days.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, back to the debate, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding and congratulate her on her 
superb management of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from Dallas by saying 
that we obviously want to do everything that we can to ensure that 
people are able to get out of town in time, and I will say that we do 
not want to have to have a hurricane party here. I do not know that the 
hurricane is headed right towards Washington, D.C. We certainly hope 
that we do not see any loss of life and that it is, in fact, lessened.

[[Page 21674]]

But I am struck with the fact that my colleagues really go for 
everything they possibly can to attack the Republican leadership. We 
enjoy the fact that they are scraping for something more to criticize 
us on.
  Let me say that I believe that this is a very important conference 
report. We are trying to get the people's work done here, and I am 
hoping very much that we will be able to have strong bipartisan support 
of not only the rule but the conference report itself.
  It was 10 years ago this coming November 13 that the world celebrated 
the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and many people argued at that point 
that we would be witnessing the end of history; that the demise of the 
Soviet Union and Communism, which took place in the following 3 years, 
was something that was going to change the world, and clearly it has.
  I think that the leadership that Ronald Reagan and President George 
Bush have shown and, frankly, in a bipartisan way that we have provided 
for our Nation's defense capability, brought about that change; but as 
we mark, in the coming weeks, the 10th anniversary of the crumbling of 
the Berlin Wall, it is very important for us to note that there has 
been a dramatic change in the national security threat that exists in 
this country and for the free world.
  It seems to me that we need to realize that over that period of time 
we have dealt with a wide range of challenges that exist throughout the 
world, and I am struck with a figure that I mentioned here several 
times before, the fact that during this administration we have deployed 
265,000 troops to 139 countries around the world and that has taken 
place at a time when we have actually diminished our level of 
expenditures.
  Since 1987, we have seen a reduction of 800,000 of our military 
personnel. We have consistently pursued this goal of trying to do more 
with less, and that is wrong. That is why when we, as Republicans at 
the beginning of the 106th Congress, set forth our four top priorities 
of making sure that we improve public education, which I am proud to 
say that we have done; provide tax relief for working families, which 
in just a couple of hours we are going to be enrolling the bill and 
sending it to the President, and I hope very much he does not veto that 
bill as he said he would on Friday; and saving Social Security and 
Medicare. Those are other priorities.
  We also included, as a top priority, because of this changing threat, 
rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. I am happy that we have 
passed and that the President, reluctantly, but the President finally 
did sign the national ballistic missile defense bill. I am very happy 
that we were able to see the President come on board in some of our 
attempts to deal with these national security issues, and I hope that 
he will be able to sign this conference report when it gets to him.
  It is clearly the right thing to do. We are going to be facing more 
challenges, but we have to make sure that the one issue which only the 
Federal Government can deal with, virtually every one of the other 
issues that we deal with can be handled by State and local governments, 
but our national security is the one issue that we are charged to 
dealing with. It is in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and it 
seems to me that we need to step up to the plate. That is why support 
of this conference report is very important.
  I urge my colleagues to do it in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), that I am not trying to be overly critical of 
the Republican leadership.
  Mr. DREIER. That would be a first, I have to say.
  Mr. FROST. I am just appalled by the fact that they seem to have 
taken the position of, what hurricane? I mean, everybody in the country 
knows that the hurricane is heading up the East Coast, and by refusing 
to adjourn the House at the end of business today they are forcing the 
staff to try and get into work tomorrow. They are trapping Members in 
the Nation's capital who want to be home with their constituents. This 
is an extraordinary development.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just for a 
moment, I would just like to thank him for his input and tell him that 
the recommendation that he has made will certainly be taken into 
consideration.
  Mr. FROST. I have not yielded. I am sorry. I have not yielded.
  The Republican leadership seems to be the only ones in the country 
that do not recognize the fact that a hurricane is moving up the East 
Coast, and that it is projected that it is going to come very close to 
Washington, D.C. tomorrow, and that we may have 5 inches of rain here 
tomorrow. I do not understand.
  All I want them to do is to turn on their television sets and to 
listen to the news and to deal with reality so that Members can be 
treated in a fair way and so that the staff can be treated in a fair 
way. It is unrealistic and unfair to say we are going to be here 
tomorrow and everybody come on in, no matter what is happening.
  They ought to face reality. They ought to adjourn the House at the 
end of today so that Members and staff will not be forced through the 
hardship of dealing with the hurricane in Washington, D.C. tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost) if he has any further speakers?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close for our side. We 
do not have any other speakers at this point.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, if it is all right, the gentleman should go 
ahead and close because I have no more speakers either.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good piece of legislation. This is 
legislation supported by a Democratic President, a Democratic 
administration, supported by the vast majority of Democrats in the 
House of Representatives. We all are pleased to stand for a strong 
national defense, to stand for efforts to help our troops, to increase 
morale, to make sure that we retain soldiers that we need and that we 
are able to recruit soldiers that our forces need for the future.
  This is a good conference report. As a Democrat, I am pleased to 
support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on final 
passage on this very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 288, I call up 
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1059) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
August 5, 1999, at page H7469.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 
30 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with all respect for the chairman of the 
committee and all respect for my good

[[Page 21675]]

friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I have been advised 
that the gentleman from Missouri supports the bill. I therefore ask, 
Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Missouri opposed to the bill, and 
therefore, is he entitled to time in opposition to the legislation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
in favor of the conference report?
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri supports the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 8(d)(2) of rule XXII, time will be controlled 
three ways. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) will control 
20 minutes; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) will control 20 
minutes; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will control 20 
minutes.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill was 
reported out of the Committee on Armed Services back in May on a vote 
of 55-to-1, and it passed the House in June on a vote of 365-to-58. The 
conference report before us today enjoys equally strong bipartisan 
support, as all 36 Republican and Democrat committee conferees have 
signed the conference report. This is only the second time this has 
happened since 1981. It is truly a bipartisan report.
  Mr. Speaker, the funding authorized in this bill is consistent with 
the increased spending levels set by the Congress in the budget 
resolution. As a result of this increased spending and a careful 
reprioritization of the President's budget request, we have provided 
the military services some of the tools necessary to better recruit and 
retain qualified personnel and to better train and equip them.
  It is in this context that the conferees went to work, targeting 
additional funding for a variety of sorely needed quality of life, 
readiness, and equipment initiatives. However, despite the conferees' 
best efforts, we are not eliminating shortfalls, we are simply 
struggling to manage them. Absent a long-term, sustained commitment to 
revitalizing America's armed forces, we will continue to run the 
inevitable risks that come from asking our troops to do more with less.
  This conference report also contains the most important and 
significant Department of Energy reorganization proposal since the 
agency's creation more than two decades ago.
  Earlier this year, the bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee released its 
report on the national security implications of our United States 
technology transfers to the People's Republic of China. The Cox 
Committee identified lax security at DOE nuclear laboratories as a 
critical national security problem, and unanimously concluded that 
China had obtained classified information on ``every currently deployed 
thermonuclear warhead in the United States ballistic missile arsenal.''
  Following the Cox Committee report, President Clinton's own Foreign 
Intelligence Advisory Board chaired by former Senator Rudman, issued 
its report highly critical of DOE's failure to protect the Nation's 
nuclear secrets. The report of the President's Advisory Board concluded 
that DOD is, ``a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is 
incapable of reforming itself.''
  The conference report would implement the recommendation of the 
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to create a semi-
autonomous agency within DOE and vest it with responsibility for 
nuclear weapons research and protection. The reorganization will go a 
long way towards streamlining DOE's excessive bureaucracy and improving 
accountability, all in an effort to ensure that our Nation's most vital 
nuclear secrets are better managed and secured.
  Mr. Speaker, some question has been raised in some quarters on the 
possible impact that the reorganization provisions could have on DOE's 
environmental programs and in particular, on the status of existing 
waivers of solving immunity agreements between the Federal Government 
and individual States. In a few minutes I plan to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to clarify this point 
for the legislative record.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record following my 
statement a letter that Senator Warner and I have jointly written to 
the National Governors Association and the National Association of 
Attorneys General that address these questions in more detail.
  The bottom line is that this conference report does not impact or 
change current environmental law or regulation, and it does not impact 
or change existing waivers of sovereign immunity agreements. For the 
sake of time I will not repeat that statement, but it is true to the 
letter.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is before the House today only as 
a result of the efforts of all conferees. In particular, I want to 
recognize the critical roles played by the Committee on Armed Services 
subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking members. Their efforts, 
along with those of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) made my 
job easier, and their dedication to getting the job done is clearly 
evident in this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to support the conference report.

                                               Washington, DC,

                                               September 14, 1999.
     Hon. Michael O. Leavitt,
     Chairman, National Governors' Association, Hall of States, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Christine O. Gregoire,
     President, National Association of Attorneys General, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Governor and Madam Attorney General: We are aware that 
     concerns have been raised regarding the impact of Title XXXII 
     of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense 
     Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2000, on the safe 
     operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear 
     weapons sites. Title XXXII provides for the reorganization of 
     the DOE to strengthen its national security function, as 
     recommended by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and 
     the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). 
     In so doing, the NDAA would establish the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency 
     within the Department.
       However, as the purpose of this effort was focused on 
     enhancing national security and strengthening operational 
     management of the Department's nuclear weapons production 
     function, the conferees recognized the need to carefully 
     avoid statutory modifications that could inadvertently result 
     in changes or challenges to the existing environmental 
     cleanup efforts. As such, Title XXXII does not amend existing 
     environmental, safety and health laws or regulations and is 
     in no way intended to limit the states' established 
     regulatory roles pertaining to DOE operations and ongoing 
     cleanup activities. In fact, Title XXXII contains a number of 
     provisions specifically crafted to clearly establish this 
     principle in statue.
     NNSA compliance with existing environmental regulations, 
         orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non-
         substantive requirements.
       Concern has been expressed that Title XXXII could result in 
     the exemption of the NNSA from compliance with existing 
     environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court 
     orders, or non-substantive requirements. We believe these 
     concerns to be unfounded. First, Section 3261 expressly 
     requires that the newly created NNSA comply with all 
     applicable environmental, safety and health laws and 
     substantive requirements. The NNSA Administrator must develop 
     procedures for meeting these requirements at sites covered by 
     the NNSA, and the Secretary of Energy must ensure that 
     compliance with these important requirements is accomplished. 
     As such, the provision would not supersede, diminish or 
     otherwise impact existing authorities granted to the states 
     or the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and enforce 
     cleanup at DOE sites.
       The clear intent of Title XXXII is to require that the NNSA 
     comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to 
     the same extent as before the reorganization. This intent is 
     evidenced by Section 3296, which provides that all applicable 
     provisions of law and regulations (including those relating 
     to environment, safety and health) in effect prior to the 
     effective date of Title XXXII remain in force ``unless 
     otherwise provided in this title.'' However, nowhere in Title 
     XXXII is there language which provides or implies that any 
     environmental law, or regulation promulgated thereunder, is 
     either limited or superseded. Therefore, we clearly intend 
     that all existing regulations, orders, agreements, permits, 
     court orders, or non-

[[Page 21676]]

     substantive requirements that presently apply to the programs 
     in question, continue to apply subsequent to the enactment 
     and effective date of Title XXXII.
       Concern has also been expressed that the creation of the 
     NNSA would somehow narrow or supersede existing waivers of 
     sovereign immunity or agreements DOE has signed with the 
     states. Title XXXII merely directs the reorganization of a 
     government agency and does not amend any existing provision 
     of law granting sovereign immunity or modify established 
     legal precedent interpreting the applicability or breadth of 
     such waivers of sovereign immunity. The intent of this 
     legislation is not to in any way supersede, diminish or set 
     aside existing waivers of sovereign immunity.
     NNSA responsibility for environment, safety and health and 
         oversight by the Office of Environment, Safety and 
         Health.
       Concern has been expressed that the NNSA would be sheltered 
     from internal oversight by the Office of Environment, Safety 
     and Health. In keeping with the semiautonomous nature of the 
     proposed NNSA, the legislation establishes new relationships 
     between the new NNSA and the existing DOE secretariat. 
     Principally, it vests the responsibility for policy 
     formulation for all activities of the NNSA with the Secretary 
     and devolves execution responsibilities to the NNSA 
     Administrator. However, there is clear recognition of the 
     need for the Secretary to maintain adequate authority and 
     staff support to discharge the policy making responsibilities 
     and conduct associated oversight. For instance, Section 3203 
     establishes a new Section 213 in the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act would provides that:
       ``(b) The Secretary may direct officials of the Department 
     who are not within the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration to review the programs and activities of the 
     Administration and to make recommendations to the Secretary 
     regarding administration of those programs and activities, 
     including consistency with other similar programs and 
     activities of the Department.
       The Secretary shall have adequate staff to support the 
     Secretary in carrying out the Secretary's responsibilities 
     under this section.''
       While some maintain that both of these provisions are 
     redundant restatements of the Secretary's inherent authority 
     as chief executive of his department, we recognized the 
     importance of being abundantly clear on this point, 
     particularly as it pertained to environmental, safety and 
     health matters. Therefore, we fully expect that the Secretary 
     will continue to rely on the Office of Environment, Safety 
     and Health or any future successor entity to support his 
     policy making and oversight obligations under the law.
       To further clarify this point, the conferees also included 
     a provision in Section 3261(c) that states that ``Nothing in 
     this title shall diminish the authority of the Secretary of 
     Energy to ascertain and ensure that such compliance occurs.'' 
     This provision makes reference to the requirement that the 
     NNSA Administrator ensure compliance with ``all applicable 
     environmental, safety and health statutes and substantive 
     requirements.'' Once again, the conferees intended this 
     future language to make it abundantly clear that the 
     Secretary retains the authority to assign environmental 
     compliance oversight to the Office of Environmental, Safety 
     and health to support his responsibilities in this area.
       Finally, concern has also been raised over the 
     interpretation of the assignment of environment safety and 
     health operations to the NNSA Administrator by Section 3212. 
     This provision establishes the scope of functional 
     responsibilities assigned to the NNSA Administrator and is 
     not intended to, and does not, supersede the assignment of 
     primacy for policy formulation responsibility to the 
     Secretary of Energy for environment, safety and health or any 
     other function.
     Effect of Section 3213 on oversight by the Office of 
         Environment, Safety and Health
       Concern has also been raised that Section 3213 could be 
     interpreted in a manner that would preclude oversight by the 
     Office of Environment, Safety and Health. Section 3213 deals 
     exclusively with the question of who within the Department of 
     Energy holds direct authority, direction and control of NNSA 
     employees and contractor personnel. As such, this provision 
     establishes the operational and implementation chain of 
     command in keeping with the organizing principle of the 
     legislation to vest execution authority and responsibility 
     within the NNSA. However, neither this principle nor Section 
     3213 would in any way preclude the Secretary from continuing 
     to rely on the Office of Environment, Safety and Health for 
     providing him with oversight support for any program or 
     activity of the NNSA.
     NNSA responsibility for environmental restoration and waste 
         management
       Concern has also been raised that Title XXXII somehow would 
     extend to the NNSA responsibility for environmental 
     restoration and waste management. We consider this concern to 
     be unfounded and inaccurate. Contrary to some 
     interpretations, Section 3291(c) grants no authority to the 
     Secretary to move additional functions into the NNSA. Rather, 
     Section 3291(c) recognizes the possibility that some future 
     activity may present the need to migrate a particular 
     facility, program or activity out of the NNSA should it 
     evolve principally into an environmental cleanup activity. 
     Therefore, this provision would allow such activity only to 
     be transferred out of the NNSA.
       Further, contrary to some expressed concerns, Title XXXII 
     would not permit control of ongoing cleanup activities being 
     carried out by the Office of Environmental Management to be 
     assumed or inherited by the NNSA, thus ensuring that DOE's 
     environmental responsibilities will not be overshadowed by 
     production requirements. Finally, as previously noted, 
     Section 3212, which assigns the functional responsibilities 
     of the NNSA Administrator, is not intended to, and does not, 
     establish responsibility to the NNSA Administrator for 
     environmental restoration and waste management.
     Oversight role of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
       Concern has been raised that the external oversight role of 
     the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) will be 
     impaired by the conference report language. This concern is 
     without merit, since Title XXXII makes no change to the 
     existing authority or role of the DNFSB. While there was some 
     discussion during the conference of possibly expanding the 
     role of the DNFSB to enhance external environmental and 
     health oversight, this proposal was eventually dropped 
     resulting in no change to the existing authority of the 
     DNFSB.
       We firmly believe that this legislation will result in much 
     needed reforms to better protect the most sensitive national 
     security secrets at our nuclear weapons research and 
     production facilities and to correct associated long-standing 
     organizational and management problems within DOE. However, 
     we agree that these objectives should not weaken or undermine 
     the continuing effort to ensure adequate safeguards for 
     environmental, safety and health aspects of affected programs 
     and facilities. More specifically, we believe that these 
     objectives can be met without in any way limiting the 
     established role of the states in ongoing cleanup activities. 
     This legislation is fully consistent with our continuing 
     commitment to the aggressive cleanup of contaminated DOE 
     sites and protecting the safety and health of both site 
     personnel and the public at large.
       We appreciate your willingness to share your concerns with 
     us and hope that this response will address them in keeping 
     with our mutual objectives. In this regard, we look forward 
     to continuing to work closely with you and your associations 
     to ensure that this legislation is implemented in a manner 
     that is consistent with the principles stated above and 
     strikes the intended careful balance between national 
     security and environmental, safety and health concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                        Floyd D. Spence, Chairman,
                                   House Armed Services Committee.

                                        John Warner, Chairman,

                                  Senate Armed Services Committee.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. A good number of months 
ago I had the opportunity to be in Bosnia meeting and talking with the 
young men and young women in uniform who stand guard in that sad 
country doing their best and successfully doing their best to keep 
peace in that corner of the world. This morning, Mr. Speaker, I had 
breakfast with four bright young sailors who have been in the Navy only 
between one and two years. Both were in Bosnia when I was there. After 
the breakfast this morning with the young military folks, I asked 
myself, where, where do we find young people such as this: Dedicated, 
sincere, hard-working, patriotic.
  Well, they come from small towns and farms and cities all across our 
country, and they do a superb job securing the freedoms that we enjoy. 
There have been problems, problems with recruitment and problems even 
more serious with retention. The old saying is, you recruit soldiers, 
but you retain families, and I think that is so true.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today is a historic landmark for the 
troops of America. This is the year of the troops. This is the year 
that the Committee on Armed Services, and I am pleased to say when the 
bill was reported out, it was reported out with a favorable vote of 
some 55-to-1. It has strong support among the committee and hopefully 
will have very, very strong support here on the floor. Because this 
year, we gave a pay increase, we reformed the pay tables which is 
geared towards those young men and young women who make the decision 
whether to stay in or get out at the 9, 10, 11, 12 year mark.

[[Page 21677]]

  We reform in a very positive manner the pension system. We build new 
barracks, new family housing; we help fix the problems in TRICARE; we 
have done a superb job, and I am so pleased about it. In procurement, 
we have purchased and helped bring ourselves to the point where we have 
maintained that scientific edge. It is with a great deal of pleasure 
that I support this bill in its entirety, including the Department of 
Energy portions thereof.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been represented that Senator Rudman supports 
this. Let me read what he said about this with regard to the semi-
autonomous weapons agency: ``We do not believe that the environmental 
health issues should be stripped from where they are and put within the 
agency for nuclear support. I would not support that kind of change 
because I know what we went through back in the 1980s.'' I would 
commend this to the reading of the chairman of the committee.
  Having said that, let us look who else is opposed to this outrage, 
the National Association of Attorneys General. The chairman sent them a 
letter, but they still oppose the bill: ``We urge you to oppose the 
provisions of title 32 that would weaken the existing internal and 
external oversight structure for DOE's safety and health operations. 
Title 32 of the defense authorization bill would impair State 
regulatory authority, eliminate DOE's internal oversight of 
environmental safety and health, and transfer responsibility for waste 
management and environmental restoration to the entity responsible for 
weapons production and development.'' Forty six attorneys general.
  What did the former Secretaries of Energy have to say about this? 
``This restructuring represents a return to the institutional 
conditions that resulted in almost 50 years of environmental safety 
health mismanagement at DOE facilities at an estimated cost of $250 
billion, the largest environmental cleanup in the world. This 
restructuring is a step backward to the problems of the past.''
  Listen then to our governors, Mr. Speaker, and hear what they have to 
say. They say, specifically, ``We are concerned that section 3261 would 
be interpreted as limiting existing waivers of sovereign immunity, 
leaving NNSA exempt from State environmental regulations, permits, 
orders, penalties, and agreements. We urge your thoughtful 
reconsideration of these provisions of title 32 that would weaken the 
existing oversight structure for DOE's environmental safety and health 
operations.''
  The Conference of State Legislatures has communicated their outrage 
and their opposition to this proposal. Heed these people.
  Now, let me just quote, George Santiana said ``He who does not learn 
from history is doomed to repeat it,'' and we are looking at a fine 
mess in just a few years, because we are doing away with all of the 
steps that have been taken by Secretary Richardson both to have control 
over the cleanup and to bring about a cleanup, but also to address the 
questions of secrecy. My friend, the chairman of the committee and the 
committee, in a rather remarkable conference which may or may not have 
occurred, because no notices were given to any of the conferees, and 
when I appeared as a witness, I was advised by the chairman of the 
committee that the conference is over, there is nothing to talk about.
  Now, this is an extraordinary high-handed treatment of Members who 
were appointed as conferees. I think that what we should do is to do 
what the House in its wisdom did, and that is to pass the bill with all 
of the good provisions and strike title 32, which is mischievous.

                              {time}  1130

  Now, let us look at the problems title XXXII creates. It returns us 
to the dark, secretive days of the AEC, when people did not know what 
was going on, and when the AEC diligently lied to everybody, including 
the administration, the Congress, and even the Joint Committee on 
Atomic Energy. They created a hideous mess in terms of health, safety, 
and environmental degradation. Every facility owned by that agency is 
today a cesspool of high-level and low-level nuclear waste and of 
hazardous wastes and of mixed wastes. Why? Because they were answerable 
to no one and they hid all of their mistakes.
  We spent years trying to open this process to see to it that the 
Congress and the Members of this body know what is going on so that we 
could protect our constituents against the rampages of that kind of 
agency in the future. This proposal simply recreates that outrage, and 
my colleagues and I will have cause to regret that day's work if we do 
not reject that provision and adopt the motion to recommit.
  If we do not learn from history, we are going to repeat it. In just a 
few years the secrecy they are going to engage in, which will be 
practiced against this body and Members of the Senate and Members of 
the government and ordinary citizens, attorneys general and Governors, 
is going to lead to further abuses.
  If Members think this is going to address the questions of protecting 
the national security, Members are very much in error. I watched the 
AEC for years, and the agency leaked like a sieve. I was over in a 
place called Chelyabinsk. It is the site of the Arzamas-16, the Russian 
nuclear thermonuclear generation facility. They showed me there a bomb. 
I said, it looks like the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima. 
They said no, it is an exact copy.
  That agency leaked all kinds of information like that, technology and 
ability to the Russians and the Chinese and others to enable them to do 
what they have done.
  Do not just think this is DOE, security is an ongoing problem. But at 
least with the Secretary in control of this matter, the Congress will 
have the ability to understand where rascality goes on, where there is 
threat to public property, where the responsibilities of the 
contractors to the taxpayers are dishonored, as they have been, where 
secrecy runs riot, and where environmental degradation reigns because 
of the secrecy and the refusal of the agency to properly police itself.
  I urge my colleagues, let us drop title XXXII. It was never 
considered on the floor of the House. It was never considered in the 
Senate. As a matter of fact, my colleagues on the Committee on Armed 
Services had to go to the Committee on Rules to get themselves a funny 
rule. That funny rule protects them against points of order. It says 
that the fact that they went beyond the scope of the conference cannot 
be raised on this floor. It says that the fact that they disregarded 
the rule of germaneness cannot be raised on the floor, and the fact 
that they have written bad legislation is, to the best of the ability 
of the Committee of Armed Services and the Committee on Rules, 
protected against any serious challenge of wrongdoing and of hurt to 
the public interest.
  The way this House should address this is to understand that here we 
have a question where legislation was written in secrecy by staff 
without consultation with the Members of the House or other committees 
which have jurisdiction, and that that legislation is seriously flawed. 
It is opposed by everybody, the President, the Secretary of the 
Department of Energy, the Governors, the attorneys general, the State 
legislatures, and 11 environmental organizations. They have said, do 
not pass this legislation with this kind of secrecy provision in it.
  If Members want to continue an effective cleanup of the hideous mess 
that this kind of secrecy has made under the AEC, they must continue 
allowing this work to be done by the DOE in the open eye of daylight.
  If Members want to see to it that the Nation is able to know when 
there are failures and when our security system is not working, allow 
DOE to do it. They are trying to clean it up. AEC participated actively 
in suppressing all acts and all information on this. This proposal 
reconstitutes the AEC and the practices which caused hideous abuses, 
both of the environment and of the national interest.

[[Page 21678]]

  I will be offering a motion to recommit at the proper time. I urge my 
colleagues to listen to their Governors, listen to their attorneys 
general, listen to their legislators, listen to their president, their 
Secretary of DOE, and to the environmentalists, who tell us that this 
is the wrong way to go.
  This is a dangerous way to go. This is insulating an agency from any 
proper supervision, and it is an attack not only upon the rest of 
government, but it is an attack on this body and the ability of Members 
of this body to know what is going on in the midst of a situation which 
may sacrifice the right of the public to know what is going on, and 
which will sanctify the kind of secrecy that sneaky bureaucrats have 
practiced on atomic energy, on safety, and upon other things which are 
important, including the protection of the national security of the 
United States. This should either be corrected by the motion to 
recommit, or the conference report should be rejected.
  My friends and colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services 
attribute enormous risk to this situation. They conducted a meeting of 
the conferees in complete secrecy, permitted no one to participate, did 
not even allow us to ask questions about what it was they did.
  Members are not going to tell me that they honestly fear on that 
committee that in some way some of the good provisions, and there are 
good provisions, and I supported them when this matter was in the House 
before, are in any jeopardy from that. Members of this body support 
those provisions, without exception.
  Members of this body should know that they can reject the outrageous 
provisions and preserve the good. I will offer them an opportunity to 
do so. I urge them to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  I would say to my colleagues, I respect the position of the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). I respect him. But if Members were to buy 
that position, I have a deal for them. I have a bridge I want to sell 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the chairman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, some have raised concerns since the completion of the 
conference report regarding the possible impact that the Department of 
Energy reorganization provisions could have on the Department of Energy 
and environmental cleanup activities, and in particular, on the status 
of the existing waivers of sovereign immunity agreements between the 
Federal Government and the individual States.
  I believe that the conferees did not intend to and in fact did not 
take any action that would limit or supersede any existing agreement 
that the Department of Energy has entered into with any State, 
including the Federal facility compliance agreements.
  Is that the understanding of the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services?
  Mr. SPENCE. The gentleman is correct. The conferees were particularly 
aware of and therefore careful to avoid changes in law that could 
inadvertently result in changes to existing environmental clean-up 
efforts. For this reason, the conference report contains a number of 
provisions specifically designed to make it clear that the semi-
autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration will not only be 
subject to all existing environmental laws, regulations, and related 
requirements, but that the legislation would also not result in any 
reversal of existing environmental policies or practices within DOE.
  As Senator Warner and I stated in our September 14 letter to the 
National Governors Association and the National Association of 
Attorneys General, which had been submitted for the Record, and I 
quote, ``We clearly intend that all existing regulations, orders, 
agreements, permits, court orders, or nonsubstantive requirements that 
presently apply to the programs in question continue to apply 
subsequent to the enactment and effective date.''
  Therefore, it was the clear intent and action of the conferees to not 
in any way supersede, diminish, or set aside existing waivers of 
sovereign immunity agreements between DOE and the States.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the 
clarification, and I join him in underscoring the intent and action of 
the conferees on this very important matter.
  I believe the record is clear on this point, and no one intends this 
legislation to serve as a vehicle or an attempt in any way to 
relitigate or reopen the Federal Facilities Compliance Act or the 
associated issues thereto.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1059, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000.
  I want to specifically address the provisions in the Act relating to 
military readiness.
  First, I would like to express my personal appreciation to my 
colleagues on both the subcommittee and the full committee for the 
manner in which they conducted the business of the subcommittee during 
this session.
  I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bateman), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for the outstanding work and 
leadership they provided to the committee.
  We had the opportunity to see readiness through the eyes of the brave 
soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are entrusted with the awesome 
responsibility of carrying out our national military strategy. We heard 
them talk about the shortage of repair parts, the extra hours spent 
trying to maintain old equipment, and the shortage of critical 
personnel. Fortunately, this year we were able to do something about 
their concerns.
  Now, I had an opportunity to go to Korea and talk to our troops and 
their families. They know what this bill contains. They know that this 
bill contains a pay increase. They know that this bill does something 
for the shortage of housing. This is the reason we need to continue to 
support this conference report.
  I do remain concerned about our inability to provide additional 
support for other critical elements of our readiness support 
activities. That includes the stability of our dedicated civilian 
employees who are also being asked to remain productive while facing 
the constant threat of the loss of their jobs. This area also deserves 
our attention.
  Mr. Speaker, when I traveled up the coast of Thailand and visited the 
sailors assigned to the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, they were so grateful 
because of the action that we had conducted right before recess. Let us 
not send them the wrong signal. I urge my colleagues to support the 
fine legislation in the conference report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Cox Commission.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, last January the Select Committee reached the unanimous 
and bipartisan conclusion that despite repeated People's Republic of 
China thefts of sophisticated U.S. nuclear weapons technology, security 
at our national weapons laboratories does not meet even minimal 
standards.
  Just 2 weeks after the public release of the Select Committee's 
unclassified report, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory 
Board joined the Select Committee in condemning the wholly inadequate 
security structure at the weapons laboratories.
  Last week the Administration's national intelligence estimate 
confirmed for the first time in public that the

[[Page 21679]]

People's Republic of China is developing three new long-range nuclear 
missiles that will target the United States, and that their new modern 
nuclear warheads will likely be influenced by classified American 
technology stolen from the United States through espionage.
  Our security problems are serious, and their costs are very real. In 
June, this House took the first step toward fixing those egregious 
security problems by acting on the Select Committee's recommendations.

                              {time}  1145

  Twenty-eight of those recommendations offered to this House by the 
chairman and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking 
democrat of the Select Committee on U.S. Security and Military/
Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, are included 
in this bill and were approved by unanimous vote of the House on the 
floor. It is important that we see this through in to law to ensure 
that science at its best at our national laboratories is protected by 
security at its best.
  Finally, let me say it is vitally important that we extend coverage 
of environmental safety and health statutes to the new National Nuclear 
Security Administration created in this legislation, and we do. That is 
exactly what this bill does. In fact, it raises environmental health 
and worker safety standards.
  I would like to thank the members of the Select Committee, but more 
importantly thank the members of the Committee on Armed Services for 
their work on this very, very important bipartisan bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that 
we have remaining, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) who helped make the year of the troops a 
reality, who, together with his counterpart on the other side, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), have done monumental work for the 
troops in the field.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) for those remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and members of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel, and thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for 
the opportunity to work with him, and the rest of the committee members 
to help craft this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are, perhaps, difficulties 
associated with any bill that does not measure up in every respect for 
all Members. But in this particular instance, it seems to me that the 
overall course of events associated with the Department of Defense 
bill, the authorization bill that we have before us, merits our 
support.
  I will not recite it at great length other than to submit for the 
Record what we did with the Subcommittee on Military Personnel over and 
above the pay raise and the other issues that have been brought 
forward. I can say, I think, on behalf of the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer) as the chairman, that there are at least 17 specific issues 
associated with personnel measures that are a distinct advancement, 
some perhaps the best in 20 years. That is what is at stake with this 
bill.
  I want to mention just one in particular, the Thrift Savings Plan, 
that we have put forward. How can we expect to have our federal 
employees, which in effect our military are, be absent from the 
opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. This bill 
provides for that opportunity. This takes 1.4 million families in the 
military, it takes 1.4 million people in the guard and reserves and 
their families, and makes them equal partners with the rest of us in 
the progress of this Nation as we turn the corner and the century.
  Mr. Speaker, I need go no further than to say that, as we go to East 
Timor, we will be calling up reservists to go to East Timor. We cannot 
conduct our deployments around the world without a guard and reserve 
component in conjunction with the act of military.
  So whether it is in East Timor, whether it is in Kosovo, whether it 
is in Bosnia, or whether it is in the United States, the armed services 
of the United States, in all their aspects, deserves our full support.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of what will be offered as 
a motion to recommit.
  Title 32 of this bill contains provisions which would restructure the 
Department of Energy to create a new National Nuclear Security 
Administration. I do not question the motivations of the proponents of 
this proposal. They simply want to protect national security at weapons 
production and development facilities.
  However, past and recent allegations of inadequate worker and 
environmental protections in and around DOE labs and waste sites remind 
us that nuclear research poses very serious health hazards to workers 
and nearby residents. These concerns need to be considered when we 
reorganize the DOE.
  Unfortunately, this legislation could have the unintended consequence 
of subordinating the State's legitimate environment, safety, and health 
concerns. In fact, 46 State Attorneys General wrote House and Senate 
leaders urging us to oppose the legislation and note that there have 
been no hearings held and there has been no opportunity for the States 
to provide their views to the Congress.
  I would urge that we support the motion to recommit and change this 
provision so that it not stay in the final bill.
  Similarly, the National Governors Association wrote the House 
conferees on September 9, stating their concerns that this legislation 
could be interpreted as [quote] ``limiting existing waivers of 
sovereign immunity, leaving the [National Nuclear Security 
Administration] exempt from state environmental regulations, permits, 
orders, penalties, and agreements.'' [unquote]
  Finally, this legislation is strongly opposed by environmental 
groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Public Interest 
Research Group, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and other 
groups wrote the Members of the House on September 13 opposing this 
bill because it weakens accountability in the Department of Energy and 
because the state's ability to enforce environmental laws could be 
severely curtailed.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the strengths in this legislation we need to 
send this legislation back to Committee and work out these provisions.
  If you support the rights of states, if you support protecting the 
environment, you should support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Readiness.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to express my strong support 
for the recommendations of the conference committee with respect to our 
military forces. It is the responsibility of every Member of Congress 
to provide our military forces with the necessary resources to go in 
harm's way with the best equipment and training available. From 
testimony during hearings and visits to military installations by the 
Committee on Armed Services, it is clear that the readiness of our 
forces continues to slip below acceptable levels. Steps must be taken 
and now to restore our readiness posture.
  The administration has continued to expect our military to do more 
with less by providing woefully inadequate military defense budgets. 
Our military is working harder and longer to keep up with peacetime as 
well as contingency mission requirements. Unscheduled deployments 
continue at a record pace. On average, units often experience long 
deployments only to return and face a breakneck pace of training and 
exercise requirements. There is little or no time for family 
commitments or educational opportunities.
  The results of all this increased activity is that too many of our 
best and

[[Page 21680]]

brightest are deciding against a career in the military, which will 
have an impact on our military in the future.
  The conference report provides for significant increases in the 
readiness-critical accounts, such as training, facility maintenance, 
spare parts, and depot maintenance. These increases are absolutely 
necessary to ensure that our military remains the best trained, best 
equipped, and most effective in the world. To do anything less will 
allow the readiness of our military to slip further and could risk the 
lives of countless men and women in every branch of the service.
  I would also like to comment that the Merchant Marine Panel, which I 
chair, has in this bill provided, at the President's request, funding 
for authorization for the Maritime Administration, plus $7.6 million 
additional for capital maintenance of the Merchant Marine Academy.
  I wholeheartedly endorse the conference report and ask for its 
adoption.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dedicated, hard 
working, and knowledgeable gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for those nice 
comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the defense authorization 
bill and urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and vote 
for passage of the bill.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will begin to prepare our Nation for 
the national security challenges of the 21st Century. It makes vital 
investment in military equipment, improves the readiness of our forces, 
and provides the military personnel with the pay and retirement 
benefits that they greatly deserve.
  The defense authorization bill also dramatically reorganizes the 
Department of Energy. As we have seen in recent months, the Department 
of Energy is beset by management failure, bureaucratic morass, and a 
lack of accountability. Secretary Richardson has made some important 
improvements, but it is clear that the Department must be reorganized.
  This DOE reorganization plan is not perfect, but we cannot maintain 
the status quo. Let us begin the process of reorganization today and 
work to make improvements as we move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to 
recommit and for the defense authorization bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues may not be aware of 
this, but for over 30 years, we had a special supersecret bureaucracy 
that ran our Nation's nuclear weapons programs. It was not subject to 
effective external oversight or accountability. It was called the 
Atomic Energy Agency. For years, the old AEC pursued a philosophy of 
production first, and public health and safety and environment be 
damned.
  What was the AEC's legacy? It funded hundreds of unethical 
experiments on human beings using radioactive materials. It allowed 
workers to be exposed to radioactive substances in Paducah, Kentucky, 
and Fernald, Ohio. It allowed for the venting of gases from Hanford, 
Washington, to the Nevada test site, to Fernald, Ohio.
  It wantonly and repeatedly dumped toxic wastes into the soil at its 
weapons production sites, buried radioactive materials in shallow, 
unlined pits: Rocky Flats; Savanna River; Los Alamos; Paducah, 
Kentucky.
  We disbanded the Atomic Energy Agency and put it over into the 
Department of Energy so we could have some accountability.
  What are we doing here today? What we are doing here today is we are 
going back to the bad old days where we are going to have an agency 
focused on making bombs hidden from public site, causing environmental 
havoc, public health catastrophes, and then the very same kind of a 
formula that allowed for the lying and concealment of actions from the 
public.
  We should not be going back to those bad old days where this report 
barely even mentions the contractors that were responsible for much of 
what went wrong.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his leadership and that of the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his leadership on this bill.
  This is my eighth conference report; and I would say, of my years, I 
have not been here with the tenure that the gentlemen have, but this is 
a great bill. This is a bill that really would, in bold neon lights, 
focus on people.
  A lot of times we focus on buying, whether it is the aircraft 
carriers, the munitions, the weapons systems. This one focuses on 
people. This one, this House, on behalf of the American people, are 
turning to those in our armed services and saying, ``Thank you. And, 
oh, by the way, we respect your sacrifices so much, we increased your 
pay.''
  We take care of many different reforms. We reform the retirement 
system. We are going to address the recruiting and retention concerns. 
I have to agree with the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. There are so 
many initiatives that we have done in this bill, they are almost too 
numerous to even mention here.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Pickett), a gentleman who is the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000, and I want to talk in particular for a moment about the research 
and development provisions.
  The conferees wisely included authorization for several leap-ahead 
technologies that will improve our military capabilities on land, in 
the air, and at sea. Additional investments are included for basic 
research, advanced sensors, improved radars, more sophisticated 
munitions, and state-of-the-art communication equipment.
  The conferees also made sure that there are substantial funding 
increases in missile defense programs, to ensure that the development 
of both theater and national missile defense programs will not be 
funding constrained.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's approach to military research investment is 
at a critical juncture. With so much change and uncertainty in the 
world, it is imperative that we insist upon maintaining our 
technological superiority.
  Without the sustained fielding of more technological advance systems, 
our forces risk the chance of one day finding themselves confronted 
with a technological surprise for which they are not prepared and 
against which they may not prevail.

                              {time}  1200

  It is my hope that this body will join me, pass this measure today, 
and continue our commitment to field the most technologically superior 
military anywhere in the world.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the vast majority of this 
bill, particularly the pay and retirement provisions. But this good 
bill is marred by some of the text, some of the provisions that set up 
the National Nuclear Security Administration as a semi-autonomous 
agency within the Department of Energy.
  I have reservations about the way in which these provisions were 
inserted in the bill, a little discussion among members of the 
conference committee, consultation with the energy committee, and I 
have reservations about the substance of the provisions themselves and 
that is where I want to direct my attention.

[[Page 21681]]

  I have heard people say that the existing Department is complicated, 
but what we have created is a bit of a complication, too.
  In the title that we have added, 3216, section title 32, there are 18 
different functions over which this new semi-autonomous agency, on page 
458 and 457, will have virtually exclusive authority. Let me show some 
of the problems that are created by this.
  This bill set up two different offices for counterintelligence, one 
of the places where we have really had a problem, two different 
offices, one under the Secretary and one under the Administrator. They 
have overlapping jurisdiction. The bill does not clearly define how 
they interface, who has authority over the other.
  If we do not like the way counterintelligence is being conducted in 
the new administration, what do we do about it? Well, read on. Because 
if we read on, we will find that the bill says that the Secretary can 
only interact with this new administration through the administrator, 
no other way, he can only get the guy fired if he does not respond to 
his directives. There is no interface proscribed in the bill.
  I do not think this was intended. This was a matter of haste and a 
matter of doing this without vetting it adequately both within the 
conference and outside the conference.
  Here is another problem: We have established these 18 separate 
departments. As I said, the section 3213 severely hamstrings the 
Secretary's ability to use his staff to provide oversight because the 
act says explicitly, nobody who works for the administration ``shall be 
responsible to and subject to the authority, direction, and control 
of'' anybody in the Department of Energy except for the Secretary.
  What was the criticism Warren Rudman made of this agency? That it has 
been arrogant, that it has not been responsive to criticism, that it 
has been insensitive. We are just enforcing that with this particular 
statute if it does not work.
  This needs to be taken back to the drafting room. It needs to be 
reworked. We can do it in an afternoon or so. It is not a lot of work. 
But there are places in this bill that are going to give us problems in 
the future and if not addressed, indeed could worsen the very problems 
that we are dealing with right now. It duplicates bureaucracy. It 
undercuts the Secretary.
  Do my colleagues think 46 attorney generals have an idle concern? Can 
we at least not relitigate this issue? They say that the Federal 
Compliance Act, which finally said that all of these nuclear weapons 
facilities were subject to RCRA and CERCLA and environmental laws. They 
say that it is undercut, that this is in doubt.
  We at least should go back to the bill and dispel that and not 
relitigate this issue. It needs to be reworked. We will have an 
opportunity to vote on the motion to recommit, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote for it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) the chairman of our Subcommittee on Research 
and Development.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue.
  I rise to say that I have the highest regard for my good friend from 
Michigan, and he knows that. We are good friends; but I have to oppose 
him on this issue, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill is a good bill. In fact, it is an excellent bill. I 
understand the concerns about not involving the committee, and I 
empathize with that and think we do not do a good job in that regard. 
But I think it is also fair for Members to understand, this Congress 
could not get a major DOE reform bill through this body with the 
President's signature. It would not happen. It will happen as a part of 
this defense bill.
  It is important that we understand a motion to recommit opens the 
entire conference up well beyond the scope of just this issue, and that 
is going to cause problems for every Member in this institution who has 
an interest in this bill, including issues like the pay raise. We just 
cannot say it is a free vote that we vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a big problem here. It was the Secretary of 
Energy who, in 1993, did away with the FBI background checks. It was 
the Secretary of Energy in 1993 who changed the color-coded 
classifications status at our labs. It was the Secretary of Energy in 
1994 who overruled the Oakland office and allowed an employee who had 
given away secrets to still work. And it was the Secretary of Energy 
who in 1994 gave away the warhead design for the W-87 warhead to a U.S. 
News and World reporter.
  We need this bill and we need Members to vote ``yes'' on the bill and 
``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) a freshman who is doing an outstanding job.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very important 
legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) and our great leader the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for their hard work in putting together this important piece 
of legislation, important to the needs of the men and women in uniform.
  As a freshman, I was honored to serve on the conference committee 
with Members of the Senate. The bill before us is maintaining a 
commitment made. The bill before us, as eloquently stated by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) makes this truly a year of the 
troops. We have heard their needs. We have addressed them.
  This bill provides our soldiers with a 4.8 percent pay increase, 
improves retirement benefits, and increases housing allowances for our 
military families. Most importantly for me, this bill and this 
committee has recognized the important and necessary role of the F-22 
fighter in the Air Force Modernization and Readiness program by fully 
authorizing the Air Force request for $1.8 billion in procurement 
funds.
  The authorization of the F-22, of course, is also supported by 
Defense Secretary Cohen, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and most important to 
me, by truly the Jedi warriors of this Nation, the men and women of the 
United States Air Force.
  I want to commend my colleagues on the committee again, especially 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairmans Spence) and our great 
leader the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their strong 
leadership and bipartisan drafting of an excellent piece of legislation 
that addresses personnel, readiness, and the modernization needs of 
21st century Armed Services and has truly made this a ``year of the 
troops.''
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to praise the bill and to support the 
narrowly focused and enormously important motion to recommit.
  The unintended consequences of the proposed semi-autonomous agency 
simply have not been adequately vetted. While it is important to shore 
up our Nation's labs, we cannot destroy hard-won environmental, safety, 
and health standards.
  In the long struggle to make our Nation secure, we have allowed it to 
become dangerous to our own communities and citizens. If it had been 
that easy to change the culture of secrecy and drift, we would have 
done it. Instead, we have fought long and hard to make the Department 
of Energy responsible to the public; and it would be irresponsible to 
turn back the clock now.
  In the 1980s, before many of the existing safety standards were 
adopted, the Fernald Uranium Processing Plant in Ohio went unchecked, 
leaving behind a wasteland of nuclear materials and at a cost of 
hundreds of millions of dollars to American taxpayers.
  At the time, the DOE operated in secrecy, arguing that environmental 
and safety oversight would compromise national security. They promised 
to protect the safety of the workers and the environment in Fernald. 
However, DOE, prioritizing production goals and

[[Page 21682]]

security over environmental and safety standards, did too little too 
late.
  Creating an independent agency would turn back the clock. The 
problems of our Nation's labs are profound, and the importance of their 
work deserve a comprehensive solution.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and oppose the motion 
to recommit.
  I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman 
Spence), the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Skelton), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) specifically for helping me keep 
my language in dealing with the problem of narcotics and terrorism on 
our borders.
  My colleagues, 90 percent of all street crime is drug related. Fifty 
percent of all murder is drug related. Many of our health care costs 
are drug related. And our military is guarding the borders all over the 
world while ours are wide open.
  It does not mandate it, but it is time that we wage a war on drugs. 
For the first time in 5 years, Congress is beginning to show some 
attitude against this oversupply of narcotics.
  I appreciate it, and I ask all Members of Congress to support this 
bill. It is a great bill. I thank those Members who supported my 
amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
conference committee report.
  I want to recognize the outstanding leadership of the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) who guided us to the point we are today.
  This bill addresses the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of staff who 
told us earlier this year that the risk to our ability to meet our 
national military commitments was moderate to high.
  Earlier this year, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) urged 
our committee that this year be remembered as the ``Year of the 
Troops,'' and I am very pleased that this historical conference 
committee report honors that pledge.
  This bill contains the best compensation package for the military 
since the early 1980s. This bill also strengthens our national security 
by adding $368 million to develop and field effective theatre and 
national missile defenses to counter rapidly evolving ballistic missile 
threats.
  The conference committee took action in response to the Cox Committee 
recommendation for reassessment of the adequacy of the current 
arrangements for controlling U.S. nuclear weapons securities.
  When the Secretary of Energy disagreed with portions of the proposed 
reorganization, the committee listened to his concerns and yielded to 
him on several points.
  On balance, I am confident the reorganization will result in improved 
accountability and improved security within our nuclear weapons 
programs and it deserves our support.
  I urge our colleagues to support the conference committee report.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the DOE 
reorganization proposals in this bill. These proposals are simply bad 
government because they damage environmental protection worker health 
and safety and national security.
  There were a number of points that were raised by the DOE to explain 
why these provisions are bad government. One was the Attorney General's 
letter which was mentioned.
  Second, the bill could degrade effective public health and safety 
regulation of the nuclear defense complex by weakening the Secretary's 
ability to direct its regulation independent of the program's internal 
direction. The bill could isolate the Department's national security 
components for meaningful departmental oversight.
  The bill could degrade national security by rolling back recent 
actions DOE has taken to identify and flex clear responsibility and 
accountability in all of the DOE's national security activities, 
including the counterintelligence functions that were strengthened by a 
recent presidential directive.
  And last, the bill could lead to an erosion between the strong links 
between the weapons laboratories and DOE science programs, making 
recruitment of top scientists more difficult and uncertain, thereby 
jeopardizing the task of sustaining the nuclear deterrent testing.
  That is why we should oppose these provisions.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Defense 
Authorization Conference Report.
  Mr. Speaker, during the markup of H.R. 1401 by the Committee on Armed 
Services, I offered an amendment that would have conveyed real property 
at military installations closed under the BRAC at no cost to impacted 
communities.
  This is an issue of fundamental fairness to me. Base closures can 
have a disastrous effect on the affected communities.
  In my own district, my largest county may lose two out of every five 
jobs as a result of the closure of Ft. McClellan. The last thing we 
need to do is to kick these communities when they are down.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) and the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman Hefley) for 
addressing this important issue in the conference report. This language 
is terribly important to the communities in Alabama and across the 
country who continue to struggle to recover from the effects of a base 
closure.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness to work with me on this 
important matter and urge my colleagues to support this conference 
report.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation 
and in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  There are serious problems with the management and security of energy 
labs, and they need to be addressed and they are in this bill, perhaps 
not perfectly. But those who would support the motion to recommit say 
that we should wait on the rest of this bill to work those problems 
out. I respectfully and strongly disagree. We should not wait to 
reverse the unfounded, and, I think, ill-advised trend in the decline 
of defense spending. We should reverse that trend and increase it as 
this bill does. We should not wait to restore the spare parts in the 
airplanes and equipment that our men and women in uniform are using. We 
should certainly not wait to give the long overdue pay and retention 
benefit increases to those who serve their country.
  There are serious issues that need to be worked out. There will be 
opportunities to work those issues out. The wise course today is to 
defeat the motion to recommit and enthusiastically approve the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) will control 2 additional minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
2000 defense authorization bill and in opposition to the motion to 
recommit. I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina for his 
leadership on this very important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because of a simple principle. 
History is littered with the wars that everyone knew would never 
happen. Time and

[[Page 21683]]

again, we have convinced ourselves that we are safe and secure in a 
world that is full of despots and danger, and time and again we have 
had to resort to blood and iron when words and good intentions failed 
us.
  Among other things, this bill provides for better pay and better 
benefits for our men and women in uniform, and it allocates crucial 
money for our shortfalls in operations, training, and infrastructure 
maintenance. Finally, it will increase the pace at which our rapidly 
aging equipment is modernized or replaced.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue and this is an important 
bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our 
national defense, to support our troops and to support this bill. I 
urge them to vote against the motion to recommit so that we may move 
forward.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to all of my colleagues to 
pay attention to what is at stake right now. We are going to be asked 
by the gentleman from Michigan and several other folks to go with a 
motion to recommit and basically open up this entire bill and put off 
this entire bill. That means that we have to tell those men and women 
in uniform, including the people that are still in the Navy which is 
18,000 sailors short, that they have to wait on a 4.8 percent pay 
increase. We have to tell the people who are not able to fly their 
planes in the top gun school because they have a lack of engines that 
that may be put off for a while. We have to tell the people that are 
waiting for a full ammo supply in the Army where they are $3.5 billion 
short of basic ammo that they are going to have to wait. We are going 
to have to tell the Marines, the 911 force, they are going to have to 
wait and maybe we really do not want to pass this bill today. This bill 
is the bare minimum and it is a mandatory necessity in this dangerous 
world to start to rebuild national defense.
  Let me just say to my friends who have brought up the lawyer 
arguments that have been made by some attorneys general. I have read 
that language. It is very conditional. They say there may be problems 
with this bill. This thing passed 96-1 in the most environmentally 
conscious body we have got in this country, in the other body, the 
Senate. All of their lawyers scrubbed this thing. Nobody saw any 
intrusions in environmental law. I am looking at the sections right now 
that says that this new nuclear administration must comply with all 
applicable environmental, safety and health laws and substantive 
requirements, section 3261.
  It says that the Administrator must develop procedures to meet the 
requirements and the Secretary, that means Bill Richardson, Secretary 
of Energy, must assure that the requirements, the environmental 
requirements, are met. The Secretary has total control, direction and 
authority over this new Administrator.
  Let me just lastly say, we have lost a lot of nuclear secrets. This 
reform stems those losses and puts the nuclear complex back on safe 
footing. That is important.
  Pass this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for yielding me this time.
  This motion to recommit is about worker safety, DOE accountability, 
environmental protection and public health and safety. It is not about 
the military side of this bill. I support the military pay raises, 
pensions and all the other good provisions in the bill. But I have two 
comments; one on the process. The process how we got these secrecy and 
semiautonomous agency provisions is outrageous. There was no 
conference, there was no consultation, these provisions were invented 
in the dark of night, no hearings, the public excluded. This is not how 
we ought to be legislating. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
  Number two, the predecessor agency to the DOE had an abysmal record 
on worker safety and environmental protection. If we adopt these 
provisions on autonomy, we are headed back to the old days of 
violations of worker safety, worker rights, environmental degradation 
and destruction.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Dingell motion to recommit.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Military Procurement.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, this is a strange debate. We are debating a 
conference report that everybody seems to agree with. I have not found 
anybody that said the defense bill is a bad bill or even lacking 
something. The problem is on a motion to recommit from my learned 
friend. I think I am a little older than he is but he has been here a 
lot longer than I have.
  But what is interesting is that most of the argument is being 
subsumed on the Atomic Energy Commission. Now, he remembers the Atomic 
Energy Commission. This has nothing to do with the Atomic Energy 
Commission. The Secretary of Energy still controls what we are doing 
here.
  The other argument that they give, which is strange to me, and I know 
I am not the wisest guy in reading, but they keep bringing up the 
health and the environmental things. I am looking at page 467, section 
3261, that has an outline of all the environmental things which makes 
the Secretary of Energy responsible. We could go into a lot of things 
here. Is it perfect? Probably not. But what we have done is a good 
start.
  For one thing, we force DOE, we force them, to have a planning 
program, a budgeting cycle like any other agency of government. Is that 
not strange that they do not have it? We impose discipline so we really 
do not have funny money at the end of the year. It is in section 3252.
  These are sensible, careful reforms. What worries me, we may not get 
these reforms if we vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important vote. Everybody agrees with the 
conference report that I have heard from. Let us be smart. Let us 
defeat the motion to recommit and give our people a bill that they are 
expecting and they should have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence) has 2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) 1\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 2\1/
2\ minutes. Closing will be in the order of the gentleman from 
Michigan, the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time. I join the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and others in 
opposing the reorganization of the DOE that is provided in this bill, 
creating a fiefdom of control of the nuclear establishment that does 
not include an authority line from the Secretary of Energy. It is a 
serious problem. Civilian control of our nuclear weapons production 
facilities is one of the most important responsibilities that we have 
here.
  I speak with some experience. For nearly a decade, I helped run a DOE 
national laboratory. I have seen firsthand the legacy of the Atomic 
Energy Commission. And, as any manager will tell you, the best design 
for failure is to offer responsibility without authority. That is what 
we are doing with the Secretary of Energy here. Keeping the Secretary 
of Energy in the line of authority is the best way that we in Congress 
and that the citizens of this country can have accountable control of 
our nuclear establishment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is very simple. We

[[Page 21684]]

have heard a lot of red herrings about how this is going to jeopardize 
the legislation. It is not. The chairman and members of the Committee 
on Armed Services could convene a conference, and we could have this 
matter back on the floor by early next week. That is not going to delay 
anybody getting a pay raise or anything else. What Members are going to 
do if they vote for the motion to recommit is to arrange a situation 
where we will clarify the Secretary's authority to oversee the new 
agency. The Secretary will be able to deal with both the questions of 
health, safety, environment, environmental protection and also to deal 
with the questions of secrecy. That is what we really want. What the 
motion to recommit does is to return us to a situation where we are 
very close to the bipartisan agreement that was expressed in the Senate 
legislation. If you want a quick way to resolve this problem, let us do 
that, because the Senate will accept this in the snap of a finger or 
the beat of a heart.
  I would urge my colleagues to move in the direction of seeing to it 
that the Congress can control the behavior of DOE, the behavior of the 
secrecy mavens down there in that agency and to see to it that we have 
openness which prevails with regard to environmental safety, health, 
worker safety and questions of that kind and to see to it at the same 
time that we preserve and protect security.
  This legislation as it is now constituted does nothing, nothing, to 
assure additional secrecy. As a matter of fact, it returns us to those 
curious days when the AEC leaked like a sieve and when there were major 
problems in terms of the Congress knowing what was going on down there.
  Vote for the motion to recommit. It is good legislation, it is 
careful attention to process, and it will leave the public better.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a popular television program entitled Jeopardy. 
Voting for the motion to recommit is entering into that game of 
Jeopardy because a motion to recommit that carries opens up the entire 
wonderfully written package for the troops should it go to conference.
  I think that we should do our best to protect the pay raises, the pay 
table, the new barracks, the family housing, the specialty pay, the 
TRICARE additions. We should do our very best to protect this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the year of the troops. This is our tribute, the 
Congress of the United States' tribute to those young men and those 
young women who wear the American uniform and represent us so very, 
very proudly wherever they may be.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I think there are three points really 
that need to be made at the conclusion of this debate. Number one is 
that there is no narrow motion to recommit on a conference report. We 
cannot send it back with an amendment. All we can do is send it back to 
negotiate with the Senate, and everything that is in this conference 
report is vulnerable then, and there is no indication we can do any 
better. We may do worse by the gentleman from Michigan if we get back 
to the negotiations with the Senate, even on the provisions that he is 
concerned about. There is no free vote here.
  Second point that has to be emphasized is we do not change the 
environmental standards one inch. There are several places in this bill 
we specifically say the same standards that apply before apply 
afterwards, and as a matter of fact, I would remind this body that the 
language on the environment was word for word what was adopted 
unanimously in the other body by an amendment by Senators Domenici, 
Bingaman, Levin, Lieberman, and Reed, hardly a bunch of environmental 
extremists as some may have portrayed.
  I would also like to mention that the National Governors' 
Association, as opposed to what has been said, do not oppose these 
provisions. They have expressed some concerns, we have answered them in 
those concerns by the letter from the chairman, and both they and the 
Attorney Generals Association, once we talk to them and show them the 
language, are backing off, and we have that in the record.
  I think what it comes down to, Mr. Speaker, is that the President's 
own commission studies this problem and says, ``You have got one of two 
options. You can create a whole new agency, and there are a lot of 
folks on our side who would like to do that, put it under DOD or a 
completely separate agency. Or, we can have a semi-autonomous entity 
within the Department of Energy which the Secretary of Energy has 
complete control, authority, and oversight of. That is what we chose to 
do in this conference report. The more moderate recommendation of the 
President's own commission is exactly what is adopted in this 
conference report.
  If my colleagues look at the responsibilities of this body to provide 
for the country's defense, I think we have no alternative but to vote 
against the motion to recommit and support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. It does a 
lot to improve the security of the United States, and it should be 
supported by all members.
  Because of time limits I am only going to address one portion of the 
bill, which is Title XXXII, the title which reorganizes the management 
of the nuclear weapons program in the Department of Energy. Adopting 
Title XXXII gives us a chance to fix a 20 year problem which has 
plagued our nation since the Department of Energy was first created.
  Mr. Speaker, hardly anyone argues today that there is not a 
significant problem in the Department of Energy. Study after study, 
report after report have analyzed the problems at DOE for 20 years. The 
bottom line is that the management structure at DOE is 
``dysfunctional,'' to quote the report of the President's Foreign 
Intelligence Advisory Board, which has caused enormous problems, 
including, to some degree, the recent security lapses. But in spite of 
the repeated warnings and efforts at reform, little actual reform has 
been made.
  Some recent studies have focused on security and counterintelligence. 
And we owe Chairman Cox and his colleagues a debt of gratitude for 
their important, bipartisan report. Other studies have looked at DOE's 
problems with large construction projects. We read just last week of a 
cost overrun of $350 million and a delay of two years in the National 
Ignition Facility about which the Secretary of Energy was as surprised 
as anyone because he had been assured in June of this year that 
everything was on track. Other studies have focused on health and 
worker safety, but whatever the focus they all come back to the 
dysfunctional organization of DOE as a basic, fundamental problem, 
which has to be solved before other problems are resolved.
  This bill gives us the opportunity to do something that virtually 
everyone who has studied the problem believes should be done, and yet 
no one has been able to do. It is an opportunity we should not let pass 
us by.
  Title XXXII establishes a semi-autonomous agency within the 
Department of Energy called the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The new NNSA will have two traits missing from DOE for 
the last 20 years--accountability and a clear mission.
  The current situation was best described by Dr. Victor Reis, who 
served as the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs from 
1993 until last month. Dr. Reis testified, ``The root cause of the 
difficulties at DOE is simply that DOE has too many disparate missions 
to be managed effectively as a coherent organization. The price of 
gasoline, refrigerator standards, Quarks, nuclear cleanup and nuclear 
weapons just don't come together naturally.''
  NNSA will have some measure of insulation from all of those other 
functions of DOE unrelated to national security. Thus, it can have a 
tighter focus on the essential work related to nuclear weapons.
  Reis went on to describe the efforts of Secretary after Secretary to 
pull the Department together creating new cross-cutting organizations 
for environment, safety, health, security, information, policy, 
quality, and so on, but ``because of all this multilayered cross 
cutting, there is no one accountable for the operation of any part of 
the organization by the Secretary, and no Secretary has the time to 
lead

[[Page 21685]]

the whole thing effectively. By setting up a semi-autonomous agency, 
many of these problems go away.''
  Previously, no one below the Secretary has been in charge of the 
nuclear weapons complex; no one person had the authority to make 
something happen; no one could be held accountable for mistakes. Title 
XXXII establishes a clear chain of command with definite lines of 
responsibility and of accountability which are essential to 
accomplishing the core mission of the complex and also ensuring that 
security, health, safety, and other issues are handled appropriately.
  There are some who argue that we cannot rely on the people who do the 
day to day work to look after health and safety too. It's like the fox 
guarding the chicken coop, they say. Frankly, I am offended by the idea 
that the people who work at the Pantex Plant in my district and who 
live in the area and whose children go to school there cannot be 
trusted to work safely. We just have to have a management system that 
makes it clear what is expected of them and who holds them accountable 
if they disregard it.
  I would also remind my colleague that for more than 40 years the 
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has had full and complete 
responsibility for more nuclear reactors than the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Any of their reactors can be pulled into virtually any port 
in the world with no concern to the environment or safety. That kind of 
record and that kind of commitment is what we need in the nuclear 
weapons complex, and this bill helps us to accomplish it.
  Dr. Reis has testified that ``[t]he mission of the nuclear weapons 
complex is national security at its most profound and long lasting.'' I 
agree. This is not a place to play political games or worry about turf. 
The only thing that matters is doing what's right for the security of 
our country and the freedom of our children. Title XXXII and this 
entire bill help ensure both.
  Mr. Speaker, this Title is the result of a lot of hours and work by a 
number of people. Senators Domenici, Kyle, and Murkowski and their able 
staffs carried the burden in the Senate. In the House, I want to 
express my appreciation to Chairman Spence and Chairman Hunter for all 
of their work and support on this portion of the bill. I also want to 
thank my colleagues, Ms. Wilson and Ms. Tauscher for their tireless 
work and persistence in making sure that this reorganization was done 
right. Our committee staff, particularly Dr. Andy Ellis and Robert 
Rangel deserve special commendation for pushing this product through 
the conference process.
  I also can't help but note that Dr. Victor Reis, who served this 
country with distinction for more than 30 years in key positions lost 
his job because he believed that we could not continue with business as 
usual at the Department of Energy. His courage and patriotism in 
telling the Administration what they did not want to hear should be 
commended, and I hope that future administrations can take advantage of 
Dr. Reis's skill, experience, and judgment, as well as his courage and 
love of country.
  Finally, I want to single out Clay Sell of my staff for his work, not 
only on this Title in this bill, but for his work on the issue of DOE 
management reform over the past four years. I am very fortunate to work 
with many outstanding people every day, but none can outshine Clay for 
his hard work, intelligence, and, in this matter, pure persistence--all 
of which has been devoted toward enhancing the security of our nation.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for S. 1059, 
the Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report. I believe 
this bill is a step in the right direction--a step towards a strong 
military, heightened readiness, and a bolstered national security.
  Among the bill's many critical provisions is a well-deserved and 
long-overdue pay raise for our military men and women in recognition of 
their hard work and dedication to their country. This bill provides for 
a 4.8 percent pay raise, .4 percent above the Administration's request. 
This critical pay raise provision will help ensure that increases are 
tied more to performance and promotion than years of service and will 
reduce the pay gap between military and civilian pay. Moreover, this 
salary increase is a step towards preventing the loss of the best and 
brightest men and women who find it increasingly difficult to manage on 
a military salary.
  This legislation would also reform the military retirement system and 
provide service members an opportunity to choose which system better 
suits their individual needs. It would also extend pay and bonus 
authority, expand recruiting and retention, and add additional funds 
for military housing. In addition, this bill addresses our nation's 
veterans and recognizes their contribution to this country by 
guaranteeing their burial benefits, providing retirement flags for 
reservists and all the uniformed services, and restoring equity to 
widow's entitlement.
  This conference report also adds $2.7 billion to the procurement 
account for weaponry modernization, a crucial increase for improving 
military readiness. It adds $2.8 billion in operations and maintenance 
and repair facilities and builds upon the President's proposal to 
increase defense spending by $112 billion over the next six years. It 
also restores procurement funding for the essential F-22 fighter jet, a 
critical part of ensuring our military forces maintain their air 
superiority.
  The Defense Authorization Conference Report significantly increases 
funding for the procurement of weapons, ammunition, and equipment, and 
for military construction and will enable the armed forces to modernize 
while maintaining a high level of readiness and training. I urge my 
colleagues to cast their votes in favor of a strong defense and the 
protection of our national security. I urge you to cast your vote in 
favor of improving the standard of living for our service men and 
women. I urge you to cast your vote in favor of this conference report, 
and I urge the President to sign this essential legislation.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in support of 
this Conference Report for the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill. This 
effort was bi-partisan and long overdue. The Conferees worked long and 
hard to tie up the loose ends and smooth out the rough edges of the 
Defense Authorization Bill. While everything we wanted was not achieved 
in Conference, this is still a very fine effort that will go a long way 
to ensure that our troops will get much of the pay, equipment, and 
infrastructure they so badly need and deserve. This bill is essential 
to stemming the decay in readiness and ensuring the security of the 
United States and its territories.
  Mr. Speaker, no doubt our citizens have by now grown accustomed to 
the oft repeated phrase, ``we live in dangerous times.'' The global 
community is constantly erupting as it continues to adjust to the 
political realities of the post-Cold War structure. Africa is 
undergoing immeasurable suffering of disease, civil strife, and 
refugees crises. Asia is confronting economic calamities, unfinished 
revolutions, long standing rivalries, and emerging powers. South 
America is re-confronting Marxist guerrilla insurgencies and 
narcoterrorism. Europe has to deal with ethnic conflict, terrorism, and 
refugee influxes. The Middle East is faced with growing fundamentalist 
movements, terrorism, peace negotiations, and resource scarcities. The 
Pacific region is seeking political enfranchisement and issues of 
poverty. Faced with this menu of global concerns our military forces 
have been deployed in some 30-odd operations world-wide since the 
Persian Gulf War. At the same time our defense budget has been squeezed 
and capped arbitrarily without consideration or anticipation to the 
realities of America's security interests. To be sure, the time has 
come to re-assess the role the United States will play and to what 
extent our troops will be a part of that role.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of Mr. Spence, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
Skelton and Mr. Levin in brokering a true bi-partisan bill that will 
begin to address many of the concerns that have been discussed here on 
Capitol Hill these past months.
  Some of the measures that the people of Guam are concerned about have 
been included in this bill. In the realm of military construction, the 
military facilities located on Guam will benefit from over $100 million 
in new construction or improvements. Most notable are the MILCON 
projects for the Guam Army Guard Readiness Center and the U.S. Army 
Reserve Maintenance Shop--both desperately needed to maintain readiness 
and operational capabilities. Additionally, we were able to secure 
language that would allow the Guam Power Authority to upgrade two 
military transformer substations on Guam. I would like to thank MILCON 
subcommittee Chairman Hefley and Ranking Member Taylor, for their wise 
counsel and decision in recognizing the need for these vital military 
projects on Guam.
  I worked closely with Readiness subcommittee Chairman Herb Bateman on 
language that would make a technical correction in the economic 
reporting requirement for A-76 competition studies. I also worked 
closely with several members from both sides of the isle to prevent the 
lifting of a moratorium on the outsourcing of DoD security guards. 
Additionally, I worked closely with Congressmen Abercrombie and Young 
to exempt Guam from any pilot program for military moving of household 
goods. This way Guam's small household moving market will be ensured of 
robust competition and protection from mainland conglomerates. We 
worked closely with members on both sides of the isle to include

[[Page 21686]]

a refinement of the BRAC laws that will permit no cost conveyances of 
former military property to rural communities for economic development. 
On a matter of particular importance to Filipino-Americans, the threat 
to the return of the Bells of Balangiga was abated in a compromise 
measure between House and Senate conferees. This victory was no small 
feat and through our efforts we preserved the issue and permitted the 
dialogue to continue. For this effort I would like to thank, Senators 
Inouye and Levin for their support. I thank my fellow House Armed 
Services colleagues particularly Mr. Stump for his willingness to hear 
our concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill contains an important provision 
directing the Maritime Administration to report on the incidents of 
overseas ship repairs of U.S. flagged vessels in the Maritime Security 
Fleet. This was in response to the Guam Shipyard's unfair experiences 
with subsidized foreign competition in ship repair. It appears that the 
Navy in concert with the Military Sealift Command has been flouting the 
intent of federal law created to protect American jobs and ship repair 
infrastructure. This reporting requirements places the Military Sealift 
Command on notice that Congress is watching and will respond if 
necessary to gross violations or misdirected policy. I worked closely 
with Chairman Bateman, on this initiative and would like to thank him 
for his foresight in including this important provision.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill included an amendment by Mr. 
Bereuter to make permanent the waivers included in the FY 1999 Defense 
Authorization Act that allows the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 
Studies (which is a component of the Defense Department's U.S. Pacific 
Command) to accept foreign gifts and donations to the center, and to 
allow certain foreign military officers and civilian officials to 
attend conferences, seminars and other educational activities held by 
the Asia Pacific Center without reimbursing the Defense Department for 
the costs of such activities. This Center, led by retired Marine Corps 
Lt. General H.C. Stackpole, is a corner-stone in the engagement program 
of military-to-military exchanges through out the Asia-Pacific Region. 
This endeavor is a vital component in the goal of strengthening our 
ties with both our regional allies and potential allies. I strongly 
urge its adoption.
  Finally, the Conference report strips the most offensive aspects of 
the DeLay amendment that was adopted on the floor that would have 
prohibited constructive military to military contacts between the U.S. 
and the People's Republic of China. The wiser temperaments of the 
Conferees saw fit to recognize the vital importance of America's 
engagement with China and ensure that these ties remain unbroken.
  I want to thank all of the Committee staff for their tireless efforts 
in putting this bill together. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the Conference Report. In doing so a vote is being cast for 
a stronger, more robust military and improved benefits for our troops.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a statement in support 
of the Defense Authorization Conference Report which includes a 
provision which is very important to a project in my district, the 
redevelopment of the Joliet Arsenal.
  First, I would like to thank all of my colleagues for the assistance 
they have offered on this project over the past five years, and again 
with this Conference Report. This Conference Report contains a 
provision which clarifies the original intent of Congress that Will 
County, Illinois be given 455 acres of federal land at no cost to Will 
County taxpayers to build a landfill to serve Will County residents and 
communities only. I gave this commitment back in 1996 when the original 
legislation was passed, and I am adhering to my commitment here today.
  I will briefly repeat some historical points regarding the Joliet 
Arsenal redevelopment. When first elected to Congress in 1994, I 
continued the good work Congressmen O'Brien, Davis and Sangmeister had 
initiated to return the 23,000 acres of Arsenal property back to the 
Will County residents. Throughout the next year, I worked hard to pave 
the way for the Joliet Arsenal Ammunition Plant (JAAP) redevelopment 
legislation and was proud to obtain President Clinton's signature on 
this important bill in 1996. The redevelopment plan called for the 
creation of a 19,000 acre tallgrass prairie park, two industrial parks, 
a new national cemetery, and a county landfill.
  As the author of the legislation, I embraced the vision of the 
original citizens Planning Commission which clearly intended for the 
landfill to be established as a local facility serving the needs of 
Will County only. It was only after a struggle that I was able to 
include a landfill into the redevelopment legislation at all. There 
were a number of Army officials and my colleagues in the Congress 
concerned about approving a landfill directly bordering a national 
park. In addition, the JAAP redevelopment was the first of several like 
projects around the country. Given the intense scrutiny this project 
was under, I assured those who had concerns that this landfill would be 
serving the residents of the County only. I am keeping this promise 
today.
  Later, local officials commenced efforts to expand the Will County 
landfill far beyond the original Congressional intent as a County only 
landfill turning it into a regional landfill which would ultimately 
house Chicago trash. My position never waivered, as I had made many 
promises to my colleagues in this Congress that there would not be a 
regional or Chicago landfill placed next to the new home of the 
nation's largest veterans cemetery and the 19,000 Midewin National 
Tallgrass Prairie. The ultimate solution was to clarify the law to 
ensure that County only trash will be accepted at the landfill at the 
Joliet Arsenal.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply committed to ensuring the entire Joliet 
Arsenal is redeveloped without delay or compromise. I am equally 
committed, though, to ensure the original plan is followed and the 
legislation's intent is carried forward. I am pleased that the 
provision submitted into the Defense Authorization Act will soon become 
law. Thanks to you and all of my colleagues for your assistance on this 
important project.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report on S. 1059, National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000. I am pleased that the bill restores readiness and 
quality of life for our men and women in uniform.
  In particular, I am pleased that the bill continues to reverse the 
Clinton-Gore Administration's neglect of our military. The current 
administration like none other has eroded morale, training, readiness, 
equipment, and quality of life. This bill reverses many of these trends 
and I commend the conferees for their actions to fulfill these 
commitments to our troops and military retirees.
  This bill continues to add to the procurement budget to ensure that 
our troops are the best equipped. We add $2.7 billion above the 
Clinton-Gore Administration's request for weapons' procurement, which 
will build on the $15 billion in procurements additions we have made 
over the past four years. I am also pleased that the bill increases 
military pay by 4.8 percent, .4 percent more than requested by the 
administration. The move to restore retirement benefits to encourage 
good men and women to make a career out of the military is something I 
have been very supportive of and am pleased that this matter is 
addressed in the bill.
  While I am very pleased and supportive of these and many other 
provisions in the bill and will vote for the bill because of these 
provisions, I am very concerned that the conferees chose to drop an 
amendment that was adopted by the House on a 303-115 vote. This 
amendment would have increased the capacity of our national launch 
ranges by about 20 to 30 percent. In other words, by choosing to spend 
only $7.3 million in additional money at our national launch ranges we 
could have prevented about nine satellite launches a year from leaving 
U.S. soil and instead going to China or Russia for launch.
  I cannot understand why the conferees, and most notably the Armed 
Services Committee staff, chose to reject this modest proposal, a 
proposal that was supported by the Air Force, by NASA, and by a large 
majority of the space industry and its various associations. It was 
short-sighted of the committee and I am committed to having Congress 
revisit this issue until our launch infrastructure resources are 
properly attended to.
  China and Russia have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be 
trusted with advanced technology. Just yesterday, this very House voted 
for a bill taking very strong action against Russia for transferring 
dangerous missile and weapons technology to Iran. The decision by the 
conferees to reject the House bill's provision that would have kept 
launches of U.S. built satellites on U.S. soil runs counter to the 
passage of the Iran Nonproliferation Act (H.R. 1883).
  Furthermore, the Chinese government has proven to be no more 
responsible in handling advanced technology. It was the launch 
agreements that the Clinton Administration signed with the Chinese that 
lead to the Cox-Dicks Select Committee on China. It was this very 
decision to allow increased export of U.S. built satellites on Chinese 
vehicles that led to the transfer of advanced missile technology 
transfer to the communist military government in China. All my 
amendment says is let us maximize the use of our own launch facilities 
first. This is the best way to curb the transfer of advanced missile 
technology.
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Defense 
Authorization conference report. I had intended to engage the

[[Page 21687]]

distinguished Chairman of the Research and Development Subcommittee, 
Congressman Curt Weldon, in a colloquy to clarify some language in the 
report, but the rules precluded it.
  The Conferees authorized funds for low cost launch technology. The 
conference report specifically authorizes $10 million in funding for 
``Low Cost Launch, including Scorpius.'' The Scorpius program has many 
supporters in Congress, it is the most advanced low cost launch system 
under development, and it is meeting its goals within budget. The Cox 
Committee recommended that Congress should ``encourage and stimulate'' 
further expansion of the American space-launch capacity in the interest 
of national security. Funding the Scorpius program does this. 
Investment in Scorpius can lead to significant payoffs in the future in 
both technological efforts and cost reductions. A low cost launch 
capability in America will allow our nation's telecommunications 
companies to launch their satellites from the United States, reducing 
the security risks associated with overseas launches. I believe that 
authorizing and appropriating these funds to further develop Scorpius 
is money well spent.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Record on 
the DOD Conference Report.

                                                   August 4, 1999.
     The Honorable Speaker of the House,
     Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert: As the House and Senate move forward 
     with conference negotiations on the Defense Authorization 
     bill (S. 1059), I urge your continued support of external 
     regulation of the Department of Energy (DOE) through the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The State of Illinois 
     has long supported this concept.
       Specifically, I urge you to oppose the adoption of language 
     that would place the regulation of DOE's safety programs in 
     the hands of a quasi-independent agency that would ultimately 
     report to DOE. We believe that the continued oversight of 
     safety by DOE will continue to diminish worker safety as it 
     has at several facilities throughout the country in recent 
     years.
       In conclusion, I urge you to follow the path that will 
     allow for the transfer of authority over public health and 
     safety so that of a truly external regulator, such as the 
     NRC. Such action would thereby allow closer regulation by the 
     State of Illinois which works closely and in conjunction with 
     the NRC.
       Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of this 
     important matter. Should you need additional information 
     please contact David Kunz in my Washington office.
           Sincerely,
                                         George H. Ryan, Governor.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the 
conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for FY-
2000, I would like to restate my intent on a provision I authored in 
last year's Defense Authorization Act, which is currently being 
implemented by the Department of Energy. The provision (section 3139 of 
PL 105-261) created the Office of River Protection (``ORP'') to be 
headed by a ``senior'' DOE official who would report directly to the 
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. This individual would 
manage ``all aspects'' of the tank waste cleanup program at the Hanford 
site in my district. The provision also provided to the Manager of the 
Office of River Protection all resources ``necessary'' to manage the 
Handford tank privatization project in an ``efficient and streamlined'' 
manner.
  As sponsor of this provision of law, my intent is that the Manager of 
ORP should be accorded full decision making authority for planning, 
budgeting, acquisition, contract administration, and line safety 
responsibility for managing cleanup of the legacy high-level 
radioactive tank waste threatening the Columbia River. These specific 
authorities should include the power to establish a separate budget 
control point for all funding required for the operation and 
construction of the Handford tank farm program and the privatized 
vitrification project. The Manager of ORP should also be delegated the 
authority as head of contract activities for the purposes of carrying 
out the duties of the Office of River Protection.
  Failing to extend these basic budget and contracting authorities to 
the ORP manager is clearly at odds with the provision which bestowed 
responsibility for managing ``all aspects'' of the program on the ORP 
Manager and provided him all resources ``necessary'' to carry out the 
program. Further, the legislation expected him to report directly to 
the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
  Further, the provision in subsections (d) and (e) required reports to 
Congress with an integrated management plan and updates on progress. 
Semi-annual reports and regular briefings by the Manager of the Office 
of River Protection to the Congress are entirely consistent with the 
reporting requirements of last year's provision. The progress reports 
should address in the status of the ORP, cleanup progress, 
expenditures, and any other issues impeding implementation of the 
spirit and/or legal requirements of my provision from last year's 
defense authorization bill.
  I would like to report to the Speaker that I have expressed this 
intent to the Assistant Secretary and she has expressed her agreement 
with this interpretation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the Defense 
authorization bill when it was debated earlier here in the House. I did 
that for a number of reasons, and especially because it provided for 
better compensation and benefits for the men and women of our armed 
services.
  However, I have serious concerns about a number of changes that were 
made to the bill in the conference committee. In particular, I am 
concerned about Title 32, which would reorganize the Department of 
Energy. I am attaching letters on this subject from Secretary 
Richardson and from Colorado's Attorney General, Ken Salazar. The 
Secretary is concerned about the potential effect of this part of the 
conference report on the environment at and around DOE facilities 
across the country--a serious concern, and one I share.
  But Attorney General Salazar's concern is even more pressing for 
those of us from Colorado, because it relates directly to the Rocky 
Flats site. As his letter says, our Attorney General is ``concerned 
that the pending legislation would delay the closure of Rocky Flats and 
substantially drive up cleanup costs.'' I take that very seriously, 
because I think keeping Rocky Flats on tract for cleanup and closure at 
the earliest practicable date is a matter of highest priority for our 
State.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, Title 32 of the conference report is 
completely new. It was not part of the bill that was considered by the 
House. Under these circumstances, even though others may not fully 
share the Attorney General's concerns on this point--or the even more 
far-reaching concerns of Secretary Richardson--I think that the most 
prudent thing for us to do is to take longer to review these 
reorganization proposals. Accordingly, I will vote for the motion to 
recommit the conference report and, if that motion does not succeed, I 
will vote against the conference report.

         State of Colorado, Department of Law, Office of the 
           Attorney General,
                              Denver, Colorado, September 3, 1999.
     Re Preserving Colorado's Authority Over Cleanup of Rocky 
         Flats.

     Hon. Mark Udall,
     Colorado Congressional Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Udall: I am concerned that pending 
     legislation to reorganize the Department of Energy (DOE) may 
     inadvertently impair state regulatory authority over DOE 
     facilities. The reorganization provisions are in the 
     Department of Defense FY 2000 Authorization bill as reported 
     by the conference committee. I wanted to take a moment to 
     explain how this proposed legislation would specifically 
     affect Rocky Flats.
       As set forth in a letter from attorneys general of more 
     than forty states and territories, section 3261 could be used 
     by the federal government to try to undermine the broad 
     waivers of sovereign immunity currently in environmental 
     laws, and exempt the National Nuclear Security Administration 
     (NNSA) from state environmental regulations, permits, orders, 
     penalties, agreements, and ``procedural requirements.'' If 
     successful, such arguments would, among other things, 
     partially repeal the Federal Facilities Compliance Act 
     (FFCA), which states fought so hard to pass in 1992. The FFCA 
     clarified the sovereign immunity waiver in the federal 
     hazardous waste law, and ensured that federal agencies 
     engaged in the management of hazardous waste would have to 
     comply with local, state and federal hazardous waste laws in 
     the same manner and to the same extent as private parties. 
     This waiver governs the on-going state regulation of Rocky 
     Flats pursuant to the Colorado Hazardous Waste Act.
       Rocky Flats is not specifically named as one of the 
     facilities that will be transferred to the NNSA. However, 
     under Sec. 3291(a) of the Act, ``national security functions 
     and activities performed immediately before the date of . . . 
     this Act'' by the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of 
     Nonproliferation and National Security, or the Office of 
     Fissile Materials Disposition will be transferred. The terms, 
     ``national security functions and activities'' are not 
     defined in the Act; however, two of these offices are 
     currently conducting activities at Rocky Flats. Therefore, 
     based on our preliminary analysis, it appears that at least 
     portions of the cleanup work would be automatically 
     transferred to NNSA. These activities are not regulated under 
     the state hazardous waste law.
       In addition, national security functions and activities 
     performed by ``nuclear weapons production facilities'' are 
     also transferred. The definition in Sec. 3281(2)(F) of 
     ``nuclear weapons production facilities'' includes ``[a]ny 
     facility of the Department of Energy that the Secretary of 
     energy, in consultation with the Administrator and the 
     congress, determines to be consistent with the mission of

[[Page 21688]]

     the Administration.''``Mission'' is defined extraordinarily 
     broadly. Similarly, Sec. 3291(b) provides authority to the 
     Secretary of DOE to transfer any ``facility, mission, or 
     function'' that the Secretary, in consultation with Congress, 
     determines to be consistent with the mission. Under these 
     provisions, portions of the Rocky Flats cleanup, or the 
     entire site could be transferred to NNSA jurisdiction through 
     a simple administrative action.
       Colorado has worked very hard over the years to ensure that 
     it retains authority over the cleanup of Rocky Flats and 
     other federal facilities. The federal government has shown 
     time and again that it is not up to the task of regulating 
     its own facilities. Obviously, the state has a substantial 
     interest in ensuring that Rocky Flats is cleaned up in a 
     manner that will protect the citizens of this state now and 
     for centuries to come. Consequently, we are very concerned 
     about any legislative change that could be construed to limit 
     the regulatory authority we fought so hard to obtain through 
     the Federal Facility compliance Act of 1992.
       I am also concerned that the pending legislation would 
     delay the closure of Rocky Flats, and substantially drive up 
     cleanup costs. If work, or portions of work, at Rocky Flats 
     are transferred to the NNSA, it will likely cause delays 
     because of the need to coordinate actions between NNSA and 
     the Office of Environmental Management. Coordination will be 
     difficult because of NNSA's orientation toward weapons 
     production and stockpile stewardship, and because of the 
     NNSA's emphasis on secrecy. Delay means significant cost 
     increases. It costs about $1.5 million a day just to keep 
     Rocky Flats open. In addition, DOE facilities that Rocky 
     Flats depends on to close will be transferred to the NNSA. 
     The main one is the Nevada Test Site, where we send low-level 
     waste for disposal. Again, coordination with the NNSA will be 
     a problem.
       If part or all of Rocky Flats is transferred to the NNSA, 
     delay could also be anticipated as a result of reinvention of 
     security measures. DOE and its current contractors have made 
     considerable progress in reviewing national security 
     interests and tailoring security measures to appropriately 
     address risks actually posed by nuclear materials at the 
     site. This painstaking review has streamlined cleanup efforts 
     by ensuring that precious resources are not wasted in 
     complying with outmoded security measures that were not 
     related to actual risks. Any increased security requirements 
     at Rocky Flats will dramatically increase the time and money 
     it takes to conduct work in the industrialized Area at Rocky 
     Flats.
       Most environmental cleanup work at Rocky Flats is currently 
     being deferred in favor of deactivating and decommissioning 
     the buildings. Accelerating this ``D&D'' work is vital to 
     minimizing total cleanup costs because of the high cost of 
     maintaining buildings and security. But the result is that 
     environmental contamination cleanup is delayed. Given the 
     significant pressures on DOE's cleanup budget, it will become 
     increasingly difficult to ensure continued funding for these 
     lower-risk, but still very important, activities, especially 
     if we fail to meet our commitment that Rocky Flats will be 
     ``done'' in 2006.
       For decades, DOE and its predecessors operated the nuclear 
     weapons complex under a cloak of secrecy. The sad consequence 
     of this culture is a $150 billion legacy of environmental 
     contamination and aging facilities that pose risks to 
     workers, the public and the environment. The clear intent of 
     the reorganization provisions is to draw the cloak of secrecy 
     over the operations of the NNSA. While we absolutely must 
     ensure protection of national security, it would be folly to 
     ignore the clear lesson of the past and to extend this cloak 
     to cover DOE's environmental, safety, and health operations. 
     Moreover, there is no threat to national security in 
     retaining external state oversight of environmental, safety, 
     and health operations. As we mentioned in our previous 
     letter, Senator Rudman, in his Congressional testimony and in 
     his Report to the President recommended that responsibilities 
     for environment, health and safety functions remain with the 
     DOE Offices of Environmental Management and Environment, 
     Safety, and Health, and not be transferred to a new security 
     administration. Undoubtedly, this recommendation was based on 
     the Senator's awareness of the unfortunate ``environmental 
     mortgage'' created by years of self-regulation by weapons 
     complex.
       I understand that it may not be possible to address these 
     problems before the Defense Authorization bill is enacted. If 
     that is the case, and the bill done become law, I urge you to 
     ensure that these concerns are addressed at the earliest 
     possible opportunity.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ken Salazar,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____



                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 1999.

                  Oppose DOE Reorganization Proposals

       Dear Member of Congress: The Department of Energy 
     reorganization provisions in the conference agreement on the 
     pending Defense Authorization bill damage environmental 
     protection, worker health and safety, and national security. 
     In short, the conference report vests sweeping and 
     unprecedented authorities in a new agency (the National 
     Nuclear Security Administration) purportedly within the 
     Department of Energy, which makes it impossible for any 
     Secretary to run the Department. While I have supported the 
     concept of a semi-autonomous agency in the past, the 
     provisions in the conference report go far beyond what 
     constitutes a workable relationship between the Secretary of 
     Energy and the new agency.
       I hope you will oppose these reorganization proposals so 
     that changes can be made.
       The reasons for this recommendation are:
       1. As noted in a September 3rd letter from 46 State 
     Attorneys General, the bill jeopardizes the environment at, 
     and around, DOE facilities by potentially exempting the new 
     agency from State environmental requirements.
       2. The bill could degrade effective public health and 
     safety regulation of the nuclear defense complex by weakening 
     the Secretary's ability to direct its regulation independent 
     of the program's internal direction.
       3. The bill could isolate the Department's national 
     security components from meaningful Departmental oversight, 
     thus adding further insularity to the institutional isolation 
     and arrogance that were faulted on security grounds in the 
     Rudman report.
       4. The bill could degrade national security by rolling back 
     recent actions we have taken to identify and fix clear 
     responsibility and accountability in all the Department's 
     national security activities, including the 
     counterintelligence functions that were strengthened 
     according to Presidential Decision Directive 61.
       5. The bill could lead to an erosion of the strong links 
     between the weapons laboratories and the Department's science 
     programs, making recruitment of top scientists more difficult 
     and uncertain, thereby jeopardizing the task of sustaining 
     the nuclear deterrent without testing.


                            The environment

       In the September 3, 1999, letter mentioned above, 46 State 
     Attorneys General wrote the House leadership urging them to 
     oppose DOE reorganization provisions, which ``would impair 
     State regulatory authority'' and would ``weaken the existing 
     internal and external oversight structure for DOE's 
     environmental, safety and health provisions.'' They claim 
     that ``under well-established Supreme Court jurisprudence, 
     section 3261 could be interpreted as a very narrow waiver of 
     sovereign immunity, leaving the [new agency] exempt from 
     State environmental regulations, permits, orders, penalties, 
     agreements, and `non-substantive requirements'.''
       They go on to state that the provisions in the conference 
     report will undercut the following reforms:
       The Federal Facility and Compliance Act, passed by Congress 
     and President Bush in 1992, which clarified that states have 
     regulatory authority over DOE's hazardous waste management 
     and cleanup.
       Creation of an internal oversight entity in DOE, the Office 
     of Environment, Safety and Health.
       Creation of DOE's Office of Environmental Management, whose 
     mission is to safely manage DOE's wastes, surplus facilities 
     and to remediate its environmental contamination.
       No one now questions that the weapons complex during the 
     years of the Cold War left an enormous legacy of 
     environmental damage. DOE now oversees the largest 
     environmental cleanup program in the world. The Secretary of 
     Energy--with direct accountability to the President and the 
     public--should not be constrained in his ability to direct 
     actions through his experts to address that legacy. Yet the 
     conference report places numerous barriers between the 
     Secretary and the new agency, making it next to impossible 
     for the Secretary to fulfill the environmental 
     responsibilities of the Department of Energy.


                           Health and safety

       You may have read articles in the press over the past month 
     about possible worker exposure and environmental damage at 
     DOE's Paducah, Kentucky, site, where enriched uranium for 
     nuclear weapons has been produced. An issue there is whether 
     thousands of workers unwittingly handled materials tainted 
     with plutonium and other highly radioactive materials. This 
     summer a container at Los Alamos lab blew up, spreading 
     Technitium-99 all over a research room. Luckily the employees 
     were on their lunch break and no one was contaminated. At 
     DOE's Savannah River Site in late August plutonium 
     contamination was detected on seven workers after a 
     repackaging incident. And at DOE's Pantex plant in Texas a 
     fire in a nuclear weapons disassembly facility led to a 
     recent $82,000 civil penalty for the DOE contractor.
       The Secretary of Energy must be held responsible for 
     investigating these incidents and preventing accidents in the 
     future, yet the DOE reorganization proposal severely 
     undermines my ability to ensure basic health and safety 
     protection for workers.


                           National Security

       As you know, the Department of Energy is responsible for 
     our nuclear weapons stockpile. A more profound responsibility 
     you will

[[Page 21689]]

     not find in government. Yet the DOE reorganization proposal 
     all but severs the connection between the Secretary of Energy 
     and the program which oversees the stockpile. It is critical 
     that there be a seamless policy and management connection 
     between the President, the Secretary of Energy and the 
     program which develops nuclear weapons.


                    Counterintelligence and Security

       Presidential Decision Directive 61, in which the President, 
     after receiving extensively considered advice from the 
     intelligence community, determined that the nation's 
     intelligence, counterintelligence and security 
     responsibilities regarding nuclear matters must be 
     consolidated directly under the Secretary of Energy. The 
     report of the Select Committee led by Chairman Cox and 
     Ranking member Dicks on Chinese espionage emphasized that 
     these responsibilities must be placed at the highest level in 
     the Department. The DOE reorganization proposal would 
     overrule these judgments by establishing counterintelligence 
     and security offices in both the Department of Energy and the 
     new agency. These dual offices would inevitably create 
     confused lines of authority, undermining an aggressive, 
     professional counterintelligence and security effort.


                                Process

       Finally these extensive reorganization provisions will be 
     presented to the house for the first time in a conference 
     report--no hearings, no floor debate during House passage and 
     no conference debate. They were formulated and adopted behind 
     closed doors by the conferees.
       I hope you oppose these reorganization proposals in the 
     Defense conference report. If you have any questions, please 
     do not hesitate to call me.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                  Bill Richardson.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report to accompany S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2000. This legislation represents a significant improvement 
over the defense program presented to the Congress earlier this year by 
the Administration. It has been shepherded through the House and 
through the conference process by Republicans and Democrats with a deep 
desire to keep faith with the men and women in uniform who defend this 
Nation. Our bipartisan efforts have previously received overwhelming 
support in this House and this conference report also deserves such 
support.
  This legislation will provide the military equipment, training, pay 
and benefits, and adequate living and working conditions that is 
required to support the Nation's defense effort.
  As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
Facilities, I can assure the House that the conferees worked hard to 
address the impact of inadequate facilities and military housing on 
military retention and readiness. And, we have fully funded the most 
critical items for the coming year.
  S. 1059, like the legislation that passed the House earlier this 
year, rejects the incremental funding of military construction projects 
proposed by the Department of Defense. That scheme clearly was not in 
the interest of the taxpayer. It would have led to a delay in the 
delivery of needed facilities and would certainly have increased their 
cost.
  Frankly, the Department of Defense left the Congress with a broken 
military construction program for fiscal year 2000. To cite but one 
example, the conferees needed to add nearly $1.1 billion to the budget 
to adequately fund the Department's request to construct or renovate 
over 6,200 units of military family housing and begin the construction 
or renovation of 43 barracks, dormatories, and BEQs for the single 
enlisted--a requirement for which only $313 million was requested. This 
housing must be built and occupied as soon as possible and only full 
funding can accomplish that. In addition, the conferees agreed to fund 
an additional $136 million for 14 other military housing for both 
families and the single enlisted to further alleviate the continuing 
military housing crisis.
  While we could not fix all of the problems associated with the 
unfunded military requirements that continue to pile up due to the 
broad inattention of the Department to critical infrastructure 
upgrades, we have produced a good bill.
  From improving military infrastructure and ensuring continued access 
to critical military training areas, to a significant effort to enhance 
pay and benefits, to continuing our efforts to modernize the Nation's 
arsenal, and to protecting programs vital to the national security, S. 
1059 is comprehensive defense legislation that meets the real needs 
confronted everyday by ordinary Americans who are asked by their 
country to do extraordinary things on an almost daily basis. The men 
and women who volunteer--and I stress volunteer--to defend the liberty 
of this Nation deserve this bill. They deserve your vote. I urge every 
member to see this bill for what it is--that is, a meaningful and 
serious effort to deal comprehensively with our defense problems. 
Republicans and Democrats stood together to develop this legislation 
and we should continue to stand together to send this legislation to 
the President for his signature.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the vast majority of this 
bill, particularly the pay and retirement provisions. But this good 
bill is marred by some of the text that sets up a National Nuclear 
Security Administration as a semi-autonomous agency within the 
Department of Energy. I have reservations about the way these 
provisions were inserted into the bill with little discussion among the 
Members of the Conference Committee, and I have reservations about the 
substance of some of these provisions.
  I will not speak on the process of the conference at length, but I 
cannot dismiss it because I cannot remember the Congress acting on such 
an important matter with so little information and discussion among the 
Members of the conference committee. Neither the House nor the Senate 
Defense Authorization bill contained language requiring a comprehensive 
restructuring of the Department of Energy, yet we ended up with about 
50 pages worth of text. We did have Senator Rudman testify before the 
committee prior to conference, but we did not take testimony from the 
Energy Department itself, or from the old senior statesmen of the labs 
and nuclear weapons complex, men like Johnny Foster or Harold Agnew. 
The legislation that the conference committee ultimately produced was 
not vetted in any meaningful manner among the Members, the 
Administration, or outside experts. This is not a good process for an 
important piece of national security legislation.
  My first and foremost concern on the substance of the legislation is 
that we have blurred the lines of accountability when it comes to 
preventing and ferreting out future espionage at our nuclear labs and 
weapons complex. I think one thing we can all agree on is that 
counterintelligence requires a clear line of command and 
accountability. A clear chain of command was at the heart of 
Presidential Decision Directive 61, which the Cox Committee unanimously 
recommended be implemented. This legislation contradicts PDD 61 by 
setting up two different counterintelligence offices with overlapping 
responsibilities, and no clear direction on how the offices are 
supposed to interface with each other. The same problem exists in the 
respect to dual Inspectors General. I find it ironic that the 
restructuring provisions fail in what should have been its top 
priority: setting up clear lines of command and accountability on 
counterintelligence.
  My second and more general concern is that the Secretary's ability to 
conduct oversight of the complex could be seriously hampered by this 
legislation. We already know that the price of no oversight is a legacy 
of contaminated sites that will cost hundreds of billions to clean up. 
Revelations about contamination at Paducah show that we cannot 
disregard the health and safety concerns for workers in the nuclear 
weapons complex and the communities that surround these sites. The 
history of the last few decades tells us that the nuclear weapon sites 
and activities of the Department of Energy require more sunshine, more 
scrutiny, more oversight, not less. Any Secretary of Energy must have 
strong oversight authority, and I fear that this legislation detracts 
from rather than adding to the Secretary's oversight powers.
  Having criticized these provisions, let me say that I do not think 
they were drafted with bad intent. But they were drafted hastily, 
without adequate hearings, with no vetting among outside authorities, 
without the benefit of constructive criticism that comes in the mark-up 
process, and without any discussion among members of the conference 
committee. The best thing to do is to vote for this motion to recommit, 
cut out Title XXXII, and then pass the Authorization Act so that the 
pay raise for our troops is not delayed. We will have that opportunity 
when at the end of debate when Mr. Dingell offers a motion to recommit. 
If we pass that motion, we can then rework the reorganization 
provisions in Title XXXII and bring them back to the House in a stand-
alone bill, ensuring that our legislation will safeguard our nuclear 
security without returning us to the days when we operated a nuclear 
weapons complex with next to no responsible oversight.
  Mr RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, American military personnel and their 
families are making great sacrifices to protect the freedoms of this 
nation. The increased pace of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, 
combined with declining defense budgets, is severely degrading the 
quality-of-life of our military personnel.
  Mr. Speaker, the current decline in the military's ability to recruit 
and retain quality personnel can be directly attributed to the armed 
forces' declining quality-of-life.

[[Page 21690]]

  S. 1059, the Fiscal Year 2000 national Defense Authorization Act 
Conference report attacks the quality-of-life problems of today's 
military personnel by:
  Providing a 4.8 percent across-the-board pay raise.
  Improving retirement benefits by reforming and enhancing the 
retirement pay benefit.
  Initiating a Thrift Savings Plan for active duty and reserve 
personnel.
  Reducing out-of-pocket costs for housing by adding $225 million to 
the basic allowance for housing (BAH) account.
  Ensuring that military personnel live and work in quality facilities 
by adding over $3 billion to the President's underfunded military 
construction programs.
  Mr. Speaker, America's military personnel and their families are 
suffering from too many years of ``doing more with less.'' Congress 
must help remove the pressures felt by America's military personnel who 
put their lives on the line everyday to protect this nation's freedoms. 
I urge my colleagues to vote Yes on the Conference Report to S. 1059.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. DINGELL. Absolutely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dingell moves that the conference report be recommitted 
     to the committee of conference with instructions to the House 
     conferees that they insist on striking all provisions within 
     Title XXXII that limit any existing authority of the 
     Secretary to supervise, manage and direct the National 
     Nuclear Security Administration and all its personnel, to 
     retain authority to delegate that authority to any officer or 
     employee of the Department with respect to such particular 
     subject matter areas and activities as the Secretary 
     determines from time to time, to otherwise retain with 
     respect to the National Nuclear Security Administration all 
     management authorities provided by the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act as though that Administration was 
     established by that Act, to have authority to reorganize 
     organizational units reporting directly to the Secretary 
     governed by just the first sentence of section 643 of that 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7253), and to retain all authority previously 
     provided by section 93 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2122a) to determine governance of Special Access 
     Programs, including waiver of congressional notification 
     requirements as specified by law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
agreeing to the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 139, 
nays 281, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 423]

                               YEAS--139

     Ackerman
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Petri
     Phelps
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--281

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clayton
     Hastings (FL)
     Jefferson
     Kingston
     McKinney
     Millender-McDonald
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw
     Vitter
     Waters

                              {time}  1256

  Messrs. GEJDENSON, RADANOVICH and SHAYS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BAIRD, DAVIS of Illinois, EVANS, MARTINEZ and Ms. JACKSON-LEE 
of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 21691]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  The conference report was agreed to. Without objection the motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table.
  There was no objection.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for a recorded vote.
  Without objection, a recorded vote was ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 375, 
noes 45, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 424]

                               AYES--375

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--45

     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bliley
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dingell
     Ehlers
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Jackson (IL)
     Kucinich
     Lazio
     Lee
     Lowey
     Markey
     McKinney
     Minge
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Stark
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Dunn
     Edwards
     Green (WI)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hulshof
     Jefferson
     Kingston
     Millender-McDonald
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Shaw

                              {time}  1307

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 424, I was 
unavoidably detained on House business of critical importance to 
Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________