[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22011-22034]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has laid 
before the Senate the DOD authorization bill, and I inquire of the 
Chair if that is the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending business.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am prepared to stay here for the 
remainder of the evening. This is a very important subject. I am joined 
by the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin.
  However, I observed our distinguished colleague from New Mexico in 
the Chamber. It was my understanding he desired to lead off the 
comments on this bill tonight since the bill incorporates a very 
important provision which was sponsored by Senator Domenici, Senator 
Murkowski, and Senator Kyl. Seeing Senator Domenici I yield the floor 
to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, this bill 
is a very important bill. The part I worked on is very small. It has to 
do with reforming the Department of Energy as it pertains to the 
handling and maintenance of nuclear weapons and everything that goes 
with them.
  I compliment those who prepared the overall bill. It is a very good 
bill for the defense of our Nation, and it deserves the overwhelming 
support of the Senate.
  We had no other way to accomplish something very important with 
reference to a Department of Energy that was found to be totally 
dysfunctional, not by those who have tried over the years to build some 
strength into that Department, some assurance that things would be 
handled well, but rather by a five-member select board that represented 
the President of the United States, headed by the distinguished former 
Senator Warren B. Rudman.
  Those five members of the President's commission, with reference to 
serious matters that pertain to our national security, concluded that 
the Department of Energy could not handle the work of maintaining our 
weapons systems, maintaining them safe from espionage and spying, and 
could not handle an appropriate counterintelligence approach because 
there was no one responsible and, thus, everybody pinned the blame on 
someone else and we would get nowhere in terms of accountability.
  I ask unanimous consent that the names of the five members of that 
board be printed in the Record, with a brief history of who they are 
and what they have done in the past.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Panel Members

       The Honorable Warren B. Rudman, Chairman of the President's 
     Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Senator Rudman is a 
     partner in the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and 
     Garrison. From 1980 to 1992, he served in the U.S. Senate, 
     where he was a member of the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence. Previously, he was Attorney General of New 
     Hampshire.
       Ms. Ann Z. Caracristi, board member. Ms. Caracristi, of 
     Washington, DC, is a former Deputy Director of the National 
     Security Agency, where she served in a variety of senior 
     management positions over a 40-year career. She is currently 
     a member of the DCI/Secretary of Defense Joint Security 
     Commission and recently chaired a DCI Task Force on 
     intelligence training. She was a member of the Aspin/Brown 
     Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the Intelligence 
     Community.
       Dr. Sidney D. Drell, board member. Dr. Drell, of Stanford, 
     California is an Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics 
     and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He has served 
     as a scientific consultant and advisor to several 
     congressional committees, The White House, DOE, DOD, and the 
     CIA. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a 
     past President of the American Physical Society.
       Mr. Stephen Friedman, board member. Mr. Friedman is 
     Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Columbia University and 
     a former Chairman of Goldman, Sachs, & Co. He was a member of 
     the Aspin/Brown Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of 
     the Intelligence Community and the Jeremiah Panel on the 
     National Reconnaissance Office.


                              pfiab staff

       Randy W. Deitering, Executive Director; Mark F. Moynihan, 
     Assistant Director; Roosevelt A. Roy, Administrative Officer; 
     Frank W. Fountain, Assistant Director and Counsel; Brendan G. 
     Melley, Assistant Director; Jane E. Baker, Research/
     Administrative Officer.


                          pfiab adjunct staff

       Roy B., Defense Intelligence Agency; Karen DeSpiegelaere, 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation; Jerry L., Central 
     Intelligence Agency; Christine V., Central Intelligence 
     Agency; David W. Swindle, Department of Defense, Naval 
     Criminal Investigative Service; Joseph S. O'Keefe, Department 
     of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am just going to address three issues 
as it pertains to the reform of the Department of Energy as it pertains 
to nuclear weapons development.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. You opened by saying that this was a way to have the 
Senate address this important subject. Of course, the Senator is aware 
that the Armed Services Committee oversees about 70 percent of the 
budget of the Department of Energy, so this is a very logical piece of 
legislation on which to put the important provision. And, of course, 
you and I worked together on it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely.
  Mr. President, what I want to do is dispel any notion that the 
amendment that created a semiautonomous agency within the Department, 
to be headed by an assistant secretary who would be in charge of 
everything that has to do with nuclear weapons development--and they 
would do things in a semiautonomous way, not in the way that the rest 
of the Department of Energy does its business--is taking away the 
authority of the Secretary; that is, the Secretary of Energy.

[[Page 22012]]

  The Department of Energy is an amorphous Department put together at a 
point in history when a lot of things were dumped in there. Some have 
no relationship to other matters in the Department. And, yes, we put 
the nuclear defense activities in that Department.
  No one could contend that if the Congress of the United States, and 
the President concurring, wanted to take all of the nuclear weapons out 
of that Department and put them in an independent agency--which was one 
of the recommendations of the five-member panel--that that would be 
unconstitutional, illegal. And there would be no Secretary of Energy 
involved at all.
  The other suggestion was, rather than make it totally independent, to 
leave it within the Department and make it semiautonomous. We did that.
  The Secretary, and some of those arguing on behalf of a different 
approach, chose to say that the Secretary does not have enough to do 
and enough say-so about nuclear weapons development, and therefore it 
is wrong.
  I want to read from the bill's two provisions.

       In carrying out the functions of the administrator--

  That is the new person in charge of the semiautonomous agency--

     the undersecretary shall be subject to the authority, 
     direction, and control of the Secretary.

  Second:

       The Secretary shall be responsible for establishing policy 
     for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

  It goes on with two other provisions assuring that the overall policy 
is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
  But I remind everyone, had we chosen not to do that, it would have 
been legal. We could have taken it all out and had no Energy Secretary 
involved. We chose not to. We chose to say: Leave it there so there can 
be some cross-fertilization between the Energy Department's work and 
the nuclear activities on behalf of our military and our defense.
  We got this finished, and we made accommodation on the floor of the 
Senate with reference to the environment. Never was it intended that 
the semiautonomous agency would be immune from any environmental law. 
In fact, the first writing of this bill had a legal opinion that if you 
do not mention it, it is subject to all environmental laws.
  We came to the floor and some Members on the other side, I think 
quite properly, said: Why don't you specifically mention that the new 
semiautonomous agency is subject to the environmental laws? We did 
that. In fact, it says:

       The administrator shall ensure that the administration 
     complies with all applicable environmental, safety, health 
     statutes, and substantive requirements. Nothing in this title 
     shall diminish the authority of the Secretary of Energy to 
     ascertain and ensure that compliance occurs.

  Because we wrote it in, some quibble with the words that we used to 
write it in. Now they are saying: Are you sure you included everything? 
We thought we included everything by mentioning nothing; then we tried 
to include everything verbally and some said: You have to change the 
words because you really don't mean it.
  There is nothing to indicate that we have exempted or immunized any 
of our environmental laws in this statute. They are totally applicable. 
It is just that the new administrator applies them to the nuclear 
weapons department separate and distinct from the rest of the 
activities of the Department of Energy--and it is high time, in my 
opinion.
  There are some letters from attorneys general, and I just want to say 
I read some of them. I have no idea how they came to their conclusions. 
I will just cite one. The attorney general of Texas, in responding 
after he received an explanation of the bill from the distinguished 
chairman, Senator Warner, wrote a letter saying:
       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 
     NSAA--

  The new semiautonomous agency--

     from the same environmental laws and regulations applied 
     before the reorganization.

  For those attorneys general who are worried about Hanford out on the 
west coast--and it might be difficult for attorneys general in the 
States to be involved--let me remind them that facility does not even 
come under the jurisdiction of the new semiautonomous agency. It is not 
considered to be part of the current ongoing nuclear weapons 
activities.
  In closing, I just want to make sure that my fellow Senators 
understand that some people working in the Department of Energy will 
say almost anything about us trying to reform it. Secretary Richardson 
is doing a good job for a department that is dysfunctional. He wakes up 
every week with something that has gone wrong.
  We ought to start fixing it with the passage of this bill with a new 
semiautonomous agency in control. But there is a general that was hired 
named Habiger. He is the Secretary's czar for the Department right now. 
He went to the State of New Mexico and said--I am paraphrasing: I never 
involve myself in politics. Those are secret and private between me and 
my wife. However, in this case, I suggest that the creation of this 
semiautonomous agency is political.
  I tried to find out who was playing politics. Was it the five-member 
commission that I just cited, headed by Warren Rudman, with one of the 
members, Dr. Sidney Drell, one of the most refined and articulate and 
knowledgeable people on this whole subject matter? Were they playing 
politics? Was the Senate playing politics when we got an overwhelming 
vote? What is the politics of it?
  If you think the only way to preserve and maintain our nuclear 
weapons development and to maximize the opportunity for accountability 
and less opportunity for spying is to have a Secretary of Energy who 
runs that part of it, then you will not be happy. Because the truth of 
the matter is, the Secretary will be in charge overall, but there will 
be a single administrator in charge of this department in the future, 
with everything that has to do with nuclear, including its security; 
although in counterintelligence we have agreed with the administration, 
with the Secretary, and have permitted the counterintelligence to be in 
two places. There is a czar under the Secretary, and there will be 
somebody running the counterintelligence within the new semiautonomous 
agency.
  I ask unanimous consent that the story in the Albuquerque Journal 
regarding the distinguished general, who I suggested knows nothing 
about the Department of Energy--he has been there 3 or 4 months, and 
maybe he ought to learn a little more about it before he goes to New 
Mexico and elsewhere and mouths off about the independent 
semiautonomous agency--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Albuquerque Journal, Sept. 17, 1999]

                  Security Chief Pans New Nuke Agency

                            (By Ian Hoffman)

       The Security chief for the U.S. Department of Energy says 
     legislation creating a new nuclear-weapons agency inside DOE 
     is being driven by politics and could impair, rather than 
     promote, tighter security at the nation's nuclear weapons 
     labs.
       Gen. Eugene Habiger, the new DOE security czar, 
     acknowledges the Energy Department needs reform to fix 
     ``organizational disarray'' and a longstanding lack of 
     accountability.
       But the latest version of a bill to create the new National 
     Nuclear Security Administration actually will insulate the 
     new weapons agency from oversight of security for nuclear 
     secrets, he said.
       ``What you're doing is creating a bureaucracy within a 
     bureaucracy that's going to perpetuate the problems of the 
     past--lack of focus on security, lack of awareness of 
     security and lack of accountability,'' Habiger said Thursday 
     at Sandia National Laboratories while presiding over hearings 
     on proposed polygraph testing for weapons workers.
       House lawmakers approved the new weapons agency Wednesday 
     by voting overwhelmingly in favor of the 2000 Defense 
     Authorization Bill. Congress has billed the new agency as a 
     way to increase security and accountability in the wake of 
     China's alleged theft of U.S. nuclear-warhead designs.
       The new agency is largely the handiwork of Sen. Pete 
     Domenici, R-N.M., but the original legislation underwent 
     changes last

[[Page 22013]]

     month in a closed-door conference of select Senate and House 
     members. Habiger sees some of the changes as dramatically 
     reducing his authority to ensure security at the nuclear-
     weapons labs.
       ``I'm not political. Nobody knows my politics except my 
     wife,'' said Habiger, former commander in chief over the U.S. 
     Strategic Command. ``What's going on now--It's not about 
     security. It's about politics.''
       He declined to speculate on the political motivations in 
     Congress behind the new agency.
       Habiger's comments add to mounting criticism of the 
     legislation, which is being promoted by its authors as the 
     answer to lax security and poor accountability in the U.S. 
     nuclear-weapons program.
       The leading critics are states that host DOE facilities, 
     environmental watchdog groups and Energy Secretary Bill 
     Richardson.
       The National Governors Association and the National 
     Association of Attorneys General urged Congress earlier this 
     month to reconsider the legislation as written. They were 
     joined by 46 state attorneys general, including New Mexico's 
     Patricia Madrid. They say the bill stands to harm the 
     environment and the safety of workers and the public by 
     curtailing or eliminating oversight by the states, as well as 
     by the remainder of DOE itself.
       The bill would package DOE weapons work into its own semi-
     autonomous agency, with its own internal security, 
     environmental and safety apparatus. As such, the bill 
     codifies a more independent and insulated version of DOE's 
     Office of Defense Programs, a politically well-connected 
     office renowned for its resistance to outside oversight of 
     security, safety and environmental protection.
       In separate letters to Congress, the governors' association 
     and the attorneys general said the new agency would preserve 
     the self-regulation of the nuclear weapons complex that has 
     left a legacy of more than 10,000 contaminated sites. Cleanup 
     or fencing off of those sites could take 75 years, at a DOE 
     estimated cost of at least $147 billion.
       ``For over four decades, DOE and its predecessors operated 
     with no external (and little internal) oversight of 
     environment, safety and health,'' the attorneys general 
     wrote. ``Over the past 12 years or so, the disastrous 
     consequences of this self-regulation have become plain . . . 
     Much of this land and water will never be cleaned up.''
       To date, many of the nation's toughest environmental and 
     safety laws and regulations still contain explicit exemptions 
     for the U.S. nuclear-weapons complex, its wastes and worker 
     safety.
       Richardson forced the resignation in May of former 
     Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs Vic Reis, partly for 
     Reis' role in pressing lawmakers for the new agency and 
     partly for his failure to attend to security at the weapons 
     labs.
       Habiger took Richardson's offer to become director of DOE's 
     newly formed Office of Security and Emergency Operations on 
     several conditions. Habiger insisted he work directly with 
     Richardson and report solely to him. He also requested full 
     control of the department's security apparatus and its entire 
     $800 million security budget.
       The new bill transfers emergency operations to the deputy 
     administrator of the new weapons agency. And it provides the 
     agency with its own security and counterintelligence 
     authority and funding, Habiger said.
       The changes threaten to roll back the tightened security 
     measures that he and Richardson have taken in recent months, 
     Habiger said.
       ``Unfortunately, the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration Act would derail this progress,'' he said. 
     ``The bill would negate the president's ability to hold the 
     Secretary of Energy responsible for managing the nation's 
     nuclear defense and production complex. It would strip the 
     secretary's responsibility to determine and manage sensitive 
     classified programs. And it would shield DOE's nuclear 
     defense work from the rest of the department's regimens, 
     insulating it from secretarial oversight, supervision and 
     scrutiny. . . . To continue our work, we need expanded 
     oversight at the nuclear labs, not the insulated system this 
     bill proposes.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. With that, I yield the floor and say I hope the Senate, 
by bipartisan, overwhelming majorities, passes this bill with this 
amendment on it, which is going to be good for America, good for 
nuclear weapons, and it will diminish the chances for spying and 
counterintelligence to work against our nuclear weapons in the secrets 
that are so imperative. Let's look back on this day and say we finally 
did something to move in the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have had the real privilege of working 
with Senator Domenici on this particular amendment from its inception. 
Together with Senators Murkowski and Kyl, we crafted this very 
carefully.
  The original concept was adopted by the Senate in the consideration 
of the intelligence bill. We then incorporated it in our bill, and we 
worked it with the House. I will go into further details.
  Throughout, Senator Domenici has been really the leader of this 
effort. The Senate owes Senator Domenici a deep debt of gratitude for 
his perseverance on this provision. I am sure that America will 
recognize that service because it is in the best interests of the 
country. It was not motivated by politics. It was crafted carefully on 
the report of our distinguished colleague, Senator Rudman, who, of 
course, is one of the principal advisors to the President on 
intelligence and other matters. He was selected by the President to do 
this report. So we thank you, I say to the Senator.
  Last night, Senator Domenici took the initiative of going down to see 
the President. I was privileged to accompany him and join in that 
meeting. We were going to have a meeting for, I suppose, 20 minutes or 
so. The President had just arrived. He still had a little mud on his 
boots from visiting a flood area and was in his clothes from the trip, 
his casual clothes. He was preparing his address to the United Nations.
  But he stopped to take the time to carefully evaluate the concern of 
the Senator from New Mexico, and a meeting of 20 minutes lasted well 
over an hour on this and other subjects. But primarily he has a grasp 
of the issues. He asked specific questions. And the Senator from New 
Mexico, together with his able staff member, Alex Flint, who was also 
there with us, responded.
  The Senator from New Mexico talked to one question tonight. But I 
wanted to raise the second question and put it in the Record.
  He will recall the concern he had about the split provision and where 
it was. I went back, researched, and found in our record a letter dated 
July 29 from Jacob Lew, Director of the Executive Office of the 
President, Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Lew wrote me the 
following:
       I understand that Representative Spence has proposed an 
     amendment for the FY 2000 defense authorization bill 
     conference concerning the creation of a National Nuclear 
     Security Administration at the Department of Energy. The 
     Administration strongly opposes this language because it does 
     not provide sufficient authority to the Secretary of Energy 
     to assure proper policy development for, and oversight of, 
     the new organization at the Department of Energy. The 
     language jeopardizes the creation of sound 
     counterintelligence, intelligence, and security efforts, and 
     environmental, safety, and health compliance activities at 
     the new organization. If this legislation were presented to 
     the President, his senior advisors would recommend that it be 
     vetoed.

  We carefully tried to take into consideration Mr. Lew's concerns. We 
drafted that provision for that specific reason. So we were trying to 
follow the directions of the Director of Budget.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a short 
letter from me to the President thanking him for the meeting last 
night, containing a copy of this letter and explaining just how we 
arrived at that provision. But I think it would be helpful for the 
record if the Senator from New Mexico were to expand on the President's 
question and the response of the Senator.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 1999.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Thank you for meeting with Senator 
     Domenici and me last night to discuss the Department of 
     Energy (DOE) reorganization provisions in the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Conference 
     Report.
       You expressed concern last night with the organization of 
     counterintelligence functions within DOE and the National 
     Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The provisions in the 
     conference report were crafted in response to a July 29, 
     1999, letter from Office of Management and Budget Director, 
     Jacob Lew, which stated that the Administration would oppose 
     language that does not ``ensure that the Secretary is 
     provided sufficient authority to assure proper policy 
     development for, and oversight of, the new organization

[[Page 22014]]

     . . .''. The letter identified ``counterintelligence, 
     intelligence, security, and environment, safety and health 
     compliance activities'' as the organizational areas of 
     concern.
       Chairman Spence and I took Director Lew's letter very 
     seriously and modified the conference report specifically to 
     address the concerns in his letter. We modified the 
     conference report by establishing the Office of 
     Counterintelligence, which would be responsible for 
     establishing all counterintelligence policy for the 
     Department and for integrating such policies across 
     organizational lines. I would point out that the Senate-
     passed DOE reorganization framework placed all responsibility 
     for counterintelligence in the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration.
       Mr. President, let me again convey the importance of the 
     Defense Authorization Act to the men and women in uniform. 
     The soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, their families and 
     veterans are aware of the increased benefits in the 
     conference report and are looking to you to follow through on 
     your promises to them. I strongly encourage you to sign the 
     bill when it is sent to you.
           Respectfully,
     John Warner.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1999.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that Representative Spence 
     has proposed an amendment for the FY 2000 defense 
     authorization bill conference concerning the creation of a 
     National Nuclear Security Administration at the Department of 
     Energy. The Administration strongly opposes this language 
     because it does not provide sufficient authority to the 
     Secretary of Energy to assure proper policy development for, 
     and oversight of, the new organization at the Department of 
     Energy. The language jeopardizes the creation of sound 
     counterintelligence, intelligence, and security efforts, and 
     environmental, safety, and health compliance activities at 
     the new organization. If this legislation were presented to 
     the President, his senior advisors would recommend that it be 
     vetoed.
            Sincerely,
                                           Jacob J. Lew, Director.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will not take much time because there 
are so many people who want to speak to this bill and its many other 
ramifications.
  My assessment was that the President was concerned about the 
environmental provisions. We went through it very carefully. I believe 
the President was satisfied that what we had done was intended to keep 
this semiautonomous agency totally within the purview of every 
environmental law of this land.
  The second issue, obviously, had to do with counterintelligence 
because the Department under Bill Richardson had gone to a great deal 
of effort to create a policymaking mechanism for counterintelligence 
and had appointed somebody to be in charge of it. The amendment in its 
original form did not account for that. It put all of the 
counterintelligence within the new, semiautonomous agency.
  That issue was raised with Chairman Rudman as he testified, and, as 
the distinguished chairman of the full committee indicates, it was 
raised to the committee by Mr. Lew from the OMB. Perhaps the good point 
was made. I think it could have gone either way. But I am certain that 
everybody involved in security will say it is all right the way it is.
  Secretary Richardson made the point that there are some 
counterintelligence issues that are broader and apply in different 
places within the Department than just in the nuclear weapons part. You 
shouldn't have two kinds of policies developed on counterintelligence. 
So we said the policy will be developed in the Office of the Secretary 
and it will be implemented and carried out in toto for the nuclear part 
by the semiautonomous agency, and the Assistant Secretary, or 
administrator--whichever we choose to call him--implements this 
provision.
  I believe those are the most important issues of which we spoke.
  I think the President clearly understood that you could manage a 
nuclear weapons system without a Secretary of Energy. You could do it 
similar to NASA, with perhaps a board of directors, and he even 
commented that certainly would not be illegal. But the point is, we 
want to leave it in the Department. But when you leave it there, you 
have to make it somewhat autonomous or you haven't changed anything. I 
think by the time we were finished that was well understood.
  I believe we have a good bill with reference to reforming this 
Department. I think within a couple of years you will see security in a 
much better shape. I think you will see ``accountability'' as a word of 
which you will not only speak but you will know who is accurate. And it 
is high time, in my opinion.
  I thank the distinguished Senator, Mr. Warner, for involving me again 
here tonight.
  I think I have said enough. I yield the floor. I hope the Senate 
passes this tomorrow overwhelmingly.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thought it very important and as a 
courtesy to the President that this be a part of the legislative 
history of this bill. Senator Domenici has given an excellent 
explanation.
  So this part of the Record contains all the information that is 
pertinent, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the attorneys 
general, to which our distinguished colleague, Mr. Domenici, referred, 
likewise be printed in the Record so that those studying this issue 
will have in one place all of the pertinent material.
  I thank the Senator.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                               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 statute.


    nnsa compliance with existing environmental regulations, order, 
   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,

[[Page 22015]]

     agreements, permits, court orders, or non-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 semi-autonomous 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 which 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.
       (c) 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 
     further language to make it abundantly clear that the 
     Secretary retains the authority to assign environmental 
     compliance oversight to the Office of Environment, 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 on 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 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.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                            Attorneys General,

                                Washington, DC, September 3, 1999.
       Re Department of Energy Reorganization.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
                                  ____

       Dear Senators Lott and Daschle; and Representatives Hastert 
     and Gephardt: We write to express our serious concerns with 
     certain provisions of the Department of Defense (``DOD''.) 
     Authorization bill as reported by the House/Senate conference 
     committee on August 4, 1999. Title XXXII of the bill would 
     create a new, semi-autonomous entity within the Department of 
     Energy (``DOE'') called the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration (``NNSA''). We recognize the need to ensure 
     national security at DOE, and acknowledge the strong 
     Congressional interest in restructuring DOE to address these 
     concerns. However, any such restructuring must not 
     subordinate the states' legitimate environment, safety, and 
     health concerns to weapons production and development. We 
     fear that the proposed bill will have this unintended 
     consequence. We urge you to oppose those provisions of Title 
     XXXII that would weaken the existing internal and external 
     oversight structure for DOE's environmental, safety and 
     health operations.
       For over four decades, DOE and its predecessors operated 
     with no external (and little internal) oversight of 
     environment, safety and health. Over the past twelve years or 
     so, the disastrous consequences of this self-regulation have 
     become plain. DOE now oversees

[[Page 22016]]

     the largest environmental cleanup program in the world. DOE 
     has contaminated thousands of acres of land, and billions of 
     gallons of groundwater. Much of this land and water will 
     never be cleaned up. Instead, states and the federal 
     government will have to ensure these contaminated areas 
     remain isolated or contained for hundreds or thousands of 
     years. Achieving even this sad legacy will cost $147 billion, 
     according to DOE's most recent estimates. As recent 
     revelations about worker health and safety at DOE's Paducah, 
     Kentucky, plant further demonstrate, we should not return to 
     the era of self-regulation.
       Congress and President Bush responded to these concerns in 
     1992 by passing the Federal Facility Compliance Act, which 
     clarified that states have regulatory authority over DOE's 
     hazardous waste management and cleanup. DOE also made 
     internal reforms. It created an internal oversight entity in 
     the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health. It also 
     created the Office of Environmental Management, whose mission 
     is to safely manage DOE's wastes, surplus facilities, and to 
     remediate its environmental contamination.
       Title XXXII of the Defense Authorization bill would 
     undercut each of these reforms. It would impair State 
     regulatory authority, eliminate DOE's internal oversight of 
     environment, safety and health, and transfer responsibility 
     for waste management and environmental restoration to the 
     entity responsible for weapons production and development. 
     The following provisions of the bill are particularly 
     troubling:
       Under well-established Supreme Court jurisprudence, section 
     3261 could be interpreted as a very narrow waiver of 
     sovereign immunity, leaving the NNSA exempt from state 
     environmental regulations, permits, orders, penalties, 
     agreements, and ``non-substantive requirements.''
       Sections 3212(b)(8) and (9) make the NNSA responsible for 
     environment, safety and health operations, and section 
     3291(c) clarifies that this includes environmental 
     restoration and waste management. Under this arrangement, 
     environmental concerns would likely take a back seat to 
     production.
       Together, sections 3202, 3213(a) and 3213(b) provide that 
     the NNSA's employees and contractors would not be subject to 
     oversight by the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health.
       Section 3296, intended as a savings clause, will not 
     preserve application of existing laws and regulations because 
     of the introductory phrase ``unless otherwise provided in 
     this title.''
       Against these provisions, section 3211's unenforceable 
     exhortation that the Administrator shall ensure the NNSA's 
     operations are carried out ``consistent with the principles 
     of protecting the environment and safeguarding the safety and 
     health of the public and of the workforce'' is of little 
     comfort.
       Enhancing national security does not have to be 
     inconsistent with protecting environment, safety, and health. 
     But as set forth in Title XXXII, it is. Unfortunately, there 
     have been no hearings where states could comment on the 
     language of this bill. The provisions we are concerned about 
     surfaced in the conference committee. We urge you to oppose 
     the DOE reorganization provision, Title XXXII, as proposed in 
     the Defense Reauthorization bill. If Congress believes that 
     reorganization is necessary to resolve security issues at 
     DOE, such changes should be accomplished through the regular 
     legislative process, with hearings that provide an 
     opportunity for states and others who are concerned about the 
     environmental, safety and health consequences to have their 
     views heard before a final vote.
           Sincerely,
         Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, 
           President, NAAG.
         Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas, Vice 
           President, NAAG.
         Ken Salazar, Attorney General of Colorado.
         Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General of Maine, President-
           Elect, NAAG.
         Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, Immediate 
           Past President, NAAG.
         Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General of Alaska.
         Mark Pryor, Attorney General of Arkansas.
         Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut.
         Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida.
         John Tarantino, Acting Attorney General of Guam.
         Janet Napolitano, Attorney General of Arizona.
         Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California.
         M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of Delaware.
         Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General of Georgia.
         Earl Anzai, Attorney General Designate of Hawaii.
         Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of Idaho.
         Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana.
         A.B. ``Ben'' Chandler III, Attorney General of Kentucky.
         Tom Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts.
         Mike Hatch, Attorney General of Minnesota.
         Jim Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois.
         Tom Miller, Attorney General of Iowa.
         J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland.
         Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General of Michigan.
         Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri.
         Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana.
         Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General of New Hampshire.
         Patricia Madrid, Attorney General of New Mexico.
         Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina.
         Maya B. Kara, Acting Attorney General of the Northern 
           Mariana Islands.
         Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada.
         John F. Farmer Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey.
         Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York.
         Heidi Heitkamp, Attorney General of North Dakota.
         Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio.
         W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma.
         D. Michael Fisher, Attorney General of Pennsylvania.
         Paul Summers, Attorney General of Tennessee.
         Jan Graham, Attorney General of Utah.
         Hardy Myers, Attorney Myers, Attorney General of Oregon.
         Jose A. Fuentes-Agostini, Attorney General of Puerto 
           Rico.
         John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas.
         William H. Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont.
         Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General of West 
           Virginia.
         Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General of Wyoming.
         James E. Doyle, Attorney General of Wisconsin.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say for the Record that there 
are so many people who have worked hard on this legislation. I don't 
want the Record to even imply that I was more responsible than others. 
Maybe I worked earlier than some. But Senator Kyl worked very hard. 
Senator Murkowski conducted some marvelous hearings on the subject. 
Both the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Intelligence 
were greatly involved and, in fact, participated in helping us with 
this and supported it wholeheartedly.
  The Senators on the floor from the Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Bingaman and Senator Levin, contributed to some positive things on the 
floor that were changed as a result of their concerns. I think 
altogether we have a bill that will work.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again I thank Senator Domenici.
  The Record should reflect the valuable contributions by the staff 
members who worked on this amendment: Alex Flint of Senator Domenici's 
staff, John Roos of Senator Kyl's staff, Howard Useem of Senator 
Murkowski's staff, and Paul Longsworth of my staff, and the Armed 
Services Committee staff.


                        Privileges Of The Floor

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent Clint Crosier, a fellow from 
Senator Smith's office, be granted floor privileges during the DOD 
authorization debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I also ask unanimous consent that staff members of the 
Committee on Armed Services on the list I send to the desk be extended 
privileges of the floor during consideration of this conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows:

                     Armed Services Committee Staff

       Romie L. Brownlee, Staff Director.
       David S. Lyles, Staff Director for the Minority.
       Charles S. Abell, Professional Staff Member.
       Judith A. Ansley, Deputy Staff Director.
       John R. Barnes, Professional Staff Member.
       Christine E. Cowart, Special Assistant.
       Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Professional Staff Member.
       Madelyn R. Creedon, Minority Counsel.
       Richard D. DeBobes, Minority Counsel.
       Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Chief Clerk.
       Kristin A. Dowley, Staff Assistant.

[[Page 22017]]

       Edward H. Edens IV, Professional Staff Member.
       Shawn H. Edwards, Staff Assistant.
       Pamela L. Farrell, Professional Staff Member.
       Richard W. Fieldhouse, Professional Staff Member.
       Mickie Jan Gordon, Staff Assistant.
       Creighton Greene, Professional Staff Member.
       William C. Greenwalt, Professional Staff Member.
       Joan V. Grimson, Counsel.
       Gary M. Hall, Professional Staff Member.
       Shekinah Z. Hill, Staff Assistant.
       Larry J. Hoag, Printing and Documents Clerk.
       Andrew W. Johnson, Professional Staff Member.
       Lawrence J. Lanzillotta, Professional Staff Member.
       George W. Lauffer, Professional Staff Member.
       Gerald J. Leeling, Minority Counsel.
       Peter K. Levine, Minority Counsel.
       Paul M. Longsworth, Professional Staff Member.
       Thomas L. MacKenzie, Professional Staff Member.
       Michael J. McCord, Professional Staff Member.
       Ann M. Mittermeyer, Assistant Counsel.
       Thomas C. Moore, Staff Assistant.
       David P. Nunley, Staff Assistant.
       Cindy Pearson, Security Manager.
       Sharen E. Reaves, Staff Assistant.
       Anita H. Rouse, Deputy Chief Clerk.
       Joseph T. Sixeas, Professional Staff Member.
       Cord A. Sterling, Professional Staff Member.
       Madeline N. Stewart, Receptionist.
       Scott W. Stucky, General Counsel.
       Eric H. Thoemmes, Professional Staff Member.
       Michele A. Traficante, Staff Assistant.
       Roslyne D. Turner, Systems Administrator.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this evening we consider the conference 
report to accompany S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2000.
  I am pleased to report for the first time in 15 years--I want to 
repeat that and let it sink in, 15 years--the defense budget before the 
Senate represents a real increase above the normal allowance we make 
for inflation. This is above inflation for defense spending.
  I rejoice in that as all members of our committee do. I am hopeful 
that all Members of the Senate, likewise, do. We authorize $288.8 
billion in defense funding for next year, which is $8.3 billion above 
the President's budget request, and a 4.4-percent real increase in 
spending from last year.
  I acknowledge the roles particularly of the Members of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff who appeared before the Armed Services Committee on two 
occasions. We have a longstanding tradition in our committee that when 
these individuals are confirmed before our committee, we obtain from 
them a commitment that at any time the committee desires to receive 
their personal, professional, military opinion on matters, and those 
issues could be contrary to the policies of the administration which 
they proudly serve, they will be received.
  These individuals testified to the needs of their respective services 
which were over and above the dollar figures, the budget allocations 
set by OMB and, indeed, the administration. That gave the foundation of 
evidence that enabled Members, first in committee, and then before this 
body, in passing the bill to get the increased sums I have just 
referenced--$8.3 billion above the President's budget request.
  The President himself this year took an initiative to get additional 
defense spending. To the credit of our former colleague, Senator Cohen, 
he, likewise, was very supportive of the President and took the 
initiative that led to the President increasing the defense budget. 
However, our committee was of the opinion, again, based largely on the 
testimony of the Joint Chiefs, that we needed dollars above the 
President's figure and we obtained them.
  First, a quick review of the precarious international situation. 
Remember, much of the budget consideration started with the problems in 
Bosnia, the problems with reference to Kosovo. All during that 
timeframe, the committee was holding hearings and working on its 
budgets. Most recently, the crisis in East Timor. Incidentally, in 
consultation with the President, I indicated I supported the action of 
sending U.S. troops as a part of the security force under the U.S. 
auspices to save the people of East Timor.
  But I mention this is a very troubled world. It is a far different 
one than when I first came to the Senate 21 years ago, when it was a 
bipolar world dominated by the Soviet Union, at that time, and the 
United States as the two superpowers. We didn't realize the degree of 
stability we had during that period of the two superpowers in a bipolar 
world, but we appreciate it in today's world where we see so many 
ethnic, religious, and racial tensions which have now come to the 
forefront and have exploded into strife in various areas of the world. 
Russia evolved from that sort of crisis. But it does not remain, of 
course, as a superpower.
  Many nations, therefore, and the United Nations, have turned to the 
United States as the sole remaining superpower to solve new types of 
conflicts and tensions around the world. We are called upon to be--to 
use a phrase which I dislike, but it is well ingrained in the media--
the world's policeman. We are not the world's policeman. Our 
President--in my judgment too many times, but nevertheless by and large 
I have supported him on most of the occasions, such as East Timor--has 
directed our Armed Forces beyond our shores more times than any 
President in the history of the United States of America. All this to 
say that is justification for the additional defense spending, 
justification for the very significant sum of money embraced in this 
bill.
  It is fascinating to pause and go back and examine just what has 
transpired in a very brief period of time in our history. We face and 
bear these new developments with a force that is overstretched around 
the world and operating on a shoestring. Over the past decade, our 
military manpower has been reduced by one-third, from 2.2 million men 
and women in uniform to now 1.4 million in uniform. At the same time, 
during that decade, those very young, magnificently trained, dedicated, 
committed young men and women were involved in 50 military operations 
worldwide. At the same time that we came down in force structure, up 
rose the number of occasions in which the Commander in Chief--
successively, three Commanders in Chief--have deployed them throughout 
the world.
  By comparison, let's look at another chapter of history. From the end 
of the war in Vietnam, 1975, until 1989, U.S. military forces were 
engaged in only 20 military operations. What a sharp contrast, and it 
is reflected by the ever-increasing threat from weapons of mass 
destruction; that is, weapons composed of fissile material, biological 
material, and chemical materials.
  All of the ethnic and religious and racial tensions that are breaking 
out all over the world--that is the reason the President has had to 
send for our troops to meet these crises, but troops which are 
diminishing overall in numbers. It is critical the funding and the 
authorities contained in this conference report be quickly enacted into 
law so we can send a very clear message--we, the Congress of the United 
States--send a very clear message to our troops: We are behind you. We 
recognize that you are stretched. We recognize the hardships on your 
families. We recognize the risks you are taking. And we, the Congress, 
have responded by increasing the defense budget, by increasing the 
money for your salaries, increasing the money so that your salaries can 
begin to move up--and I carefully say move up--towards salaries 
commensurate with those in the private sector.
  A sergeant in our military today with, say, 4 or 5 years of service 
and training in a specialty can command a much higher salary in the 
private sector. How well we know that because they are not staying. Our 
retention of those well-trained people is at levels below the needs of 
the military. That is why, sergeant, we are raising your salary. That 
is why, captain, major, we are raising your salary. Because we know you 
are at that juncture in your career where you have to make a decision 
for yourself--and your family, in most cases--as to whether to stay at 
this current salary or go into the private sector where you can get a 
10, 15,

[[Page 22018]]

20, 30, 100 percent increase in salary. We recognize your commitment to 
your country, your selflessness to serve your Nation, and joined with 
your family, we give you this recognition in this bill of a very 
significant pay raise, together with certain retirement benefits which 
more nearly meet your long-term projected goals.
  This is personnel reform. I thank Senator Lott, who initiated 
correspondence with the President of the United States just as soon as 
this session of the Congress began and pointed out to the President the 
need for certain personnel reforms. In weeks thereafter, he was joined 
by other Senators--Mr. McCain, Mr. Roberts--and the committee, in every 
respect that we could, followed the goals those three individuals laid 
down in devising this pay and benefits and retirement bill.
  The result of this conference report is to aggressively close the gap 
between military and private sector wages by providing a 4.8-percent 
pay raise and ensuring military personnel will be compensated more 
equitably. We did not get it all the way up to where they can draw a 
line equal to the private sector, but we came a long way.
  The military retirement system will be reformed by providing military 
personnel with a choice. They will be allowed to choose to revert to 
the previous military retirement system or accept a $30,000 bonus and 
remain under the Redux system. This may not be clear to all those who 
are not familiar with it, but I assure you this retirement system was 
derived by our committee and legislated by the Senate as a whole and 
adopted by the conference after the closest consultation with the 
senior uniformed personnel, as well as all grades and ranks, to make 
sure we got it right this time. I am pleased to give my colleagues that 
assurance. We did get it right.
  Military members will also be given the opportunity to participate in 
the Federal Thrift Savings Program; again, an incentive for them to 
remain in the military.
  During the course of our review, the committee found the single most 
frequent reason departing service members cite is that of family 
separation, occasioned most often by the back-to-back deployments of 
the uniformed member who has family, be it a male or a female, to the 
various parts of the world to meet the requirements of 50 deployments 
in this past decade. That puts a strain on families. For us, those who 
have the relative enjoyment of being with our families at all times, it 
is hard to understand. You are given orders: In 72 hours you are going 
to be aboard that plane or that ship and you have to leave your family 
and go abroad for, most often, an indefinite period of time.
  Let every young wife and let every child put themselves in the place 
of a military family where your father, or, indeed, your mother as the 
case may be, comes home and says: My orders read I must leave in 72 
hours and I am not sure when I will be back. That is a tough lifestyle. 
But these young people are accepting it. I hope as a consequence of 
this bill, greater numbers will elect to retain their current positions 
and continue to advance and serve this country in their expertise.
  In addition to enhancing the quality of life for military personnel, 
this bill focuses on providing our Armed Forces the tools they need to 
meet their commitments worldwide. For example, this year the bill 
provides for $1.5 billion increased funding above the President's 
request for military readiness. This includes an additional $939 
million to reduce equipment and infrastructure maintenance backlogs, 
$179 million for ammunition, and $112 million for service training 
centers.
  The conference report also stresses the problem of aging 
infrastructure by fully funding $8.5 billion in military construction 
projects, which is $3 billion above the administration's request. Much 
of this additional funding is targeted for housing and other projects 
that will enhance the quality of life of the men and women in the Armed 
Forces--just really meeting the basic requirements for a standard and a 
quality of life that they have earned many times over.
  The conference report also contains additional information about the 
modernization and specific provisions covering modernization and 
research and development funding to provide the requirement 
capabilities for the future. We try to look out a decade. What are the 
likely adversaries we will have 10 years from now, and what will be 
their military capabilities in terms of hardware? What is it the United 
States needs, to begin now or to continue research and development on, 
so as to meet those threats 10 years out and meet and exceed the 
capabilities of the military equipment likely to be in the possession 
of our adversaries a decade hence.
  The F-22 is a clear example of that. Senator Stevens, with whom I was 
consulting earlier this evening, is doing the very best he can to 
restructure, with the House of Representatives, that program so we can 
continue to develop that vital aircraft. I say vital because this 
Nation has adopted so many, if not all, of its military plans for 
combating an enemy on the concept of air superiority.
  We have had air superiority since the Korean war, in which I played a 
very modest role as a communications officer in the First Marine Air 
Wing. That was the last war--in Korea--in which we lost airmen as a 
consequence of aerial combat. Our distinguished colleague, Senator 
Glenn, who retired last year, was very much involved in that. That is 
the last time we experienced a threat in air-to-air combat from 
military aircraft of any great significance.
  There has been an isolated case here and there. I know at one point 
in time several planes took off during the Kosovo operation, but they 
were quickly knocked down and sent back to their bases. The same thing 
happens in Iraq today. Periodically, Saddam Hussein sends them up. They 
make a U-turn and scatter back home very quickly. Again, the reason 
they scatter back home quickly is the reason Milosevic was unsuccessful 
in his aircraft: Because we have air superiority. That is in air-to-
air.
  Where we must stay abreast in air superiority is in what we call 
ground-to-air missiles. That is an entirely different threat and one 
that, every day that goes by, other nations are getting capability to 
shoot from the ground into the air, at almost all the altitudes at 
which our aircraft operate, very dangerous missiles to knock down our 
aircraft. It is for that reason we have to have the F-22 and other 
modern aircraft which provide for our men to maintain air superiority.
  The bill authorizes $55.7 billion in procurement funding, $2.7 
billion more than the President's request, and $36.3 billion in 
research and development spending, $1.9 billion more than the 
President's request. In considering where to add money, the conferees 
focused on those items contained in the service chiefs' list of 
critical unfunded requirements.
  We did not just go straying off. We said to the chiefs: We recognize 
the President set a budget target within which you had to do your 
budgeting; but in the event the coequal branch of our Government--the 
legislative branch, the Congress--comes along and makes a determination 
that more money should be added to this budget, then where, in your 
professional judgment, should that money be added: In the Department of 
the Army? The Department of the Navy? The Department of the Air Force? 
That is what we used as guidance in adding moneys over and above the 
President's request to specific programs.
  Our Nation is facing very real threats from the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, information 
warfare, and drug trafficking. These are the dangerous threats that 
keep our Nation's leaders up at night and that require substantial 
investments to counter. To meet these challenges, the Emerging Threats 
Subcommittee--under the superb leadership of Senator Roberts--pursued a 
number of initiatives that were adopted by the conference including 
authorizing 17 new National Guard RAID Teams to respond to terrorist 
attacks in the United States; initiating better oversight of DOD's 
program to combat

[[Page 22019]]

terrorism; and establishing an Information Assurance Initiative to 
strengthen DOD's information security program.
  Now let me discuss the provisions in the bill that would reorganize 
the national security functions of the Department of Energy. A degree 
of controversy has arisen over these provisions and I wish to outline 
for my colleagues what the conference report does and, specifically, 
what it does not do.
  The conference report includes a subtitle that would restructure the 
Department of Energy by consolidating all of its national security 
functions under a single, semi-autonomous agency within DOE, known as 
the National Nuclear Security Administration. This action represents 
the first significant reorganization of DOE in over 20 years and is in 
direct agreement with the June 1999 recommendation from the President's 
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which called for the creation of 
``a new semiautonomous Agency * * * whose Director will report directly 
to the Secretary of Energy.''
  There have been countless other reports that have questioned the 
management structure of the Department. But by far, the President's own 
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board had the most damming assessment. 
This report states that ``the Department of Energy, when faced with a 
profound public responsibility, has failed.'' The report goes on to say 
that ``the Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has 
proven it is incapable of reforming itself''.
  It has been asserted that the conference report could diminish the 
role of the States in DOE cleanup actions and blur the authority of the 
Secretary of Energy to manage the national security function of the 
Department. Let me state clearly that each of these accusations are 
wholly untrue.
  Language to maintain environmental protection was included that is 
identical to the language in the amendment offered by Senators Levin, 
Bingaman, and others in the Senate. This amendment was included in the 
DOE reorganization provision which overwhelmingly passed the Senate by 
a vote of 96-1 as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act. This vote 
on a very similar reform package as contained in the conference 
agreement demonstrated the clear intent of Congress that the current 
management structure at the Department was broken and was in need of 
reform.
  With regard to the authority of the Secretary of Energy, the 
conferees were very careful and could not have been clearer in 
retaining the authorities of the Secretary necessary to manage, direct, 
and oversee the activities of the new Administration. I and most of the 
other conferees believe this new DOE organizational framework will 
dramatically streamline the management of our Nation's nuclear weapons 
labs, establish clear accountability, and ensure full compliance with 
the Secretary of Energy's direction and all applicable environmental 
laws.
  Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, however, has indicated that this 
new organizational framework would make it ``impossible for any 
Secretary of Energy to run the Department.'' Let me say, with all due 
respect to my good friend Mr. Richardson, I disagree. I was a Secretary 
of a military department and know what is required to make an 
organization work. I believe that the organizational structure that is 
created in this conference report could be successfully managed by a 
strong Secretary of Energy--and he should step up to this challenge.
  In conclusion, I want to thank all the members and staff of the 
conference committee for their hard work and cooperation. This bill 
sends a strong signal to our men and women in uniform and their 
families that Congress fully supports them as they perform their 
missions around the world with professionalism and dedication. Many 
organizations including The Military Coalition and The National 
Military and Veterans Alliance, two consortiums of nationally prominent 
military and veterans organizations representing millions of current 
and former members of the uniformed services, their families and 
survivors, strongly endorse enactment of this bill.
  I am confident that enactment of this bill will enhance the quality 
of life for our service men and women and their families, strengthen 
the modernization and readiness of our forces and begin to address 
newly emerging threats to our security. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
the recommendations of the conference committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from supporting organizations 
and a list of the staff members of the Armed Services Committee be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           The Military Coalition,


                                  201 North Washington Street,

                               Alexandria, Va, September 15, 1999.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Military Coalition, a consortium of 
     nationally prominent veterans organizations representing more 
     than five million members of the uniformed services plus 
     their family members and survivors, is grateful to you and 
     the Armed Service Committee for your leadership in crafting 
     the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. The Coalition 
     strongly supports enactment of S. 1059.
       S. 1059 contains numerous initiatives to improve retention 
     and the quality of life of members of the uniformed services 
     and their families, including pay raises and enhancements in 
     the post-1986 retirement system--both imperative to reverse 
     the serious degradation in personal readiness the services 
     are now experiencing. In addition, it addresses recruiting 
     shortfalls, spare parts shortages, training accounts and 
     deteriorating infrastructure.
       Favorable floor action on the pay, retirement and quality 
     of life initiatives in S. 1059 will send a powerful signal to 
     the men and women in the uniformed services and their 
     families that this Nation fully appreciates the sacrifices 
     they are making and recognizes the vital role they play in 
     ensuring a strong national defense.
       The Military Coalition has urged every members of the 
     Senate to vote in favor of this important legislation when if 
     comes to the floor.
           Sincerely,
                                           The Military Coalition.
       Air Force Association.
       Air Force Sergeants Association.
       Army Aviation Assn. of America.
       Assn. of Military Surgeons of the United States.
       Assn. of the US Army.
       Commissioned Officers Assn. of the US Public Health 
     Service, Inc.
       CWO & WO Assn. US Coast Guard.
       Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the US.
       Fleet Reserve Assn.
       Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
       Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
       Marine Corps League.
       Marine Corps Reserve Officers Assn.
       Mililary Order of the Purple Heart.
       National Guard Assn. of the US.
       National Military Family Assn.
       National Order of Battlefield Commissions.
       Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn.
       Naval Reserve Assn.
       Navy League of the US.
       Reserve Officers Assn.
       Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces.
       The Military Chaplains Assn. of the USA.
       The Retired Enlisted Assn.
       The Retired Officers Assn.
       United Armed Forces Assn.
       USCG Chief Petty Officers Assn.
       US Army Warrant Officers Assn.
       Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US.
       Veterans Widows International Network, Inc.
                                  ____

                                             National Military and
                                                Veterans Alliance,
                                               September 13, 1999.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Military Veterans Alliance 
     (NMVA)--a group of 20 military and Veterans organizations 
     with over 3 million members and their 6 million supporters 
     and family members--strongly supports the Defense 
     Authorization Act for FY 2000.
       We are encouraged and pleased by the Conference Agreement 
     on the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. 
     The Act contains many substantive improvements for active and 
     retired service members and should assist the armed services 
     in attracting and maintaining a quality force. NMVA 
     appreciates the fine work of your Committee on this important 
     legislation which provides for a continued strong national 
     defense.
       This legislation will improve pay and compensation, and 
     will improve the quality of life for military members and 
     their families. It is an excellent step to strengthen our 
     nation's defense and deserves prompt passage. A unanimous 
     vote would let our brave young

[[Page 22020]]

     men and women know that the nation values their courage and 
     dedication to duty.
       We appreciate your past efforts on behalf of our men and 
     women in uniform and look forward to working with you to 
     safeguard our national security. You have our full support 
     for this conference report.
           Sincerely,

         Grant E. Acker, National Legislative Director, Military 
           Order of Purple Heart; Deirdre Parke Holleman, Gold 
           Star Wives of America; James Staton, Executive 
           Director, Air Force Sergeants Association; Mark H. 
           Olanoff, Legislative Director, The Retired Enlisted 
           Association; Bob Manhan, Veterans of Foreign Wars; 
           Robert L. Reinhe, Class Act Group; Doug Russell, 
           President, American Military Society; Richard D. 
           Murray, President, National Association for Uniformed 
           Services; Frank Ault, Executive Director, American 
           Retirees Association; Arthur C. Munson, National 
           President, Naval Reserve Association; Richard Johnson, 
           Executive Director, Non Commissioned Officer 
           Association; J. Norbert Reiner, National Service 
           Director, Korean War Veterans Association; Dennis F. 
           Pierman, Executive Secretary, Naval Enlisted Reserve 
           Association; Brian Baurnan, Director, Tragedy 
           Assistance Program for Survivors.
                                  ____

         Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public 
           Health Service,
                                               September 14, 1999.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Commissioned Officers Association (COA) of the United States 
     Public Health Service, a private, nonprofit, professional 
     organization comprised of officers of the Commissioned Corps 
     of the Public Health Service. My purpose in writing is to 
     commend you for your leadership in crafting S. 1059, the 
     conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2000.
       More than any legislation in recent memory, this 
     legislation focuses on ``people'', providing substantial 
     enhancements to the quality of life of our men and women in 
     uniform. In addition, the conference report addresses the 
     critical issues of readiness and modernization, placing this 
     country's national defense capacity on a more solid footing 
     as we enter the next century.
       COA deeply appreciates your efforts and your personal 
     resolve to ensure the highest standard of readiness for all 
     seven of our country's uniformed services. We stand ready to 
     assist you with passage of this very important piece of 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Michael W. Lord,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                             Navy League of the United States,

                                Arlington, VA, September 16, 1999.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 70,000 members of the 
     Navy League of the United States, I want to thank you and the 
     members of the Senate Armed Services Committee for your 
     leadership and hard work regarding S. 1059, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
       As you know, S. 1059 contains several initiatives that are 
     critical to improving the quality of life and retention of 
     our highly trained men and women in uniform, particularly the 
     4.8 percent pay raise, and a restructuring and restoration of 
     the military retirement system. Additionally, the bill begins 
     to address the serious shortfalls in recruiting, spare parts, 
     training accounts and deteriorating infrastructure that is 
     confronting our armed forces.
       Quick passage of S. 1059 will send a strong signal to our 
     service members and their families that Congress and our 
     Nation support and recognize the hard work and long hours 
     they endure to guarantee our safety and freedom.
       The Navy League, as a civilian patriotic organization, is 
     dedicated to the support of America's sea services and 
     enthusiastically encourages every member of the Senate to 
     vote in favor of this bill when it comes up for final 
     consideration.
       With best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John R. Fisher,
     National President.
                                  ____



                                      National Association for

                                           Uniformed Services,

                              Springfield, VA, September 13, 1999.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Association for Uniformed 
     Services (NAUS) represents all grades, all ranks, and all 
     components for the seven uniformed services to include family 
     members and survivors as well as over 500,000 members and 
     supporters.
       We are encouraged and pleased by the Conference Agreement 
     on the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. 
     We appreciate the fine work of your Committee on this 
     important legislation. The Act contains many substantive 
     improvements for active and retired service members and 
     should assist the armed services in attracting and 
     maintaining a quality force. NAUS strongly supports final 
     passage of this important legislation to provide for a 
     continued strong national defense.
       This legislation will improve pay and compensation, and 
     will improve the quality of life for military members and 
     their families. It is an excellent step to strengthen our 
     nation's defense and deserves prompt passage. A unanimous 
     vote would let our brave young men and women know that the 
     nation values their courage and dedication to duty.
       We appreciate your past efforts on behalf of our men and 
     women in uniform and look forward to working with you to 
     safeguard our national security. You have our full support 
     for this legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                            Richard D. Murray,

                                 Major General, U.S.A.F., Retired,
     President.
                                  ____


                     Armed Services Committee Staff

       Romie L. Brownlee, Staff Director.
       David S. Lyles, Staff Director for the Minority.
       Charles S. Abell, Professional Staff Member.
       Judith A. Ansley, Deputy Staff Director.
       John R. Barnes, Professional Staff Member.
       Christine E. Cowart, Special Assistant.
       Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Professional Staff Member.
       Madelyn R. Creedon, Minority Counsel.
       Richard D. DeBobes, Minority Counsel.
       Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Chief Clerk.
       Kristin A. Dowley, Staff Assistant.
       Edward H. Edens IV, Professional Staff Member.
       Shawn H. Edwards, Staff Assistant.
       Pamela L. Farrell, Professional Staff Member.
       Richard W. Fieldhouse, Professional Staff Member.
       Mickie Jan Gordon, Staff Assistant.
       Creighton Greene, Professional Staff Member.
       William C. Greenwalt, Professional Staff Member.
       Joan V. Grimson, Counsel.
       Gary M. Hall, Professional Staff Member.
       Shekinah Z. Hill, Staff Assistant.
       Larry J. Hoag, Printing and Documents Clerk.
       Andrew W. Johnson, Professional Staff Member.
       Lawrence J. Lanzillotta, Professional Staff Member.
       George W. Lauffer, Professional Staff Member.
       Gerald J. Leeling, Minority Counsel.
       Peter K. Levine, Minority Counsel.
       Paul M. Longsworth, Professional Staff Member.
       Thomas L. MacKenzie, Professional Staff Member.
       Michael J. McCord, Professional Staff Member.
       Ann M. Mittermeyer, Assistant Counsel.
       Thomas C. Moore, Staff Assistant.
       David P. Nunley, Staff Assistant.
       Cindy Pearson, Security Manager.
       Sharen E. Reaves, Staff Assistant.
       Anita H. Rouse, Deputy Chief Clerk.
       Joseph T. Sixeas, Professional Staff Member.
       Cord A. Sterling, Professional Staff Member.
       Madeline N. Stewart, Receptionist.
       Scott W. Stucky, General Counsel.
       Eric H. Thoemmes, Professional Staff Member.
       Michele A. Traficante, Staff Assistant.
       Roslyne D. Turner, Systems Administrator.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I commend my good friend from 
Virginia for his work on this bill and his leadership in the committee. 
It is a bipartisan style of leadership, and it is very productive. I 
commend him on it. It sets the kind of style which I hope will permeate 
this body in all the things we do, but it is absolutely essential in 
the national security area that we act in this way. He carries on a 
great tradition in doing so.
  The conference report for the national defense for the fiscal year 
2000 is a good bill, with one problem, and that problem is the 
provisions relating to the reorganization of the Department of Energy 
nuclear weapons complex. Because of the deficiencies in the DOE 
reorganization provisions, I declined to sign the conference report on 
this bill, but, at the time, I stated I would decide how to vote on the 
bill after a more careful analysis and a public airing of the 
provisions.
  Back to the Department of Defense side of the bill because this is 
almost two bills but one conference report. We have a Department of 
Defense authorization bill, in its more traditional

[[Page 22021]]

style, addressing the issues which we typically address, and we have 
this new kid on the block, this Department of Energy reorganization 
part of this bill, which is the problematic part.
  The Department of Defense portion of the bill is a good agreement. It 
was reached through bipartisan and cooperative discussion among 
ourselves in the Senate and with our House colleagues. This conference 
report should go--and will go, in my judgment--a long way to meet the 
priorities established for our military by Secretary Cohen and the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  I very much agree with our good friend, Senator Warner, as to what he 
said about this part of the bill and the priorities it sets, how it 
spends the additional funds. In accordance with the fiscal year 2000 
budget resolution, the bill includes an $8.3 billion increase in budget 
authority above the level provided in the President's budget. Unlike 
the budget increases in past years, the added money in this bill will 
be spent in a manner in which the Department of Defense indicates it 
has the highest priorities.
  That is a very important point. The chairman made the point in his 
remarks that, relative to the additional funds, we solicited from the 
Department what their highest priorities are and tried to reflect those 
priorities.
  The bottom line is that this bill will go a long way to improve the 
quality of life for our men and women in uniform, it will improve the 
readiness of our military, and it will continue the process of 
modernizing our Armed Forces to meet the threats of the future.
  Some of the add-ons, as I have indicated, the so-called increases, 
represent the highest-priority readiness items identified by the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, including an added $788 million for real property 
maintenance, something we frequently neglect and delay but which is 
essential--real property maintenance is not a glamorous item, but it is 
very important to quality of life and to readiness--$380 million was 
added for base operations; $172 million for ammunition; $112 million 
for training center support; $151 million for depot maintenance. These 
are items that too frequently get shortchanged. In each case, these 
items will significantly enhance the ability of our Armed Forces to 
carry out their full range of missions.
  As far as the members of the military are concerned, this is probably 
the most important Defense Authorization Act in recent years because of 
the improvements it will make in pay and benefits for the women and men 
in uniform.
  The bill includes the triad of pay and retirement initiatives sought 
by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs: A 4.8-percent military pay 
raise for fiscal year 2000, reform of the military pay table to 
increase pay for midcareer NCOs and officers, and changes to the 
military retirement system. These changes should go a long way in 
addressing recruiting and retention problems in the services. My 
greatest disappointment in this area is that we were not able to enact 
the GI bill improvements that were proposed by Senator Cleland this 
year.
  I think every Member of this body wants to do everything they can to 
ensure the men and women in uniform receive fair compensation for the 
service they provide to their country. Secretary Cohen and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff made a persuasive case that the military is facing real 
recruiting and retention problems and that improvements in pay and 
benefits in the conference report are a critical element of any plan to 
address the recruiting and retention problems.
  There are other important provisions in this bill as well. For 
example, the bill reported by the Armed Services Committee provides 
full funding for the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program with 
Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, although it 
would terminate work on the Russian chemical weapons destruction 
facility. Unfortunately, two of the three companion programs at the 
Department of Energy, the initiative for proliferation prevention and 
the nuclear cities initiatives, received less funding than requested by 
the administration.
  The bill also contains some unfortunate restrictions on those two 
programs at the Department of Energy which are going to limit the 
effectiveness of these programs. Nonetheless, the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program and those related Department of Energy programs are a 
cornerstone of our relationship with Russia, and although the DOE 
programs were not funded at the level requested, nonetheless they are 
funded at a significant level and these programs play an important role 
in our national security by reducing the threat of proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction from Russia and rogue nations with which 
Russia may form closer ties in the absence of those programs.
  There were other disappointments as well. In addition to the 
reduction of the requests for the DOE programs that I mentioned, 
Senator Well-stone's amendment to provide some relief for a group of 
veterans who contracted serious illnesses after being exposed to 
radiation while participating in nuclear tests or while serving at 
Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the war, adopted in the Senate, was not 
accepted in conference because when we got to conference, the House 
conferees said the amendment would increase the so-called mandatory or 
entitlement spending, and they had no jurisdiction on that issue. As a 
result, they would not agree to include this provision in the 
conference report. That is a disappointment. It is a disappointment to 
me, and I think it will be a disappointment to those veterans who were 
so exposed.
  But the conference report, again, has so many important provisions 
that we should look at the whole DOD report and weigh that as a whole. 
When we do that, it seems to me the Department of Defense portion of 
this bill makes a very large contribution to national security and the 
effective management of the Department of Defense--including other 
provisions such as the provision establishing new procedures to protect 
the military's access to essential frequency spectrum; such as the 
provision requiring the Department to establish specific budget 
reporting procedures for all funds to combat terrorism, both at home 
and abroad; such as a series of provisions to improve the effectiveness 
and efficiency of health care provided to service men and women under 
the TRICARE program; such as provisions promoting reform of the 
Department of Defense financial management systems; such as the 
provisions promoting more effective management of the defense 
laboratories and test and evaluation facilities; such as provisions 
extending the Department's small disadvantaged business goals and its 
mentor-protegee program for small disadvantaged businesses for 3 years.
  As I indicated, this conference report is really two bills. It is a 
DOD authorization bill, but it is also a reorganization of the entire 
Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex. It does the latter in a 
way which is inconsistent with the bill that was passed by the Senate 
by a vote of 96-1 earlier this year, inconsistent in a number of 
important ways.
  It goes beyond anything that has even been considered by the House of 
Representatives. While there is a broad consensus that we need to 
address the management and accountability programs at DOE, particularly 
in the areas of security and counterintelligence, the provisions in 
this bill could undermine Secretary Richardson's efforts to secure our 
nuclear secrets and make the Department even more difficult to manage 
than it is today.
  That is the question we struggle with and that I and a number of the 
members of our committee have struggled with, and I know Members of 
this body are struggling with that as well--the final provisions that 
were put in the conference report to try to analyze: What is the 
difference, if any, between these provisions in the conference report 
and the Senate provisions which we adopted to implement the 
semiautonomous agency recommendation of Senator Rudman?
  So I wrote a letter to the Congressional Research Service requesting 
an independent assessment of the impact

[[Page 22022]]

of the conference report on the ability of the Secretary of Energy to 
manage the Department's nuclear weapons programs. The CRS memorandum 
prepared in response to my letter this month raises serious questions 
about the impact of the Department of Energy reorganization provisions 
in this conference report.
  The CRS concluded that the Secretary's authority over the new 
National Nuclear Security Administration ``may be problematic in view 
of the overall scheme of the proposed legislation.'' For instance, the 
CRS memorandum raises the question about ``whether it is possible, or 
desirable in practice, to split policy and operations in organizational 
terms''; and asks whether the practice of insulating administration 
staff offices from departmental staff offices ``effectively vitiate[s] 
the meaning of the earlier provisions assigning the Secretary full 
authority and control over any function of the Administration and its 
personnel.''
  The CRS memorandum also points out the legislation would permit the 
administrator of the new National Nuclear Security Agency to 
``establish Administration-specific policies, unless disapproved by the 
Secretary of Energy.'' And the CRS points out that ``This procedure 
reverses the general practice in the departments and to the extent that 
the Secretary is not the issuing authority, a major tool of management 
and accountability is shifted to a subordinate office.''
  If this legislation were interpreted, as the CRS indicates it could 
be interpreted, to undermine the authority of the Secretary, it would 
have the perverse effect of diffusing responsibility in the Department, 
leaving reporting channels even more ``convoluted, confusing, and 
contradictory'' than those observed by the Rudman Commission.
  I supported the Rudman recommendation and still do. The Rudman 
recommendation recommends a semiautonomous entity inside the Department 
of Energy. But what the CRS report does is raise questions about 
whether or not this language--which is different from the Senate 
language which was overwhelmingly adopted--in this conference report 
goes beyond semiautonomous.
  None of the models of a semiautonomous agency cited by the Rudman 
Commission in its report--the National Reconnaissance Office; the 
National Security Agency; the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, or DARPA; or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration, NOAA--limit the authority of the Cabinet Secretary 
responsible for the agency as much as these provisions seem to do.
  However, the ambiguities in this bill may leave open another choice. 
We are dealing with ambiguities in language. So we have to look at: Are 
there other interpretations, other choices which may be available in 
light of these ambiguities?
  In particular, there is language which can be construed to give 
authority to the Secretary which might allow him to run this agency, 
called the Department of Energy, in a way which will provide 
accountability in the Secretary because he is the one to whom we must 
look to be accountable. We want him to be able to run the agency.
  That is why it is called a semiautonomous entity in the Rudman 
report. They do not recommend an autonomous entity. They recommend a 
semiautonomous entity. They cite models, the ones I have just 
indicated, which allow the Secretary of the agency in question to run 
his agency, including all parts of it, including the semiautonomous 
parts.
  There is language in this conference report which remains which does 
point towards the ability of the Secretary to run his entire agency, to 
be accountable and responsible for it.
  I want to just read some of that language.
  For instance, the new administration--this new entity--is established 
``within the Department of Energy'', and is therefore subject to the 
direction and control of the Secretary.
  The Secretary of Energy, in this conference report--not the head of 
the new entity, the under secretary, but the Secretary of Energy--is 
responsible for ``developing the security, counterintelligence, and 
intelligence policies of the Department'' under section 214.
  For instance, the Department's counterintelligence chief, not his 
subordinate in the new administration, is ``responsible for 
establishing policy for counterintelligence programs and activities at 
Department facilities in order to reduce the threat of disclosure or 
loss of classified and other sensitive information at such facilities'' 
under section 215.
  Another example of language pointing toward accountability in the 
Secretary--where we want it, ultimately, in this Department or any 
Department--is that the Secretary of Energy, not the new under 
secretary but the Secretary of Energy himself, is given continuing 
responsibility for the security and counterintelligence problems within 
the Department's nuclear energy defense programs by sections 3150, 
3152, 3154, and 3164 of the bill.
  Other language which may give some comfort to those of us who are 
concerned about the diffusion of accountability in this new language--
not adopted by the Senate, not adopted by the House, but put into the 
conference report--other language which may hopefully give some comfort 
is that the Secretary of Energy, not the new under secretary, is given 
the responsibility for appointing the Chief of Defense Nuclear 
Counterintelligence and the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security within 
the new administration.
  I think one can fairly argue that the authority to establish 
Department-wide policies carries with it the authority to ensure that 
such policies are carried out. On that basis and on the basis of these 
other provisions I have just quoted, this legislation could be 
interpreted to give the Secretary of Energy continuing authority to 
manage the Department, including the authority to direct and control 
the new National Nuclear Security Administration.
  So while it is unfortunate that this bill has confused reporting 
relationships and blurred lines of authority, I believe a strong 
Secretary of Energy may be able to overcome these difficulties and 
address the Department's problems in an effective manner. He should not 
have to be confronted with these difficulties, but he may be able to 
overcome them. We will need to continually reexamine these provisions 
and modify them as appropriate to ensure that the Secretary and the 
Department have the tools they need to ensure the security of our 
nuclear deterrent.
  The National Association of Attorneys General has raised an important 
concern about this legislation. In two letters dated September 3, 1999, 
to the President and the congressional leadership, the National 
Association of Attorneys General states that the DOE reorganization 
provisions in this bill ``would weaken the existing internal and 
external oversight structure for DOE's environment, safety, and health 
operations.''
  Here again, the Secretary of Energy may be able to overcome the 
ambiguities in the bill and exercise strong independent oversight over 
the new administration, ensuring that applicable laws, regulations, and 
agreements protecting health, safety, and the environment continue to 
be enforced. This legislation then may be ratified by the courts 
consistent with its intent--which we put in the Senate version of this 
bill--to make no change to existing substantive and procedural 
mechanisms for enforcing such laws, regulations, and agreements.
  I wish these flawed DOE reorganization provisions had not been added 
in conference. As a matter of fact, adding extraneous material in this 
way is a dubious legislative practice that too often results in unsound 
legislation. The concerns raised by attorneys general should serve as a 
reminder to all of us of the hazards of trying to legislate on complex 
issues in a conference committee convened to deliberate on unrelated 
matters.
  I am going to vote for this bill because I believe it is possible 
that the DOE reorganization provisions can be

[[Page 22023]]

interpreted in a manner that will permit the sound management of the 
Department of Energy and because the provisions are a part of what is 
otherwise a good bill. If the DOE reorganization mandated by this bill 
proves to create problems, we will then have to consider solutions to 
those problems in the future. We are going to need to monitor this bill 
closely as it is implemented.
  We don't know if the President will or will not veto this bill. 
Perhaps the President indicated to my good friend from Virginia last 
night at the meeting. But we do not have any indication as to whether 
or not the President will veto this bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to make clear 
for the record, while I addressed the President about the importance of 
the bill as a courtesy to him, I never tried to elicit that response. 
But I certainly left that meeting with the impression, No. 1, that the 
President has given a lot of study to the issues that my distinguished 
good friend and colleague, Senator Levin, has raised tonight. He is 
carefully briefed on it. His questions were very precise on it.
  Senator Domenici and I provided responses which I hope were quite 
informative to the President. But I in no way wish to indicate that he 
likewise indicated what he would do.
  I certainly have the impression from that meeting and from everything 
else I gained that there is not as much fervor down at the White House 
for a veto, and I am confident that Secretary Cohen likewise 
contributed his views to the President on this. I am confident he urged 
the President to sign. He is the principal Cabinet officer involved.
  With regard to Secretary Richardson, he has always been, I think, 
well received by the Members up here who have listened to his overtures 
on this question. I spoke with him about 10 days ago in my office. I 
told him at that time precisely what the Senator from Michigan just 
said--that I thought, to the extent there are ambiguities, together 
with valuable legal counsel--and I also mentioned this to the President 
last night--I am confident he can run this Department. If he has the 
desire and the commitment to do so, he can operate this Department. The 
Constitution provides for separate branches of Government. The 
President has the administration of the executive branch. He delegates 
certain responsibilities to his Cabinet officers. It was not the 
intention of the Congress to take away from the President's authority.
  I am very pleased, if I may say to the President and to the Senator 
from Michigan, that I learned tonight the Senator from Michigan will 
vote in favor of this bill. I was terribly concerned that at the time 
he couldn't sign the conference report. But he, too, has fought the 
good battle in terms of his views about this reauthorization. I take 
those to heart.
  Let us look at this in a positive light--that this Secretary will 
take the reins and look at this statute. It challenges him to run a 
strong Department. It is my expectation that he will do it and that in 
a period of reasonable time he will have proven not only to his 
Department but to all of us in the executive branch and the legislative 
branch that this can be done.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and my colleague, because I value our work 
and relationship. We came to the Senate together 21 years ago. We have 
been through many struggles. And for the foreseeable future we have 
certainly another year to work together to devise a bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Virginia. We are, indeed, not 
only old colleagues but dear friends.
  Mr. President, as I indicated, I will be voting for this bill 
tomorrow. I believe it is again possible that the reorganization 
provisions of the Department of Energy can be interpreted in a manner 
that will permit the Department to be managed soundly. It is my hope 
that that will be the case.
  If in fact the President decides to veto this matter--we do not know 
what he will do--then obviously I, for one, will be willing to consider 
any arguments and reasoning that might be proposed. But I have no 
reason to know that that is forthcoming. We just have no indication 
that in fact a veto is or is not forthcoming. We simply have to do what 
we, in our best judgment, believe is best. Of course, we are always 
willing to consider any thoughts or reasoning of the President if and 
when a veto message is received.
  Finally, I want to again thank our good chairman. He has put together 
a bill with provisions in it that are going to make a real difference 
for the men and women in our military. As the ranking member of this 
committee, I have worked very closely with him. Republicans and 
Democrats on this committee don't always agree, but we surely agreed on 
the end point, which is that the well-being of the men and women in our 
military and the security of this country has to be first and foremost. 
It is not a partisan issue. The constructive leadership which our 
chairman has always provided on so many issues has been part of a great 
tradition of the Armed Services Committee.
  As he rightfully points out, our staffs are essential to that 
contribution. We all strive to make a bipartisan contribution to the 
security of this Nation. We succeed at times. I am sure we don't 
succeed at other times, as hard as we try. But we would not succeed to 
the extent we do but for the staffs who also work on a bipartisan 
basis. Dave Lyles, Les Brownlee, and all of our staff under their 
leadership are essential to the successes that we have.
  I, like the chairman, want to thank our subcommittee chairman and all 
the members of our committee for their work during the past year, 
starting with the subcommittee hearings this spring and the good work 
in this bill that is aimed at improving the quality of life for men and 
women in the military. Their readiness and their support will indeed 
have that impact and will have that positive effect we so fervently 
wish for.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague for 
these many years. It is a personal privilege and a pleasure to work 
with him. He represents so many of the values and traditions which make 
this institution great. I know full well his dedication to the men and 
women of the Armed Forces. I have never known a Senator who more 
conscientiously goes into every issue--I don't want to use the word 
``agonizes,'' but can he give me a better word?
  Mr. LEVIN. I wish I could.
  Mr. WARNER. To explain the endless hours in which he and his staff go 
over the most minute details. Indeed, we owe a great debt of gratitude 
to our staff.
  I would like to make one recommendation to my good friend from 
Michigan. You need a deputy director. I have Judith Ansley. If the 
Senator from Michigan had a magnificent deputy director like her to 
help him curtail the top hands--Les Brownlee and David Lyles--it would 
be great, and I would see to it that the Senator got a little money 
from the budget for that.
  Mr. LEVIN. I was just going to say that sounds like an invitation to 
a budget request, and tomorrow morning we will surely try to have one 
on the chairman's desk.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have done our job.
  I can't tell the Senator from Michigan the great respect that I have 
for him. I know how difficult this provision on the Energy 
reorganization has been. It is on our bill for valid reasons. We have 
somewhere between two-thirds and 70 percent of the funds that go into 
that Department under our overview. We do careful overview on the 
weapons program.
  But the fact that the Senator from Michigan has announced tonight 
that he will support that bill is very important. I think it will be 
important to the President as he carefully deliberates such petitions 
as may be before him by the Secretary of Energy and others on this 
issue.
  Mr. President, I think we have concluded. I thank the Chair and the 
staff of the Senate.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference 
Report on S. 1059, the National Defense

[[Page 22024]]

Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000. As the Chairman Emeritus of 
the Armed Services Committee, I know the challenges faced by Chairman 
Warner in reaching a consensus between the House and the Senate on the 
National Defense Authorization Bill. Therefore, I congratulate the 
Chairman on his leadership and his tenacity on behalf of our national 
security and the men and women who have dedicated themselves to 
protecting our Nation. This is a superb bill that provides for a strong 
national defense, and, more importantly, includes significant 
provisions to provide for the welfare of our soldiers, sailors, airmen 
and Marines and their families.
  Mr. President, first and foremost, the Conference Report increases 
the President's budget request by more than $8.0 billion. This increase 
is based on last September's testimony by our most senior military 
leaders who identified a need for an additional $18.5 billion to 
resolve the most critical readiness issues. Although the increase 
provided for in the conference report is still short of the Chiefs' 
identified needs, it, coupled with other improvements in the report, 
will provide the necessary resources to resolve the most critical 
readiness issues.
  Following closely in importance to the readiness funding are the 
provisions that improve the quality of life and welfare of our military 
personnel. They include a 4.8 percent pay raise, reform of the military 
pay tables, and annual military pay raises one-half percent above the 
annual increases in the Employment Cost Index. Additionally, the 
conference report makes major changes to the retirement system and 
allows both active and reserve component personnel to participate in 
the same Thrift Savings Plan that is available to other federal 
employees. These provisions are important steps toward increasing 
retention and resolving the current recruiting crisis.
  Mr. President, the Nation owes its military personnel the best it can 
provide. In these times between crisis, the Nation tends to forget 
their sacrifices and contributions to the Nation's security. During the 
September 1998 hearing, General Shelton eloquently described the 
quality and service of our military personnel when he stated:

       It is the quality of the men and women who serve that sets 
     the U.S. military apart from all potential adversaries. These 
     talented people are the ones who won the Cold War and ensured 
     our victory in Operation Desert Storm. These dedicated 
     professionals make it possible for the United States to 
     accomplish the many missions we are called on to perform 
     around the world every single day.

  The conference report recognizes these contributions.
  Mr. President, I am confident that everyone in this Chamber will 
agree that the security issues in the Department of Energy identified 
by the various congressional committees, the Cox Committee and the 
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, chaired by our former 
colleague Senator Rudman, mandated measures to improve the management 
of the nuclear weapons complex. The Conference Report directs the 
establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-
autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. This agency would be 
responsible for nuclear weapons programs and the security, 
counterintelligence, and intelligence as they relate to the weapons 
programs. Contrary to what some allege, the agency would be under the 
direct control of the Secretary of Energy and he would retain ultimate 
responsibility for what the Administration does or fails to do.
  Mr. President, this is a prudent step that is long overdue. It will 
streamline the bureaucracy and the process which ensures the 
reliability of our nuclear weapons. More importantly, it will provide 
the security oversight that will preclude any further loss of sensitive 
nuclear information. This is a sound provision that will assist the 
Secretary of the Energy in carrying out his critical national security 
role.
  Mr. President, this is a good Conference Report that reflects the 
dedication and leadership of Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, Chairman 
Spence, Representative Skelton and all the conferees. It provides for 
the critical national security needs of our Nation and especially for 
the needs of the men and women who proudly wear the uniforms of our 
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. I urge its adoption and strong 
support.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Defense 
authorization conference report. The debate on this bill comes at time 
when our nation faces a host of new national security challenges, like 
the growing missile threat, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, 
terrorism, potential information warfare attacks on our critical 
infrastructure, and aggressive espionage directed at our nuclear 
laboratories.
  It also comes at a time when our armed forces are facing critical 
shortfalls in readiness and recruitment and retention. Our men and 
women in uniform are stretched to the limit, with deployments around 
the globe to places such as Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, the Persian 
Gulf, the Sinai Peninsula, South Korea, and the list goes on and on.
  Senator Warner and his colleagues on the Armed Services Committee 
have produced a good bill that begins to address some of these 
problems.
  First, the bill authorizes a total of $288.8 billion for DoD and the 
national security programs at the Energy Department--$8.3 billion more 
than the President's request. It also increases funding for readiness 
by $1.5 billion and procurement by $3 billion above the President's 
request.
  The bill provides a 4.8% pay raise for our men and women in uniform, 
reforms the military pay tables, and improves the retirement system, 
which should help with recruitment and retention problems.
  It authorizes $403 million over the President's request for missile 
defense, $150 million more than requested for the protection of DoD's 
computer networks, and authorizes and fully funds 17 new National Guard 
rapid response teams to respond to terrorist attacks in the U.S.--12 
more than requested by the Administration.
  And finally, this bill contains a series of provisions to reorganize 
the Department of Energy in order to improve security and 
counterintelligence. Over the past few months, we have all heard the 
sobering news about how our nation's security has been damaged by 
China's theft of America's most sensitive secrets. Earlier this year, 
the declassified version of the bipartisan Cox Committee report was 
released, which unanimously concluded that China stole classified 
information on every nuclear warhead currently in the U.S. arsenal, as 
well as the neutron bomb--literally, the crown jewels of our nuclear 
stockpile.
  An interagency group established by CIA Director Tenet, with 
representatives from each of the U.S. intelligence agencies, also 
prepared a damage assessment, which unanimously concluded that ``China 
obtained through espionage classified U.S. nuclear weapons 
information,'' including ``design information on several modern U.S. 
nuclear reentry vehicles,'' and ``information on a variety of U.S. 
weapon design concepts and weaponization features.''
  After the effects of China's espionage came to light, the President 
asked his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, led by former Senator 
Rudman, to look into the matter. The board released its findings in 
June, calling for sweeping organizational reform of DOE to address what 
it described as ``the worst security record on secrecy'' that the panel 
members ``have ever encountered.''
  The bipartisan panel cited as the root cause of DOE's poor security 
record ``organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture of 
arrogance. . . [which] conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting 
to happen.'' Terrible problems were uncovered during the panel's 
investigation. For example, employees at nuclear facilities compared 
their computer systems to automatic teller machines allowing top secret 
withdrawals at our nation's expense.

[[Page 22025]]

  The Rudman report pulled no punches, noting that, ``The Department of 
Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable 
of reforming itself. . . The long traditional and effective method of 
entrenched DOE and lab bureaucrats is to defeat security reform 
initiatives by waiting them out.''
  Although Energy Secretary Richardson announced several new 
initiatives to change management and procedures at DOE, the 
Presidential panel's report states, ``we seriously doubt that his 
initiatives will achieve lasting success,'' and notes, ``moreover, the 
Richardson initiatives simply do not go far enough.'' It is because of 
these problems that the Presidential panel recommended that Congress 
act to reorganize the Department by statute, so that the bureaucracy 
could not simply wait out another Secretary of Energy.
  In response to the reports of security problems at our nuclear 
facilities, Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, and I drafted 
legislation to implement the recommendations of the Rudman panel. Our 
legislation gathered all the parts of our nuclear weapons programs 
under one semi-autonomous agency within DOE, with clear lines of 
authority, responsibility, and accountability, with one person in 
charge, called the Administrator, who will continue to report to the 
Energy Secretary. Our legislation, which was offered as an amendment to 
the intelligence authorization bill, was passed by the Senate on July 
21st by an overwhelming vote of 96 to 1. I want to thank Senator Warner 
for working with us to include this legislation in the Defense 
Authorization Conference Report.
  A semiautonomous agency, created by statute, is the only way we are 
going to solve the problems with DOE's management of the nuclear 
weapons complex, that are long-standing, systemic, and go to the very 
heart of the way the Department is managed, structured, and organized. 
To begin with, this semi-autonomous agency will establish a clear 
mission for the organization, by separating the management of the 
nuclear weapons programs at DOE from the rest of the Department that is 
responsible for a broad range of unrelated tasks like setting energy 
efficiency standards for refrigerators. The provisions of the 
Conference Report also establish a clear chain of command for our 
nuclear weapons programs and facilities to establish accountability--
something that the Rudman report said was ``spread so thinly and 
erratically [at DOE] that it is now almost impossible to find.''
  Since the conference report was filed in August, some opponents of 
DOE reorganization have charged that this legislation would exempt the 
new semi-autonomous agency from environmental and safety laws and 
regulations--a charge which is simply false. Section 3261 of the bill, 
which I would note is identical to the language in the amendment passed 
by the Senate 96 to 1, states, ``The Administrator shall ensure that 
the Administration complies with all applicable environmental, safety, 
and health statutes and substantive requirements.'' Furthermore, 
section 3261 states, ``Nothing in this title shall diminish the 
authority of the Secretary of Energy to ascertain and ensure that such 
compliance occurs.''
  I would also note, that section 3211, which establishes the mission 
of the new agency clearly states, ``In carrying out the mission of the 
Administration, the Administrator shall ensure that all operations and 
activities of the Administration are consistent with the principles of 
protecting the environment and safeguarding the safety and health of 
the public and of the workforce of the Administration.''
  Some critics have also falsely charged that this legislation would 
narrow or supercede existing waiver of sovereign immunity agreements 
with the states and undercut the Federal Facility and Compliance Act, 
which clarified that states have regulatory authority over hazardous 
waste management and clean-up. Mr. President, I would point out that 
Federal Facility Compliance Agreements are based on waivers of 
sovereign immunity established under applicable federal environmental 
statutes, which are not affected by this bill. As section 3296 makes 
clear, ``unless otherwise provided in this title, all provisions of law 
and regulations in effect immediately before the effective date of this 
title. . . shall continue to apply to the corresponding functions of 
the Administration.''
  It is well past time to correct the chronic security problems at our 
nuclear facilities. Earlier this year, four committee's in the Senate 
held six hearings specifically on the legislation Senator Domenici, 
Senator Murkowski, and I proposed. The time has come to act. Great harm 
to our nation's security has already been done, and if we want to 
prevent further damage, we must act to reform the way we manage our 
nuclear weapons programs and facilities to create accountability and 
responsibility. Our most fundamental duty as Senators is to protect the 
safety and security of the American people. They deserve no less than 
our best in this regard. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of 
this important bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report on the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000. The 
conference report includes provisions to address the chronic security 
problems at the Department of Energy nuclear weapons laboratories.
  We need to make major organizational changes to the Department of 
Energy in order to protect the national security--to keep our nuclear 
secrets from falling into the wrong hands. There is no question that 
the U.S. has suffered a major loss of our nuclear secrets. According to 
the House Select Committee's report, the Chinese have succeeded in 
stealing critical information on all of our most advanced nuclear 
weapons. I repeat: The House report shows that we lost critical 
information on all of our advanced nuclear weapons! That is 
unacceptable!
  The extensive Senate hearing record--in both open and closed meetings 
held by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Armed Services 
Committee, the Intelligence Committee and the Governmental Affairs 
Committee--makes clear that we lost these secrets due to poor 
management by the top levels of the Department of Energy--which led to 
lax security and a lack of accountability and responsibility.
  Let me quote from the report of the President's foreign intelligence 
advisory board--the Rudman report--titled ``Science at its best: 
Security at its worst.''

       Organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture 
     of arrogance--both at DOE headquarters and the labs 
     themselves--conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting 
     to happen.
       The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy 
     that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself.
       Accountability at DOE has been spread so thinly and 
     erratically that it is now almost impossible to find.
       Never have the members of the Special Investigative Panel 
     witnessed a bureaucratic culture so thoroughly saturated with 
     cynicism and disregard for authority.
       Never before has this panel found such a cavalier attitude 
     toward one of the most serious responsibilities in the 
     federal government--control of the design information 
     relating to nuclear weapons.
       Never before has the panel found an agency with the 
     bureaucratic insolence to dispute, delay, and resist 
     implementation of a Presidential directive on security.

  I ask unanimous consent that additional excerpts from the Rudman 
report be printed in the Record following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See Exhibit 1.]
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Despite this damming criticism by the President's own 
foreign intelligence advisory board to date not a single high level 
bureaucrat at DOE--or the FBI or the Justice Department, for that 
matter--has been removed, demoted or disciplined over this massive 
failure. Only a very few low-level DOE employees have suffered--
including the person who first blew the whistle.
  The problem is clear. The question is: Do we want this to continue, 
or are we going to fix the problem?
  One thing we can not discuss in open session, is the extent of this 
problem.

[[Page 22026]]

We can say that this problem is much more extensive than has been 
reported. We can also say that it is a continuing problem. And we can 
say that it is not just espionage by China, it is also espionage by 
other countries that we must stop.
  The Administration is against fixing the problem; DOE Secretary 
Richardson is opposed to the provisions Conference Report. When this 
was last debated in the Senate, Secretary Richardson sent two letters 
threatening veto by the President--and he continues to voice his 
opposition to this legislation. However, the President's own 
independent and nonpartisan Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board agrees 
with our legislative solution--creating a semi-autonomous agency within 
DOE is the way to fix the problem.
  Again, let me quote from the Rudman report:

       The panel is convinced that real and lasting security and 
     counterintelligence reform at the weapons labs is simply 
     unworkable within DOE's current structure and culture.
       To achieve the kind of protection that these sensitive labs 
     must have, they and their functions must have their own 
     autonomous operational structure free of all the other 
     obligations imposed by DOE management.

  Under the current DOE organization structure everyone is in charge, 
but no one is responsible--no one is accountable. This legislation 
changes that. This legislation establishes accountability and 
responsibility at the Department of Energy. It does so by establishing 
a new semi-autonomous ``National Nuclear Security Administration'' 
inside the Department of Energy.
  The Nuclear Security Administration will be a self-contained 
organization that will be fully in charge of all aspects of our nuclear 
weapons program--and fully accountable.
  This new agency will be headed up by a new Under Secretary of Energy. 
The new Under Secretary will be responsible for all aspects of our 
nuclear weapons program, including the DOE weapons labs. If there is a 
problem in the future we will know who to point the finger at--a single 
agency with a single person heading it in charge of all aspects of the 
nuclear weapons program.
  As further evidence for the need for this legislation, I would like 
to quote the testimony of Mr. Vic Reis, the former Assistant Secretary 
of Energy for Defense Programs, just before he was forced out by 
Secretary Richardson for disagreeing with the Secretary's position on 
the need to create a semi-autonomous agency. Mr. Reis said:

       You may recall at a previous hearing, Mr. Chairman, you 
     noticed me in the audience and you asked for my opinion as to 
     who, or what was to blame for the security issues at the 
     national laboratories. I responded that I didn't think you 
     would find any one individual to blame, but that the 
     organizational structure of the DOE was so flawed that 
     security lapses are almost inevitable.
       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.
       Because of all this multilayered cross-cutting, there is no 
     one accountable for the operation of any part of the 
     organization except the Secretary, and no Secretary has the 
     time to lead the whole thing effectively. By setting up a 
     semi-autonomous agency, many of these problems go away.

  The way to stop espionage at the DOE laboratories then is to vote for 
the conference report.
  Before I yield the floor I want to mention one element of DOE's 
defense programs that we do not reorganize, although it is made part of 
the new National Nuclear Security Administration. That is the Naval 
Nuclear Propulsion Program.
  The Conference report language was very carefully and specifically 
crafted to ensure that the organization, responsibilities and 
authorities of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program are not diminished 
or otherwise compromised. The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, 
referred to as ``Naval Reactors'' in the Department of Energy, has long 
been a model of excellence, efficiency and integrity. Naval Reactors 
has provided safe, reliable, long-lived and militarily-effective 
nuclear propulsion plants for our Nation since U.S.S. Nautilus went to 
sea in 1955. These nuclear propulsion plants are found in our largest 
ships, the Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carriers with over 5,500 
personnel on board. They are also found in one of our smallest ships, 
the NR-1 deep-submergence research and ocean engineering vehicle with a 
crew of only five to ten. These nuclear propulsion plants also are 
crucial to the ability of our Nation's exceptional ballistic missile 
and attack submarine fleets to perform their national security 
missions.
  Under the conference report, Naval Reactors will continue to maintain 
clear, total responsibility and accountability for all aspects of Naval 
nuclear propulsion, including design, construction, operation, operator 
training, maintenance, refueling, and ultimate disposal, plus 
associated radiological control, safety, environmental and health 
matters, and program administration. The Program's structure will 
continue to include roles within both the Navy and the DOE, with direct 
access to the Secretaries of Navy and Energy. The success of the 
Program is due in part to its simple, enduring, and focused structure 
set forth in Public Law 98-525, which is not changed by the Conference 
Report.
  Also of great importance are the Program's clear and simplified lines 
of authority, and the culture of excellence in technical work, as well 
as managerial, fiscal, and security matters. These too are unaffected 
by the Conference Report.
  With fifty-one years of unparalleled success, Naval Reactors has 
amassed a record that reflects the wisdom of its structure, policies, 
and practices. Naval nuclear propulsion plants have safely steamed over 
117 million miles--over 5,000 reactor-years of safe operations. 
Moreover, there has never been a naval reactor accident, or any release 
of radioactivity that has had a significant effect on the public or 
environment.
  For these reasons, the Conference Report makes it clear that this 
exceptional national asset will in no way be hindered from maintaining 
its record of excellence. The language creating the new National 
Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy in no way 
changes the management or operations of Naval Reactors. I am confident 
Naval Reactors will remain a technical organization unequaled in 
accomplishment throughout the world, and a crown jewel in our Nation's 
security.

                               Exhibit 1

       Seclected excerpts from the President's Foreign 
     Intelligence Advisory Board report: Science at its Best; 
     Security at its Worst: A Report on Security Problems at the 
     U.S. Department of Energy.


                           findings (pp. 1-6)

       As the repository of America's most advanced know-how in 
     nuclear and related armaments and the home of some of 
     America's finest scientific minds, these labs have been and 
     will continue to be a major target of foreign intelligence 
     services, friendly as well as hostile. p.1
       More than 25 years worth or reports, studies and formal 
     inquiries--by executive branch agencies, Congress, 
     independent panels, and even DOE itself--have identified a 
     multitude of chronic security and counterintelligence 
     problems at all of the weapons labs. p.2
       --Critical security flaws . . . have been cited for 
     immediate attention and resolution . . . over and over and 
     over . . . ad nauseam.
       The open-source information alone on the weapons 
     laboratories overwhelmingly supports a troubling conclusion: 
     their security and counterintelligence operations have been 
     seriously hobbled and relegated to low-priority status for 
     decades. p.2
       --The DOE and its weapons labs have been Pollyannaish. The 
     predominant attitude toward security and counterintelligence 
     among many DOE and lab managers has ranged from half-hearted, 
     grudging accommodation to smug disregard. Thus the panel is 
     convinced that the potential for major leaks and thefts of 
     sensitive information and material has been substantial.
       Organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture 
     of arrogance--both at DOE headquarters and the labs 
     themselves--conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting 
     to happen. pp.2-3
       Among the defects this panel found:
       Inefficient personnel clearance programs.
       Loosely controlled and casually monitored programs for 
     thousands of unauthorized foreign scientists and assignees.

[[Page 22027]]

       Feckless systems for control of classified documents, which 
     periodically resulted in thousands of documents being 
     declared lost.
       Counterintelligence programs with part-time CI officers, 
     who often operated with little experience, minimal budgets, 
     and employed little more than crude ``awareness'' briefings 
     of foreign threats and perfunctory and sporadic debriefings 
     of scientists. . .
       A lab security management reporting system that led 
     everywhere but to responsible authority.
       Computer security methods that were naive at best and 
     dangerously irresponsible at worst.
       --DOE has had a dysfunctional management structure and 
     culture that only occasionally gave proper credence to the 
     need for rigorous security and counterintelligence programs 
     at the weapons labs. For starters, there has been a 
     persisting lack of real leadership and effective management 
     at DOE.
       The nature of the intelligence-gathering methods used by 
     the People's Republic of China poses a special challenge to 
     the U.S. in general and the weapons labs in particular. p.3
       Despite widely publicized assertions of wholesale losses of 
     nuclear weapons technology from specific laboratories to 
     particular nations, the factual record in the majority of 
     cases regarding the DOE weapons laboratories supports 
     plausible inferences--but not irrefutable proof--about the 
     source and scope of espionage and the channels through which 
     recipient nations received information. pp.3-4
       --The actual damage done to U.S. security interests is, at 
     the least, currently unknown; at worst, it may be unknowable.
       The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy 
     that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself. p.4
       --Accountability at DOE has been spread so thinly and 
     erratically that it is now almost impossible to find.
       Reorganization is clearly warranted to resolve that many 
     specific problems with security and counterintelligence in 
     the weapons laboratories, but also to address the lack of 
     accountability that has become endemic throughout the entire 
     Department. p.4
       --Convoluted, confusing, and often contradictory reporting 
     channels make the relationship between DOE headquarters and 
     the labs, in particular, tense, internecine, and chaotic.
       The criteria for the selection of Energy Secretaries have 
     been inconsistent in the past. Regardless of the outcome of 
     ongoing or contemplated reforms, the minimum qualifications 
     for an Energy Secretary should include experience in not only 
     energy and scientific issues, but national security and 
     intelligence issues as well. p. 5
       DOE cannot be fixed with a single legislative act: 
     management must follow mandate. The research functions of the 
     labs are vital to the nation's long term interest, and 
     instituting effective gates between weapons and nonweapons 
     research functions will require both disinterested scientific 
     expertise, judicious decision making, and considerable 
     political finesse. p. 5
       --Thus both Congress and the Executive Branch . . . should 
     be prepared to monitor the progress of the Department's 
     reforms for years to come.
       The Foreign Visitor's and Assignments Program has been and 
     should continue to be a valuable contribution to the 
     scientific and technological progress of the nation. p. 5
       --That said, DOE clearly requires measures to ensure that 
     legitimate use of the research laboratories for scientific 
     collaboration is not an open door to foreign espionage 
     agents.
       In commenting on security issues at DOE, we believe that 
     both Congressional and Executive branch leaders have resorted 
     to simplification and hyperbole in the past few months. The 
     panel found neither the dramatic damage assessments nor the 
     categorical reassurances of the Department's advocates to be 
     wholly substantiated. pp. 5-6
       --However, the Board is extremely skeptical that any reform 
     effort, no matter how well-intentioned, well-designed, and 
     effectively applied, will gain more than a toehold at DOE, 
     given its labyrinthine management structure, fractious and 
     arrogant culture, and the fast-approaching reality of another 
     transition in DOE leadership. Thus we believe that he has 
     overstated the case when he asserts, as he did several weeks 
     ago, that ``Americans can be reassured: our nation's nuclear 
     secrets are, today, safe and secure.''
       Fundamental change in DOE's institutional culture--
     including the ingrained attitudes toward security among 
     personnel of the weapons laboratories--will be just as 
     important as organizational redesign. p. 6
       --Never have the members of the Special Investigative Panel 
     witnessed a bureaucratic culture so thoroughly saturated with 
     cynicism and disregard for authority. Never before has this 
     panel found such a cavalier attitude toward one of the most 
     serious responsibilities in the federal government--control 
     of the design information relating to nuclear weapons. 
     Particularly egregious have been the failures to enforce 
     cyber-security measures to protect and control important 
     nuclear weapons design information. Never before has the 
     panel found an agency with the bureaucratic insolence to 
     dispute, delay, and resist implementation of a Presidential 
     directive on security, as DOE's bureaucracy tried to do with 
     the Presidential Decision Directive No. 61 in February 1998.
       The best nuclear weapons expertise in the U.S. government 
     resides at the national weapons labs, and this asset should 
     be better used by the intelligence community. p. 6


                       reorganization--pp. 43-52

       The panel is convinced that real and lasting security and 
     counterintelligence reform at the weapons labs is simply 
     unworkable within DOE's current structure and culture. To 
     achieve the kind of protection that these sensitive labs must 
     have, they and their functions must have their own autonomous 
     operational structure free of all the other obligations 
     imposed by DOE management. We strongly believe that this 
     cleaving can be best achieved by constituting a new 
     government agency that is far more mission-focused and 
     bureaucratically streamlined than its antecedent, and devoted 
     principally to nuclear weapons and national security matters. 
     p. 46
       The agency can be constructed in one of two ways. It could 
     remain an element of DOE but become semi-autonomous--by that 
     we mean strictly segregated from the rest of the Department. 
     This would be accomplished by having the agency director 
     report only to the Secretary of Energy. The agency 
     directorship also could be ``dual-hatted'' as an Under 
     Secretary, thereby investing it with extra bureaucratic clout 
     both inside and outside the Department. p. 46
       Regardless of the mold in which this agency is cast, it 
     must have staffing and support functions that are autonomous 
     from the remaining operations at DOE. p. 46
       To ensure its long-term success, this new agency must be 
     established by statute. p. 47
       Whichever solution Congress enacts, we do feel strongly 
     that the new agency never should be subordinated to the 
     Defense Department. p. 47
       Specifically, we recommend that the Congress pass and the 
     President sign legislation that: pp. 47-49
       --Creates a new, semi-autonomous Agency for Nuclear 
     Stewardship (ANS), whose Director will report directly to the 
     Secretary of Energy.
       --Streamlines the ANS/Weapons Lab management structure by 
     abolishing ties between the weapons labs and all DOE 
     regional, field and site offices, and all contractor 
     intermediaries.
       --Mandates that the Director/ANS be appointed by the 
     President with the consent of the Senate and, ideally, have 
     an extensive background in national security, organizational 
     management, and appropriate technical fields.
       --Stems the historical ``revolving door'' and management 
     expertise problems at DOE. . . .
       --Ensures effective administration of safeguards, security, 
     and counterintelligence at all the weapons labs and plants by 
     creating a coherent security/CI structure within the new 
     agency.
       --Abolishes the Office of Energy Intelligence.
       --Shifts the balance of analytic billets . . . to bolster 
     intelligence community technical expertise on nuclear 
     matters.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President I rise to add my voice to the support of 
the Defense authorization bill that we soon vote on.
  It has been my honor this year to serve as the Chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee's new subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities. The chairman wisely established this subcommittee to 
provide a focus on the Department of Defense's efforts to counter new 
and emerging threats to vital national security interests.
  This subcommittee has oversight over such threats as the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism 
directed at U.S. targets both at home and abroad, information warfare, 
and narco-trafficking. In addition, the subcommittee has budgetary 
oversight of the defense science and technology program--which will 
provide for the development of the technology necessary for the U.S. 
military to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
  A key element of the subcommittee's responsibilities is the changing 
role of the U.S. military in the new threat environment, with an 
examination of emerging operational concepts and non-traditional 
military operations. In this connection, the subcommittee has oversight 
of the procurement and R&D programs of the Special Operations Command.
  I would like to briefly highlight the initiatives included in this 
bill to address emerging threats and the future capabilities of our 
armed forces:
  Protection of our homeland and our critical information 
infrastructure are two of the most serious challenges facing our Nation 
today. In the area of Counter-Terrorism, the bill includes

[[Page 22028]]

full funding for the five Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) 
teams requested by the administration, and an increase of $107 million 
to provide a total of 17 additional RAID teams in fiscal year 2000. We 
required the Department to establish specific budget reporting 
procedures for its combating terrorism program. This will give the 
program the focus and visibility it deserves while providing Congress 
with the information it requires to conduct thorough oversight over the 
Department's efforts to combat the threat of terrorism attack both 
inside and outside the U.S.
  The bill includes a $150 million Information Assurance Initiative to 
strengthen the defense information assurance program, enhance oversight 
and improve organizational structure. This initiative will also provide 
a testbed to plan and conduct simulations, exercises and experiments 
against information warfare threats, and allow the Department to 
interact with civil and commercial organizations. The provision 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to strike an appropriate balance in 
addressing threats to the defense information infrastructure while at 
the same time recognizing that DOD has a role to play in protecting 
critical infrastructures outside the DOD.
  In the area of nonproliferation, we have authorized full funding for 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to accelerate the 
dismantlement of the former Soviet Union strategic offensive arms that 
threaten the U.S. And for the DoE programs--Initiatives for 
Proliferation Prevention and the Nuclear Cities Initiative--we have 
authorized an increase of $5.0 million over the FY99 funding levels and 
have recommended several initiatives to enhance the overall management 
of these programs.
  We have included in the bill a legislative package to strengthen the 
defense science and technology program. This legislation will ensure 
that the science and technology program is threat-based and that 
investments are tied to future warfighting needs. The legislation is 
also aimed at promoting innovation in laboratories and improving the 
efficiency of these RDT&E operations.
  Other budgetary highlights include: a $271 million increase to the 
defense science and technology budget request; an additional $10.0 
million for Joint Experimentation exercises; $14.0 million in targeted 
increases in the Chemical and Biological Defense Program to advance 
research in chemical and biological agent detector technologies and 
procurement; and an additional $164.7 million to meet unfunded 
requirements of the Special Operations Forces.
  Although I have highlighted some of the key successes of the Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, I am very proud of the total 
package we are voting on today. I think we have done an excellent first 
step in helping the men and women in the military receive fair 
compensation for their sacrifice for this nation.
  I thank the Chairman for his vital and impressive leadership this 
year, along with the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and the 
majority staff. I urge my colleagues to support the Defense 
authorization bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President I rise today to signal my 
strong support for the fiscal year 2000 Defense Authorization Act and 
conference report. I would also like to publicly thank Chairman Warner 
for his leadership, wisdom, and commitment to doing what is right for 
America as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, and chairman of the 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I have a strong interest in the state of 
our Armed Forces, and the needs of its people.
  Under the present administration, the Defense budget has declined by 
40 percent since the end of the cold war, and total personnel strength 
has been cut by 30 percent. At this same time, this administration has 
also increased the military's deployment rate by 300 percent.
  There are very few businesses in this country who could survive a 40 
percent budget cut, and 30 percent personnel cut while still meeting a 
300 percent increase in production. But that's what we have asked of 
our men and women in uniform--and they have delivered every single 
time. The time is long overdue for us to give something back--to stop 
the hemmorrhaging--to give them the money the need, the equipment they 
need, the resources they need, and most importantly the people they 
need. We still have a long way to go, but this authorization bill is 
the first step in the right direction--the first of many I will 
continue to fight for.
  I am extremely proud of the pay package contained in this bill. It 
contains the largest pay raise since 1982 and will stop the erosion of 
a double-digit pay gap that's been growing for 20 years. Restoring 
previously reduced retirement benefits to their original levels shows a 
commitment to our veteran's long-term security and the value of a 
career of honorable service. These two provisions are critical to 
solving our recruiting and retention crisis.
  As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am also extremely 
proud of the strategic provisions in this bill.
  In written testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February 
of this year, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. 
Hughes, testified in his written statement,

       Weapons of mass destruction and theater missile delivery 
     means has become the greatest direct threat to US forces 
     deployed and engaged worldwide.

  With that critical focus I am proud to announce that this bill 
includes an increase of $212 million over the President's budget 
request for the patriot PAC-3 theater missile defense system, and an 
increase of $90 million over the President's budget for the Navy 
theater wide missile defense program.
  Gen. Dick Myers, Commander of U.S. Space Command, testified before my 
subcommittee in March that the space-based infrared system [SBIRS] was 
Space Command's No. 1 priority due to its critical role in missile 
warning and national missile defense. This bill contains an increase of 
$92 million to speed the deployment of the SBIRS constellation and 
directly increase the security of our Nation.
  As the next decade unfolds, the United States is becoming 
increasingly reliant on space to meet our national security needs, as 
well as our daily economic needs. This bill also provides for an 
increase of $25 million to develop the space maneuver vehicle which 
will significantly reduce the cost and increase the speed at which we 
can launch payloads into space. And an increase of $15 million for the 
Air Force and Army's space control technology programs which will be 
critical to ensuring our freedom of access to space in the next decade.
  This bill also includes a provision establishing a commission to 
assess U.S. national security space organization and management, to 
address the critical need to truly focus on spacepower and its role in 
national security.
  In response to a thorough review and examination of security problems 
at the Department of Energy's nuclear labs, this conference report also 
includes legislation to consolidate all national security functions 
under a single, semi-autonomous agency known as the National Nuclear 
Security Administration. As demonstrated by the Cox Commission report, 
and the President's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, this 
reorganization is crucial to our national security and safeguarding our 
nuclear labs, and has my strongest support.
  There are many other provisions in this bill that are imperative for 
our troops, and our nation, but I don't have time to discuss them all. 
But the bottom line is this: our troops deserve the best, and the 
American people deserve the best.
  This bill represents a huge victory for our troops, but it's only the 
first step on a tough road to correcting our long-term readiness 
problems. The Clinton administration has cut military spending every 
year since he took office--and turned a deaf ear to the critical 
problems it has caused. Year after year the administration denied

[[Page 22029]]

there were any problems and refused to increase spending. Only now that 
we're starting to come apart at the seams have they admitted there's a 
problem, and the Joint Chiefs told us in testimony that the 
administration's plan for fixing it was still $40 billion short. We 
have added an extra $8 billion in this budget, the first increase in 
defense spending in more than a decade, but there's still a long way to 
go. I am committed to our troops and to halting this erosion, and this 
bill is the start.
  Mr. President, I strongly support this bill, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I would like to thank Chairman Warner again for his leadership on 
this critical issue, and I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 
2000 Defense authorization conference report.
  The bill emerges in the turnmoil of a post-cold-war world--one 
demanding a U.S. military that can face transnational developments such 
as weapons proliferation, regional tyrants such as Saddam Hussein or 
Slobodan Milosevic, and emerging powers such as China.
  As a result, the authorization cycle of the last few months allowed 
Congress to bring the Pentagon's budget into alignment with the 
changing Armed Services on which the nation will rely to deter a broad 
spectrum of global threats to U.S. national security.
  I caution my colleagues not to confuse the unpredictable nature of 
these threats with the disappearance of serious global challenges to 
the security of the United States and its key allies.
  The former menace of imperial communism has yielded to a less 
detectable, but still destructive, gallery of aggressors: the cyber-
terrorist, the rogue dictator, the narcotics lord, and violent 
dissidents throughout the world with ideological resentments against 
the culture and prosperity of the West.
  A brief tour of the global horizon furthermore alerts us to the 
ongoing requirement for a robust and flexible national defense.
  The burned and bloodied streets of East Timor warn the United States 
that the world's fourth most-populous country, guarding the sea lanes 
between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, faces an anxious period of 
political and military strife.
  Saddam Hussein still hopes to strangle the Arab-Israeli peace process 
and hold the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf hostage to his lust for 
warfare.
  China wants to build a nuclear and naval force to counter the United 
States and Japan as a major power among the trading states of Western 
Asia.
  The North Koreans and the Iranians quietly try to siphon weapons of 
mass destruction out of a chaotic Russia. India and Pakistan have 
intensified their grim nuclear standoff, and the rumbling Balkans 
undermine stability and economic development from the Caucuses to the 
Mediterranean Basin.
  The Senate, therefore, should embrace a Defense authorization 
conference report that increases the President's request by more than 
six billion dollars to a total of $288.8 billion. Almost one-half of 
the eight billion dollar increase goes towards procurement--the 
keystone of force modernization--and keeps the Pentagon on schedule to 
level this account at $60 billion next year, as Secretary Cohen 
proposed in February 1998.
  Beyond the numbers in the budget, however, this bill takes care of 
the needs of our Service people. The Conference Report, Mr. President, 
recognizes the human dimension of military readiness by approving an 
across-the-board 4.8% pay increase for uniformed personnel--the largest 
since 1982. It also equalizes retirement benefits, extends bonuses for 
second and third-term re-enlistments, and gives troops the same chance 
that civilians have to achieve financial security by making thrift 
saving plans available, for the first time ever, to the Total Force.
  This legislation furthermore takes the bold step of re-organizing the 
Energy Department of fight the emerging threat of nuclear proliferation 
through reformed intelligence and security systems. Our statutory 
effort on this front reflected the chilling fact that the Department, 
as it exists, cannot adequately safeguard the secrets that give nuclear 
arsenals their range and mobility.
  An alarming flood of evidence produced by two distinguished panels 
this year, the Cox and Rudman Commissions, uncovered a fractured and 
apathetic DoE bureaucracy that failed over the course of twenty years 
to protect the design plans for America's most sophisticated warheads 
against foreign espionage. As a result, the conference report mandated 
the creation of a new semi-autonomous organization within the Energy 
Department, accountable directly to the Secretary, that will streamline 
reporting procedures and tighten security at the country's national 
weapons laboratories.
  In addition, as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Seapower 
Subcommittee, I was honored to join my colleagues in forging an FY 2000 
budget authorization that enhances the nation's naval power projection, 
force protection, and strategic lift capabilities. I want to thank 
Senator Kennedy, the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee, along 
with the panel's other members, Senators John McCain, Bob Smith, Jeff 
Sessions, Chuck Robb, and Jack Reed, for both their hard work on this 
year's bill and their support of me as the Chairman.
  The conference report approves the President's request for 
authorization of six new construction ships, including $2.681 billion 
for three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, $1.508 billion for two 
LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious ships, and $440 million for one 
ADC(X), the first of a class of auxiliary refrigeration and ammunition 
supply ships.
  It also authorizes the President's advance procurement request of 
$748.5 million for two SSN-774 Virginia-Class attack submarines, and 
$751.5 million for the CVN-77, the last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
  These budget levels will enable the Navy to set the stage for a 
planned increase in annual ship construction rate from six per year 
today to eight per year between FY 2001 and FY 2004 and nine per year 
beginning by FY 2005. As the Assistant Service Secretary for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition, Dr. Lee Buchanan, testified to the 
Subcommittee on March 24, 1999, a yearly production rate of between 
eight and ten vessels is essential to the maintenance of a Fleet within 
the range of 300 ships over the next 35 years.
  Beyond the procurement priorities of today, the subcommittee 
supported the Navy's revolutionary research efforts to shape a 21st 
century fleet of greater speed, precision, and maneuverability for 
littoral operations near coastal waters. According to the Navy's 
official definition, littoral engagements requires forces to deploy 
``close enough to influence events on shore if necessary.''
  This post-Soviet mission connects our force structure to our security 
interests since by 2010, 80 percent of the world's population will live 
within 300 miles of the shorelines known as the littorals. And as our 
maritime Service, Mr. President, the Navy operates as the first and 
most significant force of relief and response in the littoral 
waterways.
  In the realm of ship research, development, testing, and evaluation, 
the conference report approves $270 million for the DD-21 next-
generation land attack destroyer, $205 million to advance the post-
Nimitz aircraft carrier program known as CVN(X), and $116 million for 
SSN-774 Virginia-class attack submarines. These initiatives will help 
the fleet in meeting one of its core force structure goals for the 
years ahead: the deployment of ships with intensified firepower and 
lower life-cycle costs.
  The sailors and marines of tomorrow, Mr. President, will also require 
worldwide mobility to bring American power to the shores of conflict or 
instability. Towards this end, our bill extends the Pentagon's core 
tactical and strategic lift programs, including the C-17 airlifter and 
the MV-22 Osprey helicopter.
  The seapower portion of the conference report includes a number of

[[Page 22030]]

legislative provisions allowing the Pentagon to take advantage of the 
most cost-effective acquisition strategies to sustain a fleet of at 
least 300 ships--the bare minimum, according to the testimony of senior 
officials before the Seapower Subcommittee this year, that the Navy 
needs to meet its forward-deployed operational requirements.
  These legislative provisions extend the multi-year procurement 
authority to include fiscal years 2002 and 2003 in the DDG-51 
production program, and authorize advance procurement and construction 
funding for both a new LHD-8 amphibious assault ship and an additional 
large, medium-speed roll on/roll off ship.
  We also authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into auxiliary 
ship leases for 20 or more years. This initiative should give service 
leaders more flexibility to invest resources into complex war fighting 
ships by relying more on qualified commercial ship owners to build and 
maintain the supply fleet.
  Finally, Mr. President, long-range fleet planning will prompt the 
naval leadership to concentrate on developing a broad force structure 
to execute the National Security Strategy. For this reason, the 
conference report directs the Department of Defense to submit a report 
next February detailing the Navy's shipbuilding schedule and needed 
maritime capabilities through fiscal year 2030.
  In summary, the fiscal year 2000 Defense authorization conference 
report address the key acquisition, research, hardware, and operational 
challenges that will provide the nation with a flexible and responsive 
21st century fleet. I urge my colleagues to uphold a valuable tradition 
of the United States Senate by voting on a strong bipartisan basis in 
favor of this landmark legislation.
  Mr. ROBERTS. The final version of S. 1059 also contains a provision, 
sponsored by the distinguished chairman and myself, requiring the 
President to certify whether the new Strategic Concept of NATO--the 
latest alliance blueprint for future operations adopted at the recent 
NATO summit here in Washington--contains new commitments and 
obligations for the United States. This body's experience with U.S. 
deployments to the Balkans bears out the fact that you better force the 
administration to be candid when it comes to the potential and actual 
use of American troops, particularly in regards to objectives, 
strategy, and timetable. It follows, therefore, you better formally 
require this administration to be candid about the defense planning and 
defense budget implications of the new Strategic Concept of NATO. I 
think the chairman and I have tried to do that with our provision and I 
look forward to the President's certification, due thirty days from the 
date S. 1059 becomes law.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a number of significant developments have 
occurred since the passage of last year's authorization conference 
report--some good, some less so. The best news is that this year's 
defense budget reverses a precipitous decline in defense spending.
  For the first time in 15 years, we have finally passed an increase in 
defense spending, in real terms.
  We have also included a 4.8 percent pay raise for our overburdened 
troops. These steps are long overdue, and we have been blocked at many 
turns by the Administration.
  As many of our colleagues know, our forces are deployed in farflung 
places, many with little national interest or military requirement at 
stake. Yet, unfortunately, we have also had a hemorrhaging in the 
ranks, due to deep cuts from the Administration.
  The numbers are staggering. In just the last six years, the following 
are among the forces which have been eliminated from the U.S. 
inventory: 709,000 regular service soldiers, 293,000 reserve troops, 8 
standing Army divisions, 20 Air Force wings with 2,000 combat aircraft, 
232 strategic bombers, 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 
3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles, 500 land-based intercontinental 
ballistic missiles with 1,950 warheads, 4 aircraft carriers, and 121 
combat ships and submarines along with their support bases and 
shipyards.
  When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, the United States devoted 4.5 
percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) to national defense.
  Today, defense outlays account for just 3 percent of GDP--their 
lowest level since the end of World War II.
  By Inauguration Day 2001, defense spending is projected to have 
plummeted to 2.8 percent of GDP.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. It has a number of important 
components to it, most of all the overall spending hike and pay raise. 
As the Chairman of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee 
Infrastructure, we were able to address a number of important issues 
this year.
  Milcon: We authorized $8.49 billion for milcon, $3.06 billion above 
the Administration's request, with a strong emphasis on family housing 
and decaying infrastructure.
  Range Withdrawal: we have allowed critical readiness training to 
occur for the next 25 years on some of our critical ranges in the West.
  Spectrum: the spectrum was protected from a corporate takeover, 
allowing crucial bandwidth to be maintained by the military.
  At the same time, this bill simply does not go far enough. Under no 
proposed budget currently on the table is there a substantial increase 
in defense spending, like we need. In a budget approaching $2 trillion, 
we ought to be able to find the less than $100 billion it would take to 
truly restore our readiness.
  It is time to reverse these trends. It is time to take prudent steps 
to rebuild our defenses to protect our people, our values and our 
country. I look forward to working toward that goal as a major priority 
in the year ahead.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks concerning the 
specifics of the conference report, I want to congratulate Chairman 
Warner and Senator Levin, for all their hard work on this bill. I 
believe we have a strong bill which makes dramatic improvements for our 
military men and women.
  Also, I want to say that I feel honored to be a part of the Armed 
Services Committee. It is not too often that a first year member of the 
committee becomes a Subcommittee Chair. It has been a learning 
experience but one that I have enjoyed as much as any time during my 
years in office.
  We rightly began the year with S.4, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, 
and Marines Bill of Rights and this has been our guide which brought us 
to this point. And, I am proud of the many achievements in this 
conference report.
  Specifically, the Personnel Subcommittee held four hearings in 
preparation of this important bill. Through these hearings, we explored 
recruiting, retention, pay and compensation, military and civilian 
personnel management and the military health care system.
  During these hearings, particular emphasis was put on readiness, the 
retention of highly trained people and the inability of the military 
services to achieve their recruiting goals.
  General Shelton and the Service Chiefs urged the President and the 
Congress to support a military pay raise that would begin to address 
inequities between military pay and civilian wages, and to resolve the 
inequity of the ``Redux'' retirement system.
  This conference report will provide military personnel a four-point-
eight percent pay raise on January 1, 2000, and will require that, for 
the next six years, military pay raises be based on the annual increase 
in the Employment Cost Index plus one-half a percent.
  The bill restructures the military pay tables to recognize the value 
of promotions and to weight the pay raise toward mid-career NCOs and 
officers where retention is most critical.
  The Joint Chiefs testified that there is a pay gap between military 
and private sector wages of 14 percent. This bill moves aggressively to 
close this gap and ensure military personnel are compensated in an 
equitable manner.
  The conference report includes over $250 million specifically to 
reduce the

[[Page 22031]]

out-of-pocket housing expense for military personnel and their 
families.
  The conference report provides military personnel who entered the 
service after July 31, 1986 the option to revert to the previous 
military retirement system that provided at 50 percent multiplier to 
their base pay averaged over their highest three years and includes 
full cost-of-living adjustments; or, to accept a $30,000 bonus and 
remain under the ``Redux'' retirement system.
  The Joint Chiefs testified that the ``Redux'' retirement system is 
responsible for an increasing number of mid-career military personnel 
deciding to leave the service. The conference report will offer these 
highly trained personnel an attractive incentive to continue to serve a 
full career.
  We have authorized a Thrift Savings Plan that will allow service 
members to save up to five percent of their base pay, before taxes, and 
will permit them to directly deposit their enlistment and re-enlistment 
bonuses, up to the limits established by the IRS, into their Thrift 
Savings Plan.
  The bill authorizes Service Secretaries to offer to match the Thrift 
Savings Plan contributions of those service members serving in critical 
specialities for a period of six years in return for a six year service 
commitment. This is a powerful tool to assist the services in retaining 
key personnel in the most critical specialities.
  In addition to the pay increase, the re-engineering of the military 
retirement system and the Thrift Savings Plan, we have taken dramatic 
steps to assist military recruiters and re-enlistment NCOs by 
authorizing new and increased bonuses and incentives to attract high 
quality young men and women to join the military services and to stay 
once they become trained and experienced professionals.
  We targeted these incentives and bonuses at those critical 
specialities which the services are having difficulty filling.
  The Committee has found that the single most frequent reason 
departing service members cite when asked why they decided to leave the 
military is excessive time on deployment--too much time away from home 
and family.
  We are all well aware that the Clinton administration has deployed 
military personnel more than at any previous time in our history.
  The conference report includes a provision that will require the 
military services to manage the deployment of military personnel within 
strict time lines. The provision does provide the Secretary of Defense 
board waiver authority to ensure that military readiness or national 
security will not be compromised. However, during normal operations, 
the services will be required to minimize the impact of deployments and 
track the details that separate a service member from his or her 
family. This provision will be an important step toward retaining the 
trained and experienced personnel the services are now losing at an 
alarming rate.
  I am sure each Senator has received complaints from constituents 
regarding the TRICARE health care system. The original Senate bill and 
the conference report take important steps towards improving the 
TRICARE health care system of the military services.
  The conference report directs a totally revamped pharmacy benefit, 
improves access to care and claims processing, reduces the 
administrative burden on beneficiaries, enhances the dental benefits, 
and requires the establishment of a beneficiary advocate to assist 
service members, retirees and their families who are experiencing 
difficulty with the TRICARE system.
  While this conference report has taken a number of important steps 
toward resolving the most frequent complaints against TRICARE, during 
the next year the Chairman and I intend to continue to pursue ways to 
further improve and streamline the military health care system.
  I have described just a few of the many personnel related provisions 
in this conference report. As we are all aware, recruiting and 
retention in the military services is suffering. We simply cannot allow 
the best military force in the world wither away.
  As I and other Members of the Senate have visited military bases here 
in the United States, in Bosnia and in other deployment areas, we have 
found that our young service men and women are doing a tremendous job, 
under adverse conditions in many cases.
  We should move quickly to pass this conference report in order to 
permit military personnel and their families to make the decision to 
continue to serve and will assist the military services in recruiting 
the high quality force we have worked so hard to achieve.
  There are many other issues outside of the personnel area that I wish 
I could touch on but there is just not enough time. However, I would 
like to mention one in particular and that concerns Rocky Flats.
  The conference Report has four very important provisions which will 
help ensure that the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site will 
close safely and efficiently by the year 2006.
  First, the bill authorizes $1.1 billion for all closure projects, 
with Rocky Flats receiving an extra $15 million above the President's 
request to help ensure closure by 2006. Second, there is a three year 
pilot program (FY 2000-2002) authorizing the Secretary of Energy to 
allocate up to $15 million of prior year unobligated balances in the 
defense environmental management account for accelerated cleanup at 
Rocky Flats. This provision could provide $45 million extra for Rocky 
Flats through the year 2002. Third, we are requiring the Secretary of 
Energy to provide a proposed schedule for the shipment of waste from 
Rocky Flats to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, including 
in the schedule a timetable for obtaining shipping containers. And 
fourth, the Comptroller General (GAO) must report on the progress of 
the closure of Rocky Flats by 2006.
  Again, I want to state that I am proud of this Conference Report and 
what it provides for our military.
  In conclusion, I want to recognize and thank the Staff Director of 
the Personnel Subcommittee Charlie Abell. He is a tremendous asset to 
me and my staff, the Armed Services Committee, and this Senate. Also, I 
want to let Senator Cleland know how much I enjoy having him as my 
partner and ranking member of the Subcommittee. He is an American hero 
whose commitment in improving the lives of our military personnel is to 
be commended. And lastly, I want to thank the Chairman for this time to 
speak and I want to thank him for his commitment to the bill and to our 
brave and honorable men and women in uniform.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend Armed Services Committee 
Chairman Senator John Warner and Ranking Member Senator Carl Levin for 
bringing this important bill to the floor. With the passage of this 
bill, we will begin to seriously address our military readiness 
problems. It is a good start. This bill includes many of the provisions 
of S.4, one of the first bills introduced in the Congress back in 
January and passed February 24, 1999. With the military having its 
worst recruiting year since 1979, the Congress needs to send a strong 
message of support to those who serve. The bill does just that by: 
Increasing pay for our service members by 4.8 percent, increasing and 
creating special incentive pays, improving retirement benefits, and 
improving benefits and management of the military health care program.
  In am particularly pleased this bill includes two provisions I 
offered. The first concerns military health care and the second the 
current high operations tempo of our forces.
  In February we emphatically recognized our commitment to these 
dedicated men and women when we passed 100-0 my Military Health Care 
Improvement Amendment to S.4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and 
Marine's Bill of Rights.
  The message is loud and clear from my constituents: The military care 
benefit is no longer much of a benefit. I have no doubt my colleagues 
in the Senate have also heard equally valid complaints about access to 
care, unpaid bills, inadequate provider networks, and difficulties with 
claims.

[[Page 22032]]

The promise seemed fairly simple--in return for military service and 
sacrifice, the government would provide health care to active duty 
members and their families, even after they retire. But of course it's 
more complicated than that. In the past 10 years, the military has 
downsized by over one third and the military health care system has 
downsized with it. While hospitals and clinics have closed, the number 
of personnel that rely on the system hasn't really changed. Today, our 
armed forces have more married service members with families than even 
before. In addition, those who have served and are now retired were 
promised quality health care as well. The system these individuals and 
families have been given to meet their needs is called ``TRICARE.'' 
TRICARE is not health care coverage, but a health care delivery system 
that provides varying levels of benefits depending largely on where a 
member of the military or a retiree lives. Unfortunately, what we find 
in practice is that the TRICARE program often provides spotty coverage.
  The point I want to make clear is that regardless of the 
complications, the promise remains and we must deliver on the promise. 
When we passed my amendment 100-0, we sent a signal that we care and 
that we will be vigilant in pursuing this issue. Our purpose is not to 
throw out the TRICARE system but to fix the problems and improve the 
health care benefits under the TRICARE program. I am happy to report 
that the Authorization bill before us today addresses all the issues 
that were in my amendment to improve access to health care and 
management under the TRICARE program. These include: Minimizing the 
authorization and certification requirements imposed on beneficiaries, 
reducing claims processing time and providing incentives for electronic 
processing, improve TRICARE management and eliminate bureaucratic red 
tape, authorize reimbursement at higher rates where required to attract 
and retain qualified providers, compare health care coverage available 
under TRICARE to plans offered under the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program (FEHBP), allow reimbursement from third-party payers 
to military hospitals based on reasonable charges, and reporting to 
Congress on each of these initiatives.
  One of the promises that we made to our forces is to provide quality 
medical care to those who serve and their families. General Dennis 
Reimer, the former Chief of Staff of the Army, spoke at the most recent 
conference on military health care. General Reimer provided a soldiers' 
perspective of how important health care is to those who serve. He 
said, ``this is about readiness and this is about quality of life 
linked together. We must ensure that we provide those young men and 
women who sacrifice and serve our country so well, and ask for so very 
little, the quality medical care that is the top priority for them . . 
. we must help them or else we're not going to be able to recruit this 
high quality force.''
  During the past year I visited our troops in the Balkans and toured 
every single military installation in Texas. The visits provided 
marvelous snapshots of our armed forces today and the many challenges 
they face. At each stop I met with our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
their leaders and discussed their concerns. Health care for them and 
their families was at the top of their list. We have some truly 
wonderful young people serving in the armed forces who are very 
patriotic and ask very little of us in return. But frankly, we haven't 
done enough for them. I am pleased that the Senate Leadership and the 
Senate Armed Services Committee have made this a top priority this 
year.
  Mr. President, the health care provisions in this bill will go a long 
way toward breaking down the bureaucracy that exists in the current 
system. I know that there is no single solution or quick fix to this 
problem, but we must begin now to ensure we honor our commitments. This 
is a critical issue to recruiting and retaining qualified people in the 
military--which is critical to the security of our country.
  My second provision addresses another issue, which we passed as part 
of our Defense Authorization Bill. Pay and benefits increases are an 
important beginning, but we cannot ignore the high operations tempo and 
its impact on our readiness. Recently the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies completed a survey of over 11,000 military 
personnel from the Army and Coast Guard on the subject of military 
culture in the 21st Century. I participated as an advisor on this study 
and was just briefed on some of the key findings.
  The really good news is that those surveyed told us: They were proud 
to serve, they believe the military is important in the world and the 
jobs they do are important to the mission, they have a deep personal 
commitment to serve, they believe the military is right to expect high 
standards of personal conduct off-duty, and they are prepared to lay 
their lives on the line.
  Those responses are indicative of the kind of wonderful young people 
we have serving today in out armed forces, and we have a duty and an 
obligation to provide them with the equipment and the training and the 
quality of life they deserve.
  But they also told us they felt strongly that: Their pay is 
inadequate, their unites have morale problems, units are often 
``surprised'' by unexpected missions, they are ``stressed out'' from 
the frequent deployments, and they often don't have the resources they 
need to do their jobs.
  These responses from soldiers in the field should not come as a 
surprise to anyone here. We know our troops are dedicated and committed 
and we also know they are stretched too thin. Secretary Cohen admitted 
as much last Spring in testimony before the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee when he said ``we have to few people and too many 
missions.'' That fact is beginning to show in wear and tear on our 
forces and equipment.
  There are too many deployments that never seem to end. We have troops 
coming home from a short tour in Korea and heading straight to Bosnia. 
At Fort Bliss recently one sergeant told of coming off a one year tour 
in Korea and then spending three short deployments of 5 months, 3 
months and one month in Saudi Arabia . . . all in less than two years 
and she is now scheduled to return to Korea for another one-year tour. 
Fortunately this young sergeant was single and was not leaving a spouse 
and children behind, but for others these frequent deployments mean 
they must choose between the army and their family. The military has a 
saying--``you enlist a soldier--you reenlist a family.'' We are having 
a retention crisis because the families aren't reenlisting. And no 
wonder. They are jerked from one place to another because we are trying 
to do it all.
  We will soon begin the fifth year of our supposedly ``one-year'' 
mission in Bosnia. U.S. troops have just spent their eighth summer in 
the deserts of southwest-Asia, we have troops in Kosovo and now East 
Timor. Thankfully, the mission to Haiti will soon end.
  But these frequent deployments are having a devastating impact on our 
military readiness and jeopardizing our ability to respond where our 
national security interests may be threatened in Southwest Asia or the 
Koran peninsula.
  We are seeing the effects of this over deployment on our equipment as 
well as on our forces. We hear of Air Force planes sitting idle for 
lack of spare parts. Navy ships that deploy without full crews. The 
Army and Marine Corps are forced to cannibalize equipment to field 
front-line units. These are not isolated incidents, these problems 
point to a larger readiness crisis affecting our military forces.
  the recent Center for Strategic and International Studies' survey 
tells us that our military is comprised of dedicated and committed 
young men and women who tell us they are willing to lay down their 
lives for their country. We in the Congress must ensure that the 
missions on which they are asked to serve are important national 
security interests and represent the best use of our forces.
  To begin to help us meet this responsibility, my provision included 
in this

[[Page 22033]]

bill says it is a sense of Congress that the readiness of our military 
forces to execute the national security strategy is being eroded from a 
combination of declining defense budgets and expanded missions. It says 
to the President that we must have a report that prioritizes ongoing 
global missions. It must distinguish low-priority missions from high-
priority missions. That is the basis to effectively manage our 
commitments, shift our resources, consolidate missions, and end low-
priority missions.
  It is time to assess where we are in the world and why, and to ask 
the President to prioritize all of these missions. Then Congress can 
work with the President to determine if we need to ramp up our military 
personnel strength or ramp down the number of deployments that we have 
around the world. The testimony of Secretary Cohen and the other Chiefs 
matches what I have seen and heard myself from our dedicated troops. 
The answer is one or the other, because the current situation is 
overextending our armed forces.
  I am pleased to support this bill and acknowledge the effort and hard 
work of the members of the Armed Services Committee and their staff in 
bringing this bill to the floor. It is my hope that this bill will 
represent a turning point in arresting the decline of our military 
readiness.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
overwhelming passage of the conference report to accompany S. 1059, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. I would like 
to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to Chairman Warner and 
ranking Member Levin for their efforts in crafting this important 
legislation.
  This bill authorizes for the military the funds they need to 
adequately defend our country and protect our vital interests 
worldwide, $288.8 billion, which is $8.3 billion more than the 
President's inadequate request. After years of declining budgets and 
increased deployments, this legislation provides the military with 
their first funding increase since the end of the Cold War.
  This bill carefully addresses a variety of important issues, from pay 
raises for our soldiers to restructuring the nation's nuclear 
laboratories in order to prevent any further espionage at our nation's 
nuclear laboratories.
  While the Clinton Administration has over-extended and under-funded 
our military and has provided inexplicably slow and ineffective 
responses to Chinese spying, this Committee and the Congress as a whole 
has stepped up to face these challenges, and protect our national 
interests.
  I would now like to take the opportunity to highlight some of the 
important provisions championed by the three subcommittees I serve on.
  Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support.--Before I had even 
joined the Armed Services Committee in January of this year, tangible 
evidence of a debilitating readiness crisis had emerged, a crisis that 
threatened the well being of America's armed forces.
  On September 28th of last year, General Shelton confessed:

       I must admit up front that our forces are showing 
     increasing signs of serious wear. Anecdotal and now 
     measurable evidence indicates that our current readiness is 
     fraying and that the long term health of the Total Force is 
     in jeopardy.

  I would note that General Shelton is not a soldier prone to 
hyperbole.
  For their excellent work to combat the ``fraying of readiness'' 
described by General Shelton, Senators Inhofe and Robb, respectively 
the Chairman and Ranking member of the Readiness and Management Support 
Subcommittee, deserve congratulations for the excellent work they have 
done in this area.
  They have added more than $1.46 billion to the primary readiness 
accounts including funds for ammunition, training, base operations and 
essential infrastructure repairs including $380 million for base 
operations, $788 million for real property maintenance, and $172.9 
million for training and war reserve ammunition.
  In the area of military construction, the Subcommittee adopted 
significant changes to the law on economic development conveyances of 
base closure properties. Rural communities that have suffered through 
the closure of a military installation will no longer have to pay the 
government for the privilege of redeveloping their economies.
  The Readiness Subcommittee also correctly rejected the President's 
irresponsible budgetary maneuvering which would have incrementally 
funded military construction projects.
  Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.--The Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces, capably led by Chairman Smith of New Hampshire and Senator 
Landrieu of Louisiana, worked hard to ensure that American soldiers 
deployed overseas and American citizens asleep in their beds will be a 
little safer from the threat of ballistic missile attack.
  The Subcommittee authorized an increase of $212 million for the 
Patriot PAC-3 anti-ballistic missile system to complete research and 
development and begin production soon.
  If I can take a minute, I would like to repeat the last portion of 
that sentence and proudly brag about a product built by hundreds 
hardworking employees in my home state of Arkansas. The Patriot PAC-3 
was the first dedicated, hit-to-kill, Theater Missile Defense (TMD) 
system that has successfully destroyed a target in a test.
  But I digress. The Subcommittee authorized an additional $112 million 
for upgrades to the B-2 bomber system, which I would note for the 
benefit of the program's detractors, performed brilliantly during 
Operation Allied Force.
  The Subcommittee also included a provision regarding DOD's theater 
missile defense upper-tier strategy, which would require that the Navy 
Upper Tier and THAAD systems be managed and funded as separate 
programs. The Administration must be reminded that it has repeatedly 
testified before this Committee that these programs are not 
interchangeable. They are complementary, both urgently needed, and must 
be treated as such.
  But perhaps most importantly, it is within the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee that the Armed Services Committee took the several 
important legislative actions to address the criminally lax security at 
our nation's nuclear laboratories. Lax security that allowed the 
People's Republic of China to steal the secrets produced by billions of 
dollars and four decades worth of taxpayer funded nuclear research.
  Among the provisions recommended by the Subcommittee: The 
establishment of a semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security 
Administration within DOE under which all national security functions 
will be consolidated. Create a new Under Secretary of Energy to head 
the new Administration.
  Created a new counterintelligence office reporting directly to the 
Secretary. Established clear lines of management authority for national 
security missions of the department. Protected the authority of the 
Secretary to ensure full compliance with all applicable environmental 
laws.
  As millions of Americans woke up this year to be repeatedly 
confronted by the shocking truth of the Clinton Administration's 
casual, almost lackadaisical response to the systematic theft of highly 
classified nuclear secrets as reported in the Cox Committee's unanimous 
report, I hope they will find at least a little comfort in the 
knowledge that this Committee was ready to step forward, accept a 
challenge and shoulder the responsibility for our nation's nuclear 
security that this Administration repeatedly forfeited.
  Subcommittee on AirLand Forces: Subcommittee Chairman Rick Santorum 
and Ranking Member Joseph Lieberman also rolled up their sleeves, 
tackling the difficult readiness and modernization challenges posed by 
years of Clinton Administration neglect.
  Most significantly, the Subcommittee fully authorized the budget 
request for the development and procurement of the F-22 Raptor 
aircraft. This aircraft is absolutely essential if Air Force is to 
continue its proud record of air-dominance over far away battlefields. 
America's military should

[[Page 22034]]

never be forced by its Congress to fight a fair fight. When this nation 
must bear arms to protect its interests, it should always be aiming for 
a lopsided victory.
  Also focusing on unfunded requirements identified by each of the 
services, the AirLand Forces Subcommittee made a number of changes to 
the President's request, addressing, among others, Army aviation 
shortfalls and night vision equipment shortfalls.
  To conclude, I would like to again thank Chairman Warner, and his 
dedicated, tireless staff, for their leadership and dedicated service.
  Mr. President, I urge each of my colleagues to support this important 
legislation which contains many provisions which are vital to our 
nation's military. And I urge the President to sign this legislation 
into law as soon as he receives it. This bill will make needed 
improvements in the areas of military readiness, quality of life and 
modernization, and I hope the U.S. Senate will send a strong, 
bipartisan message in support of our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of 
Chairman Warner and the Senate Armed Services Committee Department of 
Defense Authorization bill S. 1059, which will be voted on tomorrow 
morning. This is a bill I strongly encourage my colleagues to support. 
It sends a powerful message to military men and women worldwide, that 
this body respects what they do for America each and every day, as they 
carry out a hundred different operations, in as many nations. We heard 
their voices and have done something positive in improving their 
quality of life and that of their families. We believe they deserve the 
best equipment American technology can produce.
  The statements made by our Service Chiefs on our state of military 
readiness provided an azimuth for the committee back in January, and 
some 70+ hearings later we have a product which provides a funding 
level for new budget authority of $288.8 Billion, which is $8.3 Billion 
above the President's budget request.
  The crisis in the Balkans followed this plea for more funding and 
Chairman Warner responded with over 15 hearings on Kosovo and related 
activities. We learned of the shortfalls in our planning, and were 
proud to learn of the exploits of our men and women in uniform who have 
never let us down. We are, however, left to ponder the problems 
inherent in coalition warfare, and the direction of the new strategic 
concept in NATO.
  Chinese Espionage too took us in yet another direction and the 
committee has responded with a real change in organization of the 
Department of Energy so that we do not fall once again into sloppy 
security awareness. This was truly a vexing problem that no doubt will 
haunt this nation for years to come. I hope the President will not 
hesitate in accepting these considered changes. This is a tough issue 
that warrants a firm solution.
  Mr. President, this bill is just part of the work that lies ahead as 
we restore America's Defense to the status it deserves. I feel we are 
committed, on the Senate Armed Services Committee, to investigating the 
problems associated with: Cyber/Information warfare; WMD Proliferation; 
Chemical and Biological weapons; Organized Crime and Narco-terrorism.
  Our troops are doing a great job the world over! They are truly the 
best led and trained in the world, and they deserve the best equipment, 
the best support and the most funding we can provide them.
  To this end, I am please that Chairman Warner accepted my amendment 
to this bill which calls for the Secretary of Defense to make the 
positions of the Chiefs of the Reserves and the two National Guard 
Directors hold three star rank. This bill mandates, it seems to me, 
that these key leaders, who do so much every day to help us keep the 
peace world-wide, must hold three star rank. I hope they soon will.
  I again congratulate Chairman Warner on bringing us so far in what 
certainly seems a short period of time. S. 1059 is a great bill. It 
needs all our support. I thank the Chair.


                         band 9/10 transmitters

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a brief 
colloquy with our distinguished Chairman concerning the conference 
report that accompanies the fiscal year 2000 National Defense 
Authorization Act. It has come to my attention that page 526 of House 
Report 106-301 notes that the conferees to the bill agreed to authorize 
an increase of $25.0 million for the procurement of additional band 9/
10 transmitters for the EA-6B tactical jamming aircraft. In reality, 
during conference negotiations, conferees agreed to authorize an 
additional $25.0 million for the procurement of modified band 9/10 
transmitters.
  Mr. WARNER. My distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, the 
chairman of our air/land subcommittee, is absolutely correct. Committee 
records were reviewed, and the conferees to the fiscal year 2000 
National Defense Authorization Act did, in fact, agree to increase the 
EA-6B authorization by $25.0 million for the procurement of modified 
band 9/10 transmitters. An error in the printing process was made, and 
the Government Printing Office will be preparing an errata sheet to 
correct this error.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the chairman for his assistance in clarifying 
this matter.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know of no further business on this 
bill. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. By previous order, the distinguished majority leader has 
indicated that at the hour of 9:45 tomorrow morning, this will be the 
pending business for the purpose of the recorded rollcall vote.
  Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________