Summary:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
(House of Representatives - September 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H8295-H8318] CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follow: H. Res. 288 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference report rule for S. 1059, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. In addition, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type of rule that we grant for every conference report we consider in the House. The conference report itself is a strong step forward as we work to take care of our military personnel and provide for our national defense. I have always admired the patriotism and dedication of the young men and women in the armed forces, especially given the poor quality of life that our enlisted men and women face. But today, we are doing something to improve military pay, housing, and benefits. It has always been kind of sad, we ask these young people to technically give up their life for their country, but yet we really have not treated them in the way that most of us would like to be treated. Their pay has not been good. They live in housing that has been virtually World War II almost, substandard housing in some cases. A lot of them have had to take second jobs just to exist because they are married and they cannot make it on their pay. So we are helping to take some of this load off of them, and we are helping to take some of them off of food stamps with this bill by giving them a [[Page H8296]] 4.8 percent pay raise. We have added $258 million for a variety of health care efforts. We are boosting the basic allowance for housing, as I said, increasing retention pay for pilots, which is another big problem we have had. We are having a very difficult time retaining good pilots in the military. We are prompting the GAO to study how we can do better. But along with personnel, we have taken care of our military readiness. We live in a dangerous world today, and Congress is working to protect our friends and family back home from our enemies abroad. We are providing for a national missile defense system, something that we have never had and that a lot of people think we have. A lot of people think we are protected if a warhead comes in from China or North Korea or Iraq or Iran, but, no, we are not. So with this bill, we are going to provide the beginnings of that protection for this country if that day ever comes. In light of the recent news about security breaches at our weapons laboratories, we are creating a National Nuclear Security Administration to prevent enemy nations from stealing our nuclear secrets. We are boosting the military's budget for weapons and ammunition. We are providing $37 billion for research and development so our forces will have top-of-the-line equipment for their job. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying conference report because now more than ever we must improve our national security. Mr. Speaker, I graciously yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for allowing me to speak at this point. As my colleagues know, I am the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. From the beginning of this year, the very first hearing, I said that this should be the year of the troops. To the credit of the Committee on Armed Services, on a very bipartisan effort, it is the year of the troops. We have had, as my colleagues know, serious recruiting problems and even more serious retention problems. I am not just talking about pilots; I am talking about young men and young women who have put several years into the military and decide to get out. The old saying is, and it is so true, ``you recruit soldiers'' or in the case maybe Marines, sailors, airmen, ``but you retain families.'' For instance, the Army has been cut some 36 percent, but the operational tempo has increased 300 percent. We are wearing the troops out. I had breakfast about a year and a half ago with some noncommissioned officers of the United States Navy, and they told me about the dispirited attitude of the young men and women who work with them, the feeling that they were not remembered. This bill is a tribute to them. This bill is one where truly we do remember them. It is our job under the Constitution to raise and maintain the military and to write the rules and regulations therefor, and we have done a magnificent job. I am very proud of it. I am very proud of the bipartisanship. I am very proud of the effort made. I especially compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), our chairman, for his outstanding efforts. This is a good bill. The Department of Energy portion that deals with nuclear weapons is under our jurisdiction. That has been a very important part of our effort. To some, it will not meet with their full approval. But I think we took a giant step forward. I am for this bill, for the troops, for the families. I might say, in addition to the pay raises, the pay raise, the pay tables, pension reform, we have done superb work for the barracks, family housing. I think it deserves great, great support. Regarding the Department of Energy effort, I think it is good. Could it be better? Sure. But legislation is a matter of compromise. So I support the bill and all of its portions. I hope this rule will be adopted overwhelmingly because this is a major step in the national security of our country. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that it is my intention to support this conference report. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 contains a number of provisions that are critical to the maintenance of our national defense forces. Most important among them is a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise and additional pay raises targeted to mid-grade officers and NCOs to improve retention and hopefully stem the loss of some of the best and brightest and most valuable members of our armed services. The quality-of-life issues addressed in this package are, in a word, essential to the men and women who serve in uniform and to their families. As Members of this body point out repeatedly, it is unconscionable that service men and women should be paid at rates so low that they depend upon food stamps to feed their families, or the military housing is oft times decrepit or substandard. This bill may not resolve all of those issues, but at least it puts us on the road to fixing a problem that cannot and should not be tolerated. This conference report is not without controversy, however. The ranking member of the Committee on Commerce has raised some serious concerns about the provisions in the conference report, which establish a new National Nuclear Security Administration to manage DOE's weapons programs. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is especially concerned that this provision was added in conference over the objections of the Committee on Commerce and Committee on Science who have jurisdiction over this matter; and he has indicated that it is his intention to offer a motion to recommit to strike language from the conference report. {time} 1030 Members should listen very carefully to his arguments against these provisions which are opposed by the Secretary of Energy, the National Governors Association, and the National Association of Attorneys General. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will also voice strong objections to the process by which these provisions were included in this conference report. His views deserve the attention of the House, and I urge Members to pay close attention. There will, of course, be Members who will oppose his motion to recommit because they do not want to put any barriers in the path of the passage of this very good bill. His objections do not, however, lie against the remainder of the bill, and those provisions deserve the strong support of the House. This conference report authorizes $8.5 billion for military construction and military family housing programs. It authorizes full funding for a proposed program to construct or renovate over 6,200 units of military family housing, and the construction or renovation of 43 barracks, dormitories and BEQs for the single enlisted. The conference report also increases authorization amounts for procurement accounts to provide for a total of $55.7 billion as well as for research and development to provide for a total of $36.3 billion. This increased funding will provide $171.7 million for further development of the B-2 fleet, $252.6 million to procure F-16C aircraft and $319.9 million for F-16 modifications. In addition, the conference report commits to funding an acquisition of the critical next- generation air dominance fighter. It authorizes $1.2 billion for research and development on the F-22 Raptor, $1.6 billion for six low- rate initial production aircraft, and $277.1 million for advanced procurement for 10 LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The conferees are to be congratulated for their support for this critical program. I am also pleased that the conferees have included $990.4 million for procurement of 12 V-22s and $182.9 million for V-22 research and development and $25 million to accelerate development of the CV-22 special operations variant. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report. The conferees have brought us a bill which enhances quality of life for our men and women in uniform, a bill which protects core readiness and a bill which wisely and aggressively addresses the need to replace aging equipment and to find ways to keep our weapons systems second to none in the world. I commend this conference report to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H8297]] Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership on this and my gratitude for yielding me the time. I am pleased to support this very appropriate rule for consideration of S. 1059, the fiscal year 2000 DOD authorization conference report, a major piece of legislation for this Congress. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their diligent, bipartisan, very thorough work to make sure that we significantly improve the support given to our men and women in uniform. They are the ones doing the hard work. They are the ones in harm's way. They are the ones taking the risk. That deserves to be supported to the fullest extent possible. I am grateful for the continued close working relationship that these gentlemen have had with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in ensuring that our fighting forces have access to the best, the most timely, and the most accurate intelligence that we can get. Eyes, ears, brains are actually very crucial to our national security. This legislation reflects our commitment to those capabilities. Force protection, force enhancement, force projection: these are the results, these are the needs, and these are what we are getting. Americans most recently have watched our troops in action in Kosovo. You might have the impression from what I would call photo-op TV that Kosovo is some kind of a big win. Unfortunately, the view emerging from the ground in Kosovo is not quite so rosy. Further, the administration is pursuing policies that could ultimately endanger the chances for a long-term peace and stability in that region in my view and the view of others. Official U.S. policy toward Kosovo is in fact built upon three very uncertain principles: one, Kosovo should remain an ethnically diverse province; two, Kosovo should not become independent; and, three, the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA, should give up its arms and disband. These principles face serious challenges in the field, on the ground. U.S. policy refuses to recognize even the possibility that the Kosovars will eventually vote to declare independence from Yugoslavia. That is a possibility that should not be discounted. Similarly, the administration is naively assuming that the KLA will simply roll over and disband. In my view, the U.S. has no end game strategy. For the sake of the Americans and our allies on the ground in Kosovo, I urge the administration to rethink our situation there and base decisions on fact, not on wishful thinking. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox Committee, I am satisfied with the provision in this legislation establishing a semiautonomous agency to run the weapons program at the Department of Energy under the Secretary's leadership. Critics have suggested that this change could cause the sky to fall with respect to public health, safety, and environmental matters. To the contrary, I say. The Cox Report demonstrates that the sky has already fallen and our national security has been placed at great risk as a result. Given the deeply troubling circumstances surrounding reports of espionage at our national labs, I believe it is very proper for Congress to move expeditiously in enacting new safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conference report also includes a provision based on an amendment I offered with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) requiring an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti. As our defense leaders have made clear, the Clinton administration's insistence on maintaining a permanent troop presence in Haiti has strained an already overburdened military, has unnecessarily put our troops at risk there, and has focused on humanitarian projects more appropriately undertaken by nongovernmental organizations who are ready, willing and able to do the job. In the face of our efforts to force a withdrawal by year's end, the Clinton administration has finally announced an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, to be replaced with periodic deployments as needed, as is customary everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. This action does not, I repeat, does not signal an end to U.S. military involvement or to U.S. support for the democratic process in Haiti but, rather, it is a more realistic policy to provide the help Haiti so desperately needs as our neighbor in the Caribbean. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members should note that this legislation contains a significant increase in counterdrug funding for DOD. Once again, Congress has taken the lead to win the war on drugs, filling the vacuum left by a just-say-maybe message from the Clinton administration. And we are getting results, if you read the papers. This is a good bill. I urge its passage. I commend those involved. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). Mr. SISISKY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and, of course, the rule. I would like to take a few minutes to tell our colleagues why. First, I am pleased to report that in my opinion members were treated equitably. Members on our side of the aisle were given the same consideration as members on the other side. That is not to say everybody got everything they wanted. They did not. Neither did I. Second, this conference report builds on the President's proposal to increase defense spending by $112 billion over the next 6 years. To redress shortcomings in recruiting and retention, this bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise, pay table reforms for middle grade personnel and retirement reform in what may be the best compensation package for our military since the 1980s. The bill also addresses the budget shortfalls that have dogged the weapons research and development and procurement programs of the Department of Defense. In fact, by providing $4.6 billion in increases for weapons, related research and development and procurement, I believe we may have turned the corner and begun the long, steady recovery that is both needed and overdue. Particularly noteworthy is the emphasis on precision stand-off weapons that reduce risks to our troops and, at the same time, risks to innocent civilian populations. Third, I am particularly pleased that we have rejected the status quo and begun the long and difficult task of management and accountability reforms for the national security functions of the Department of Energy. In my opinion, there is no disagreement as to whether such reforms are needed, and to delay starting the reform process while waiting on unanimity or drafting perfection would in my opinion be irresponsible. Admittedly, the provisions proposed in this conference report are not perfect, nor does everyone agree. But, on balance, they are a good first start on what will prove to be a long and difficult process in the years ahead. More importantly, there is nothing in this bill that would amend existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations, nor is there any intent to limit the States' established regulatory roles pertaining to the Department of Energy operations and ongoing cleanup activities. Thus, I do not believe the DOE reform provisions are antienvironmental nor do I believe they should be used as the basis for rejecting this conference report. Finally, our naval forces have shrunk from nearly 600 ships in 1987 to 324 ships today. At the same time, the number of missions for these ships have increased threefold. Worse, the administration's budget would lead to a 200 ship Navy, well below the force level of 300 ships called for by the Nation's military strategy. This bill allows the Navy to dedicate more of its scarce shipbuilding dollars to the construction of needed warships by providing significantly more cost-effective acquisitions through the following measures: The early construction of an amphibious ship for the Marines at a great price; procurement for the final large, medium speed roll-on/ roll-off ship, [[Page H8298]] LMSR, before the line closes; cost-saving expanded multiyear procurement authority for the DDG-51 destroyer program; long-term lease authority for the services of new construction, noncombatant ships for the Navy; and expanded authority for the National Defense Features program to allow DOD to pay reduced life-cycle costs of defense features built into commercial ships up-front. Mr. Speaker, we all know that bills are compromises, and that good bills make good promise compromises. S. 1059 is such a bill. It is a balanced bill with good compromises. In the strongest terms, I urge the adoption of the conference report. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for pointing out a number of the important issues and details that are what this bill and conference report are about. I rise in very, very strong support of our rule, of our military, and of this bill. The gentleman from Virginia and I just returned from a trip where we went to, among other places, North Korea. If our citizens in the Eighth District, home of Fort Bragg, would look at a city whose tallest buildings have missiles on top of them, where our Air Force base has patriot missile batteries on the ready 24 hours a day, where 14,000 pieces of artillery are trained on the South, 80 percent of which are aimed at Seoul only 40 kilometers away from the demilitarized zone, if they could see in the eyes of the young men and women who are standing face to face with the North Koreans every day as a deterrent to terrorism and rogue nations, there would be no question in their mind as to our continued and increased support for the military. Kosovo and Bosnia have brought to our attention the need to correct imbalances and deprivations that the military has suffered because of budget shortfalls in recent years. This authorization is more than $8 billion over the administration's request, and an additional $18 billion over a greatly reduced budget for defense in 1999. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and members of both parties have worked diligently, courageously and with much forethought to rebuild our military. That is what this rule is about. We have a volunteer force. We should maintain a voluntary and not a draft force. In order to do that, we must do things that are included in this bill, increasing pay, improving health care benefits, restoring REDUX, doing things that we owe to our military to correct years of neglect. {time} 1045 This bill beefs up and strengthens areas that have been eroded over a number of years. It addresses major issues that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) has mentioned, but it also deals with such basics as ammunition and spare parts. So this is a broad-based, common- sense, very necessary piece of support for our men and women in uniform. In order for them to maintain the superiority, the commitment and to provide the protection for a world that is very, very dangerous, we should support them by unanimously passing this rule and this bill. They protect us; we need to support them. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule which sanctifies bad behavior. There was no real conference held on this legislation. Members of the conference who were entitled to be present to participate were not invited and were informed when they showed up that there was no conference to be held, the matter had been disposed of, and that we could simply go our way. Now let us look at what the rule does. The rule waives points of order on two things: One, germaneness and the other, scope of the conference. In each instance the conferees, without holding a meeting, contrived to concede the House rules on both points, so now they need a waiver. Why do they need a waiver? They need a waiver because they wrote something which is not germane, which was never considered in either body and which exceeds the scope of the conference. Now I want to express respect for my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who is a very decent and honorable Member of this body, but I want to say that what has been done here is, first of all, an outrage, and it is a gross abuse of the powers of the committee and a gross disregard to the rights both of other committees and of this body to know what is going on and to have an input into a matter of important concern. Now let us talk about the substance. This proposal in its title 32 recreates essentially the Atomic Energy Commission, one of the most secretive, one of the most sneaky, and one of the most dishonest agencies in government. They lied to everybody, including themselves, and the Congress of the United States, the Executive Branch. They suppressed tracks, and they have created in every area over which they had jurisdiction a cesspool, environmentally and otherwise. The areas which they had jurisdiction over drip hazardous waste and are contaminated beyond belief. Mixed wastes, high-level and low-level nuclear wastes contaminate these areas because of the fact that they diligently suppressed all facts with regard to what they were doing and how they were doing it, and I will be glad to discuss in greater detail because I do not have time now the behavior of that agency. We are now setting up an entity which will be totally exempt from the supervision of the Secretary and which will be totally exempt from the supervision of this body. What they are going to do is to create a situation where now they can lie in the dark, as they did before in the days of the Atomic Energy Commission, and efforts to control this agency will be brought to naught by the absolute power that is being invested in them to suppress the facts to everyone. Now who is opposed to this? First of all, every environmental agency and every environmental organization; second of all, the administration; third of all, the National Governors' Association; and fourth of all, the Organization of Attorneys General, 46 of whom sent us a letter denouncing what is being done here with regard to State, Federal environmental laws and the splendid opportunity for severe and serious misbehavior by this new entity. If my colleagues want to vote for the good things in the bill; and there are many good things, I supported this bill: pay raises and other things which would benefit us in terms not only of our concern for our military personnel, but also our concern for seeing to it that our defense needs are met; vote for the motion to recommit because the only thing it does is to strike title 32. The rest that it keeps are the good things that are in this legislation. So I offer my colleagues a chance to undo what was done in a high- handed arrogance by the committee and in a rather curious and remarkable and unjustifiable rule, one which is going to deny everybody in this country an opportunity to know what is going on inside that agency. Now if we are talking about security, let me just tell my colleagues that the security of the AEC stunk. I was over in a place called Arzamas-16, the place where the Russians made their nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. I saw there a bomb that looked exactly like the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima. I told the guy: That looks familiar. They said it is an exact copy of the bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima. So when they tell us that the recreation of the secrecy and the inbrededness of the AEC and the secretiveness that this legislation will authorize is going to assure the national security, do not believe them. History is against it, and I would just ask my colleagues to understand the secrecy that they are talking about is not against the Russians or against anybody else. It is secrecy which they intend to use to prevent my colleagues, and I, and the Members of Congress, the Members of the Senate from knowing what is going on down there. If my colleagues want to see to it that we continue our efforts to protect the security of the United States, to see to it that things are done which need be done in terms of protecting the security interests of the United States, they can vote for my amendment and [[Page H8299]] should, but if they want to protect the environment, then they you must vote for my amendment. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my colleague. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I share the respect that all Members of this House have for the dean of the House, and I always appreciate his willingness to stand up for what he believes in, as we recently saw when he led efforts to oppose gun control despite the sentiments of most of his party. As much as anyone in this body, the gentleman from Michigan is responsible over the years for the management structure of the Department of Energy, and he does not want to see that changed, and I think we can all understand someone coming from that position. But study after study, report after report, have reached a different conclusion. As a matter of fact, I know of at least 20 studies, reports and in-house reviews in the Department of Energy that have all found that the Department of Energy management structure is a mess and hurts our security, safety, and national security. I point to the President's own study which came out just this summer conducted by his foreign intelligence advisory board, and they concluded, quote, DOE's performance throughout its history should be regarded as intolerable, and they also found, quote, the Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of reforming itself, end quote. Now what they went on to say is we can do one of two things. One is that we can take all the nuclear weapons program completely out of the Department of Energy and set up a whole new agency, or we can create a semi-autonomous agency inside DOE with a clear chain of command and hope to solve some of these problems. This conference report takes the President's own commission's recommendations and implements them down to the letter. Now what that does is it gives the nuclear weapons agency two things that it has never had under DOE. One, it has a clear focus on its mission so that the same people who worry about refrigerator coolant standards and solar power and electricity deregulation day to day are not going to be interfering in the nuclear weapons work. Secondly, it provides accountability so that we have for the first time a clear chain of command so that when an order is given it is followed; and if somebody messes up, they are held responsible and we can get rid of them. And that is one of the most important safeguards we can have to protecting the environment, to having a clear line of accountability and safeguards. The gentleman from Michigan says, oh, this just goes back to the old Atomic Energy Commission. I would say that no more will we ever go back to some of the problems of the past any more than we are going to go back to pouring motor oil out on the ground or we are going to go back to allowing cars to create all the smog that they can create. We are not going to, and I personally, Mr. Speaker, am offended by the suggestion that the people who work at the Pantex plant in my district, who live in the area, whose children go to school in that area, are going to be so careless in disregarding the safety of the drinking water and the other things in that area that they are just going to pollute willy nilly. Now I think there are some important points to be made on the environment. Number one, this bill says that every single standard, environmental standard, that applies before the bill applies after the bill; it does not change. Secondly, this bill says that the Secretary of Energy can set up whatever oversight he wants by whoever he wants, and they can look at every single thing that goes on throughout the weapons complex, and they can make whatever policy recommendations they want to make, and the Secretary of Energy can order anything to happen dealing with the environment or any other subject. The only change is that these oversight people, unless they are within the new agency, cannot order things to be changed, they cannot implement the directions. Policy can be set by anybody that the Secretary wants, but the implementation goes down the clear chain of command. Some of the concerns that have been raised to this bill have been by some attorneys general who are worried about some new court challenge on matters that have been already established under court rulings. Let me make it clear, this bill does not change any of the waivers of sovereign immunity that the attorneys general have been concerned about; and there is a letter that will be made part of the Record later in which the chairman of our committee and the chairman of the Senate committee clearly say we are not changing one single environmental standard. And I would also put as part of the Record at that time a letter from the attorney general of Texas who once he had a chance to look at the actual legislation and what the real intent is says he no longer has any concerns or objections, and I would suggest that if my colleagues have a chance to talk to all the attorneys general and tell them what is really going on, that any of those concerns certainly melt away. Mr. Speaker, I just make two final points. Number one is that we have all been embarrassed and dismayed and shocked at the security headlines which we have seen across the papers this year. For us to walk away and say we cannot do anything about it, it is too complicated, we are just going to let DOE roll along its merry way, is an abdication of our responsibility to fix one of the greatest national security problems with which we have been confronted. The second point I would like to make is this: The gentleman from Michigan's motion to recommit is not like an ordinary bill. It is a conference report. The only effect of the motion is to require us to open the conference back up. That means everything in the conference from the pay raise to the retirement reform to the V-22 to whatever my colleagues care about in this bill is jeopardized because we have got to open everything back up, go back into negotiations with the Senate, and all of the wonderful strides to improve our national security are threatened by the motion to recommit. So I would suggest that it is our responsibility to fix DOE, it is our responsibility to make sure this bill goes forward unimpeded and to vote against the motion when it is offered. Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, September 15, 1999. Hon. Floyd D. Spence, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Spence and Senator Warner: I have received a copy of your September 14, 1999 letter to Michael O. Leavitt and Christine O. Gregoire addressing concerns regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal year 2000, on the safe operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Your letter addresses my two principal concerns with Title XXXII of S. 1059: That this legislation not supercede, diminish or set aside existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity; and that it be clear that under Title XXXII the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to the same extent as before the reorganization. After reading your letter, I am satisfied that this legislation was neither intended to affect existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity nor to exempt in any way the NNSA from the same environmental laws and regulations as applied before reorganization. I also have been advised that your letter will be made part of the legislative history of Title XXXII of S. 1059 by being submitted during the conference debate on this legislation, thus being made part of the Congressional Record. As such, this letter will provide confirmation that this legislation leaves unaltered existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity as well as existing environmental laws and regulations. Given the explanations made in your September 14, 1999, letter as well as the submission of your letter as part of the Congressional Record to be included in the legislative history of this statute, I have no continuing objection to this legislation. I appreciate your efforts to make the intent of Title XXXII of S. 1059 clear. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). [[Page H8300]] Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I rise in strong support of the national defense authorization conference report, and I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and of course the staff of the committee for all the hard work that they put into this conference report. The report addresses the quality of life, the readiness and the modernization shortfalls that the men and the women in our Armed Forces are currently facing. The report also addresses the important issue of domestic violence in the military. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, one occurrence of domestic violence is one too many, and unfortunately reports show that in 1994 in every 1,000 marriages 14 spouses were the victims of spouse abuse, and I am pleased that the conferees from both Chambers worked in a bipartisan manner to address this important issue. The language in the conference report gives the services the opportunity to take on the crime of domestic violence and to protect victims of domestic violence as they never have before. It gives the Department of Defense and the services the opportunity to develop relationships with non-military victims' community and to draw on the expertise of local domestic violence organizations to aid in designing their own programs. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the conference report. {time} 1100 Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member should be proud to vote for this conference report. I think this report is a great manifestation of our ability to work in a bipartisan manner and do something that is important for the country, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and all the Members, Democrat and Republican, who worked on this particular piece of legislation, because today we live in a very dangerous world. That is extremely clear now. China is trying to step into the superpower shoes that have been left by the Soviet Union. Terrorism is becoming more deadly, more technologically capable, and we are seeing new challenges around the world; and against that backdrop we have cut defense dramatically. The defense force structure that we have today is just about half of what it was in 1992. We have gone from 18 Army divisions to 10; 24 active fighter air wings to 13; and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) said, almost 600 ships down to 324 and dropping. Unfortunately, the half that we have left is not as ready as the full force that we had in 1992. We have a $193 million shortage in basic ammo for the Marines; a $3.5 billion shortage in ammo for the Army. Our mission-capable rates have gone down almost 10 percent across the board in the services; that is the ability of an aircraft to take off from a carrier or from a runway, run its mission and come back and land safely. That is now down to an average of about 70 percent. That means about 30 of every 100 planes in our services cannot take off a runway and do their mission because of a lack of spare parts, a lack of maintenance, or just having a real old aircraft that has not been replaced. In fact, we did have 55 crashes, peacetime crashes, last year with the military, resulting in over 50 deaths of our people in uniform. So we are flying old equipment, and we are having to take very valuable resources, these spare parts, the few spares and repair parts that we have, and our trained personnel who can still fix aircraft and other equipment and move them to the front lines when we run an operation like Kosovo. So against that backdrop, we have put an additional $2.7 billion into the modernization accounts, and we put extra money in the pay raise. We have a 4.8 percent pay raise. We put money in readiness. Across the board, we have spent what I consider to be the bare minimum; but in this case, Mr. Speaker, the bare minimum is absolutely necessary. It would be a tragedy to defeat this bill for some reason, for some turf fight or some other reason that has nothing to do with national security. Let me just say with respect to the DOE section of this bill and the reform that we did, let me just remind my colleagues about the tragedy that occurred a couple of years ago. After we had identified an individual who was identified as a spy in our nuclear weapons laboratory, and the head of the FBI, Mr. Freeh, had gone to the Assistant Secretary of Energy and a couple of weeks later to the Secretary of Energy and said, get this guy away from classified areas, take away his access to our nuclear secrets, 14 months later somebody turned around and said, is that spy still next to the nuclear weapons vault? And somebody went over and checked and, yes, he was. We tried to figure out why he hadn't been fired, and there was such a mess and such a confusion that nobody was sure. Everybody thought the other guy was going to get the spy away from our nuclear secrets. Presumably he was upgrading for 14 months, over a year, the nuclear secrets that he had moved out earlier and nobody was there to stop him. That was the confusion that we saw. That is the confusion that we fix. Let us pass this conference report. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity not to comment on this legislation but to comment on the Republican leadership's unwillingness to recognize reality in the scheduling of the House of Representatives. As people may be aware, there is a hurricane headed toward this area, and yet the Republican leadership refuses to adjourn the House at the end of proceedings today, thereby forcing Members to attend a hurricane party here in Washington, D.C. in the capitol tomorrow. It is very likely that the Washington, D.C. airports will be closed tomorrow if the hurricane does, in fact, continue on its path, thereby preventing Members from the southeast who may want to be with their constituents at the time of this national emergency from doing so, and preventing Members from other parts of the country who may actually want to be able to go home this weekend and spend time with their constituents from doing so. I find it extraordinarily shortsighted on the part of the Republican leadership to recognize that there is a hurricane headed straight toward Washington, D.C. The House should be adjourned at the end of today so that Members will not be trapped in Washington and be unable to be with their constituents in the next 5 days. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, back to the debate, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding and congratulate her on her superb management of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from Dallas by saying that we obviously want to do everything that we can to ensure that people are able to get out of town in time, and I will say that we do not want to have to have a hurricane party here. I do not know that the hurricane is headed right towards Washington, D.C. We certainly hope that we do not see any loss of life and that it is, in fact, lessened. But I am struck with the fact that my colleagues really go for everything they possibly can to attack the Republican leadership. We enjoy the fact that they are scraping for something more to criticize us on. Let me say that I believe that this is a very important conference report. We are trying to get the people's work done here, and I am hoping very much that we will be able to have strong bipartisan support of not only the rule but the conference report itself. [[Page H8301]] It was 10 years ago this coming November 13 that the world celebrated the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and many people argued at that point that we would be witnessing the end of history; that the demise of the Soviet Union and Communism, which took place in the following 3 years, was something that was going to change the world, and clearly it has. I think that the leadership that Ronald Reagan and President George Bush have shown and, frankly, in a bipartisan way that we have provided for our Nation's defense capability, brought about that change; but as we mark, in the coming weeks, the 10th anniversary of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, it is very important for us to note that there has been a dramatic change in the national security threat that exists in this country and for the free world. It seems to me that we need to realize that over that period of time we have dealt with a wide range of challenges that exist throughout the world, and I am struck with a figure that I mentioned here several times before, the fact that during this administration we have deployed 265,000 troops to 139 countries around the world and that has taken place at a time when we have actually diminished our level of expenditures. Since 1987, we have seen a reduction of 800,000 of our military personnel. We have consistently pursued this goal of trying to do more with less, and that is wrong. That is why when we, as Republicans at the beginning of the 106th Congress, set forth our four top priorities of making sure that we improve public education, which I am proud to say that we have done; provide tax relief for working families, which in just a couple of hours we are going to be enrolling the bill and sending it to the President, and I hope very much he does not veto that bill as he said he would on Friday; and saving Social Security and Medicare. Those are other priorities. We also included, as a top priority, because of this changing threat, rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. I am happy that we have passed and that the President, reluctantly, but the President finally did sign the national ballistic missile defense bill. I am very happy that we were able to see the President come on board in some of our attempts to deal with these national security issues, and I hope that he will be able to sign this conference report when it gets to him. It is clearly the right thing to do. We are going to be facing more challenges, but we have to make sure that the one issue which only the Federal Government can deal with, virtually every one of the other issues that we deal with can be handled by State and local governments, but our national security is the one issue that we are charged to dealing with. It is in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and it seems to me that we need to step up to the plate. That is why support of this conference report is very important. I urge my colleagues to do it in a bipartisan way. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), that I am not trying to be overly critical of the Republican leadership. Mr. DREIER. That would be a first, I have to say. Mr. FROST. I am just appalled by the fact that they seem to have taken the position of, what hurricane? I mean, everybody in the country knows that the hurricane is heading up the East Coast, and by refusing to adjourn the House at the end of business today they are forcing the staff to try and get into work tomorrow. They are trapping Members in the Nation's capital who want to be home with their constituents. This is an extraordinary development. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just for a moment, I would just like to thank him for his input and tell him that the recommendation that he has made will certainly be taken into consideration. Mr. FROST. I have not yielded. I am sorry. I have not yielded. The Republican leadership seems to be the only ones in the country that do not recognize the fact that a hurricane is moving up the East Coast, and that it is projected that it is going to come very close to Washington, D.C. tomorrow, and that we may have 5 inches of rain here tomorrow. I do not understand. All I want them to do is to turn on their television sets and to listen to the news and to deal with reality so that Members can be treated in a fair way and so that the staff can be treated in a fair way. It is unrealistic and unfair to say we are going to be here tomorrow and everybody come on in, no matter what is happening. They ought to face reality. They ought to adjourn the House at the end of today so that Members and staff will not be forced through the hardship of dealing with the hurricane in Washington, D.C. tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 1 minute remaining. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) if he has any further speakers? Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close for our side. We do not have any other speakers at this point. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, if it is all right, the gentleman should go ahead and close because I have no more speakers either. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good piece of legislation. This is legislation supported by a Democratic President, a Democratic administration, supported by the vast majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. We all are pleased to stand for a strong national defense, to stand for efforts to help our troops, to increase morale, to make sure that we retain soldiers that we need and that we are able to recruit soldiers that our forces need for the future. This is a good conference report. As a Democrat, I am pleased to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on final passage on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 288, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. {time} 1115 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of August 5, 1999, at page H7469.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with all respect for the chairman of the committee and all respect for my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I have been advised that the gentleman from Missouri supports the bill. I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Missouri opposed to the bill, and therefore, is he entitled to time in opposition to the legislation? The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in favor of the conference report? Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri supports the conference report. Pursuant to clause 8(d)(2) of rule XXII, time will be controlled three ways. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) will control 20 minutes; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. [[Page H8302]] Skelton) will control 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will control 20 minutes. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill was reported out of the Committee on Armed Services back in May on a vote of 55-to-1, and it passed the House in June on a vote of 365-to-58. The conference report before us today enjoys equally strong bipartisan support, as all 36 Republican and Democrat committee conferees have signed the conference report. This is only the second time this has happened since 1981. It is truly a bipartisan report. Mr. Speaker, the funding authorized in this bill is consistent with the increased spending levels set by the Congress in the budget resolution. As a result of this increased spending and a careful reprioritization of the President's budget request, we have provided the military services some of the tools necessary to better recruit and retain qualified personnel and to better train and equip them. It is in this context that the conferees went to work, targeting additional funding for a variety of sorely needed quality of life, readiness, and equipment initiatives. However, despite the conferees' best efforts, we are not eliminating shortfalls, we are simply struggling to manage them. Absent a long-term, sustained commitment to revitalizing America's armed forces, we will continue to run the inevitable risks that come from asking our troops to do more with less. This conference report also contains the most important and significant Department of Energy reorganization proposal since the agency's creation more than two decades ago. Earlier this year, the bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee released its report on the national security implications of our United States technology transfers to the People's Republic of China. The Cox Committee identified lax security at DOE nuclear laboratories as a critical national security problem, and unanimously concluded that China had obtained classified information on ``every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the United States ballistic missile arsenal.'' Following the Cox Committee report, President Clinton's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board chaired by former Senator Rudman, issued its report highly critical of DOE's failure to protect the Nation's nuclear secrets. The report of the President's Advisory Board concluded that DOD is, ``a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself.'' The conference report would implement the recommendation of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to create a semi- autonomous agency within DOE and vest it with responsibility for nuclear weapons research and protection. The reorganization will go a long way towards streamlining DOE's excessive bureaucracy and improving accountability, all in an effort to ensure that our Nation's most vital nuclear secrets are better managed and secured. Mr. Speaker, some question has been raised in some quarters on the possible impact that the reorganization provisions could have on DOE's environmental programs and in particular, on the status of existing waivers of solving immunity agreements between the Federal Government and individual States. In a few minutes I plan to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to clarify this point for the legislative record. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record following my statement a letter that Senator Warner and I have jointly written to the National Governors Association and the National Association of Attorneys General that address these questions in more detail. The bottom line is that this conference report does not impact or change current environmental law or regulation, and it does not impact or change existing waivers of sovereign immunity agreements. For the sake of time I will not repeat that statement, but it is true to the letter. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is before the House today only as a result of the efforts of all conferees. In particular, I want to recognize the critical roles played by the Committee on Armed Services subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking members. Their efforts, along with those of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) made my job easier, and their dedication to getting the job done is clearly evident in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report. Washington, DC, September 14, 1999. Hon. Michael O. Leavitt, Chairman, National Governors' Association, Hall of States, Washington, DC. Hon. Christine O. Gregoire, President, National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, DC. Dear Governor and Madam Attorney General: We are aware that concerns have been raised regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2000, on the safe operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Title XXXII provides for the reorganization of the DOE to strengthen its national security function, as recommended by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). In so doing, the NDAA would establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department. However, as the purpose of this effort was focused on enhancing national security and strengthening operational management of the Department's nuclear weapons production function, the conferees recognized the need to carefully avoid statutory modifications that could inadvertently result in changes or challenges to the existing environmental cleanup efforts. As such, Title XXXII does not amend existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations and is in no way intended to limit the states' established regulatory roles pertaining to DOE operations and ongoing cleanup activities. In fact, Title XXXII contains a number of provisions specifically crafted to clearly establish this principle in statue. NNSA compliance with existing environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non- substantive requirements. Concern has been expressed that Title XXXII could result in the exemption of the NNSA from compliance with existing environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non-substantive requirements. We believe these concerns to be unfounded. First, Section 3261 expressly requires that the newly created NNSA comply with all applicable environmental, safety and health laws and substantive requirements. The NNSA Administrator must develop procedures for meeting these requirements at sites covered by the NNSA, and the Secretary of Energy must ensure that compliance with these important requirements is accomplished. As such, the provision would not supersede, diminish or otherwise impact existing authorities granted to the states or the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and enforce cleanup at DOE sites. The clear intent of Title XXXII is to require that the NNSA comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to the same extent as before the reorganization. This intent is evidenced by Section 3296, which provides that all applicable provisions of law and regulations (including tho

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
(House of Representatives - September 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H8295-H8318] CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follow: H. Res. 288 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference report rule for S. 1059, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. In addition, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type of rule that we grant for every conference report we consider in the House. The conference report itself is a strong step forward as we work to take care of our military personnel and provide for our national defense. I have always admired the patriotism and dedication of the young men and women in the armed forces, especially given the poor quality of life that our enlisted men and women face. But today, we are doing something to improve military pay, housing, and benefits. It has always been kind of sad, we ask these young people to technically give up their life for their country, but yet we really have not treated them in the way that most of us would like to be treated. Their pay has not been good. They live in housing that has been virtually World War II almost, substandard housing in some cases. A lot of them have had to take second jobs just to exist because they are married and they cannot make it on their pay. So we are helping to take some of this load off of them, and we are helping to take some of them off of food stamps with this bill by giving them a [[Page H8296]] 4.8 percent pay raise. We have added $258 million for a variety of health care efforts. We are boosting the basic allowance for housing, as I said, increasing retention pay for pilots, which is another big problem we have had. We are having a very difficult time retaining good pilots in the military. We are prompting the GAO to study how we can do better. But along with personnel, we have taken care of our military readiness. We live in a dangerous world today, and Congress is working to protect our friends and family back home from our enemies abroad. We are providing for a national missile defense system, something that we have never had and that a lot of people think we have. A lot of people think we are protected if a warhead comes in from China or North Korea or Iraq or Iran, but, no, we are not. So with this bill, we are going to provide the beginnings of that protection for this country if that day ever comes. In light of the recent news about security breaches at our weapons laboratories, we are creating a National Nuclear Security Administration to prevent enemy nations from stealing our nuclear secrets. We are boosting the military's budget for weapons and ammunition. We are providing $37 billion for research and development so our forces will have top-of-the-line equipment for their job. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying conference report because now more than ever we must improve our national security. Mr. Speaker, I graciously yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for allowing me to speak at this point. As my colleagues know, I am the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. From the beginning of this year, the very first hearing, I said that this should be the year of the troops. To the credit of the Committee on Armed Services, on a very bipartisan effort, it is the year of the troops. We have had, as my colleagues know, serious recruiting problems and even more serious retention problems. I am not just talking about pilots; I am talking about young men and young women who have put several years into the military and decide to get out. The old saying is, and it is so true, ``you recruit soldiers'' or in the case maybe Marines, sailors, airmen, ``but you retain families.'' For instance, the Army has been cut some 36 percent, but the operational tempo has increased 300 percent. We are wearing the troops out. I had breakfast about a year and a half ago with some noncommissioned officers of the United States Navy, and they told me about the dispirited attitude of the young men and women who work with them, the feeling that they were not remembered. This bill is a tribute to them. This bill is one where truly we do remember them. It is our job under the Constitution to raise and maintain the military and to write the rules and regulations therefor, and we have done a magnificent job. I am very proud of it. I am very proud of the bipartisanship. I am very proud of the effort made. I especially compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), our chairman, for his outstanding efforts. This is a good bill. The Department of Energy portion that deals with nuclear weapons is under our jurisdiction. That has been a very important part of our effort. To some, it will not meet with their full approval. But I think we took a giant step forward. I am for this bill, for the troops, for the families. I might say, in addition to the pay raises, the pay raise, the pay tables, pension reform, we have done superb work for the barracks, family housing. I think it deserves great, great support. Regarding the Department of Energy effort, I think it is good. Could it be better? Sure. But legislation is a matter of compromise. So I support the bill and all of its portions. I hope this rule will be adopted overwhelmingly because this is a major step in the national security of our country. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that it is my intention to support this conference report. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 contains a number of provisions that are critical to the maintenance of our national defense forces. Most important among them is a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise and additional pay raises targeted to mid-grade officers and NCOs to improve retention and hopefully stem the loss of some of the best and brightest and most valuable members of our armed services. The quality-of-life issues addressed in this package are, in a word, essential to the men and women who serve in uniform and to their families. As Members of this body point out repeatedly, it is unconscionable that service men and women should be paid at rates so low that they depend upon food stamps to feed their families, or the military housing is oft times decrepit or substandard. This bill may not resolve all of those issues, but at least it puts us on the road to fixing a problem that cannot and should not be tolerated. This conference report is not without controversy, however. The ranking member of the Committee on Commerce has raised some serious concerns about the provisions in the conference report, which establish a new National Nuclear Security Administration to manage DOE's weapons programs. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is especially concerned that this provision was added in conference over the objections of the Committee on Commerce and Committee on Science who have jurisdiction over this matter; and he has indicated that it is his intention to offer a motion to recommit to strike language from the conference report. {time} 1030 Members should listen very carefully to his arguments against these provisions which are opposed by the Secretary of Energy, the National Governors Association, and the National Association of Attorneys General. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will also voice strong objections to the process by which these provisions were included in this conference report. His views deserve the attention of the House, and I urge Members to pay close attention. There will, of course, be Members who will oppose his motion to recommit because they do not want to put any barriers in the path of the passage of this very good bill. His objections do not, however, lie against the remainder of the bill, and those provisions deserve the strong support of the House. This conference report authorizes $8.5 billion for military construction and military family housing programs. It authorizes full funding for a proposed program to construct or renovate over 6,200 units of military family housing, and the construction or renovation of 43 barracks, dormitories and BEQs for the single enlisted. The conference report also increases authorization amounts for procurement accounts to provide for a total of $55.7 billion as well as for research and development to provide for a total of $36.3 billion. This increased funding will provide $171.7 million for further development of the B-2 fleet, $252.6 million to procure F-16C aircraft and $319.9 million for F-16 modifications. In addition, the conference report commits to funding an acquisition of the critical next- generation air dominance fighter. It authorizes $1.2 billion for research and development on the F-22 Raptor, $1.6 billion for six low- rate initial production aircraft, and $277.1 million for advanced procurement for 10 LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The conferees are to be congratulated for their support for this critical program. I am also pleased that the conferees have included $990.4 million for procurement of 12 V-22s and $182.9 million for V-22 research and development and $25 million to accelerate development of the CV-22 special operations variant. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report. The conferees have brought us a bill which enhances quality of life for our men and women in uniform, a bill which protects core readiness and a bill which wisely and aggressively addresses the need to replace aging equipment and to find ways to keep our weapons systems second to none in the world. I commend this conference report to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H8297]] Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership on this and my gratitude for yielding me the time. I am pleased to support this very appropriate rule for consideration of S. 1059, the fiscal year 2000 DOD authorization conference report, a major piece of legislation for this Congress. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their diligent, bipartisan, very thorough work to make sure that we significantly improve the support given to our men and women in uniform. They are the ones doing the hard work. They are the ones in harm's way. They are the ones taking the risk. That deserves to be supported to the fullest extent possible. I am grateful for the continued close working relationship that these gentlemen have had with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in ensuring that our fighting forces have access to the best, the most timely, and the most accurate intelligence that we can get. Eyes, ears, brains are actually very crucial to our national security. This legislation reflects our commitment to those capabilities. Force protection, force enhancement, force projection: these are the results, these are the needs, and these are what we are getting. Americans most recently have watched our troops in action in Kosovo. You might have the impression from what I would call photo-op TV that Kosovo is some kind of a big win. Unfortunately, the view emerging from the ground in Kosovo is not quite so rosy. Further, the administration is pursuing policies that could ultimately endanger the chances for a long-term peace and stability in that region in my view and the view of others. Official U.S. policy toward Kosovo is in fact built upon three very uncertain principles: one, Kosovo should remain an ethnically diverse province; two, Kosovo should not become independent; and, three, the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA, should give up its arms and disband. These principles face serious challenges in the field, on the ground. U.S. policy refuses to recognize even the possibility that the Kosovars will eventually vote to declare independence from Yugoslavia. That is a possibility that should not be discounted. Similarly, the administration is naively assuming that the KLA will simply roll over and disband. In my view, the U.S. has no end game strategy. For the sake of the Americans and our allies on the ground in Kosovo, I urge the administration to rethink our situation there and base decisions on fact, not on wishful thinking. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox Committee, I am satisfied with the provision in this legislation establishing a semiautonomous agency to run the weapons program at the Department of Energy under the Secretary's leadership. Critics have suggested that this change could cause the sky to fall with respect to public health, safety, and environmental matters. To the contrary, I say. The Cox Report demonstrates that the sky has already fallen and our national security has been placed at great risk as a result. Given the deeply troubling circumstances surrounding reports of espionage at our national labs, I believe it is very proper for Congress to move expeditiously in enacting new safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conference report also includes a provision based on an amendment I offered with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) requiring an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti. As our defense leaders have made clear, the Clinton administration's insistence on maintaining a permanent troop presence in Haiti has strained an already overburdened military, has unnecessarily put our troops at risk there, and has focused on humanitarian projects more appropriately undertaken by nongovernmental organizations who are ready, willing and able to do the job. In the face of our efforts to force a withdrawal by year's end, the Clinton administration has finally announced an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, to be replaced with periodic deployments as needed, as is customary everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. This action does not, I repeat, does not signal an end to U.S. military involvement or to U.S. support for the democratic process in Haiti but, rather, it is a more realistic policy to provide the help Haiti so desperately needs as our neighbor in the Caribbean. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members should note that this legislation contains a significant increase in counterdrug funding for DOD. Once again, Congress has taken the lead to win the war on drugs, filling the vacuum left by a just-say-maybe message from the Clinton administration. And we are getting results, if you read the papers. This is a good bill. I urge its passage. I commend those involved. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). Mr. SISISKY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and, of course, the rule. I would like to take a few minutes to tell our colleagues why. First, I am pleased to report that in my opinion members were treated equitably. Members on our side of the aisle were given the same consideration as members on the other side. That is not to say everybody got everything they wanted. They did not. Neither did I. Second, this conference report builds on the President's proposal to increase defense spending by $112 billion over the next 6 years. To redress shortcomings in recruiting and retention, this bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise, pay table reforms for middle grade personnel and retirement reform in what may be the best compensation package for our military since the 1980s. The bill also addresses the budget shortfalls that have dogged the weapons research and development and procurement programs of the Department of Defense. In fact, by providing $4.6 billion in increases for weapons, related research and development and procurement, I believe we may have turned the corner and begun the long, steady recovery that is both needed and overdue. Particularly noteworthy is the emphasis on precision stand-off weapons that reduce risks to our troops and, at the same time, risks to innocent civilian populations. Third, I am particularly pleased that we have rejected the status quo and begun the long and difficult task of management and accountability reforms for the national security functions of the Department of Energy. In my opinion, there is no disagreement as to whether such reforms are needed, and to delay starting the reform process while waiting on unanimity or drafting perfection would in my opinion be irresponsible. Admittedly, the provisions proposed in this conference report are not perfect, nor does everyone agree. But, on balance, they are a good first start on what will prove to be a long and difficult process in the years ahead. More importantly, there is nothing in this bill that would amend existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations, nor is there any intent to limit the States' established regulatory roles pertaining to the Department of Energy operations and ongoing cleanup activities. Thus, I do not believe the DOE reform provisions are antienvironmental nor do I believe they should be used as the basis for rejecting this conference report. Finally, our naval forces have shrunk from nearly 600 ships in 1987 to 324 ships today. At the same time, the number of missions for these ships have increased threefold. Worse, the administration's budget would lead to a 200 ship Navy, well below the force level of 300 ships called for by the Nation's military strategy. This bill allows the Navy to dedicate more of its scarce shipbuilding dollars to the construction of needed warships by providing significantly more cost-effective acquisitions through the following measures: The early construction of an amphibious ship for the Marines at a great price; procurement for the final large, medium speed roll-on/ roll-off ship, [[Page H8298]] LMSR, before the line closes; cost-saving expanded multiyear procurement authority for the DDG-51 destroyer program; long-term lease authority for the services of new construction, noncombatant ships for the Navy; and expanded authority for the National Defense Features program to allow DOD to pay reduced life-cycle costs of defense features built into commercial ships up-front. Mr. Speaker, we all know that bills are compromises, and that good bills make good promise compromises. S. 1059 is such a bill. It is a balanced bill with good compromises. In the strongest terms, I urge the adoption of the conference report. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for pointing out a number of the important issues and details that are what this bill and conference report are about. I rise in very, very strong support of our rule, of our military, and of this bill. The gentleman from Virginia and I just returned from a trip where we went to, among other places, North Korea. If our citizens in the Eighth District, home of Fort Bragg, would look at a city whose tallest buildings have missiles on top of them, where our Air Force base has patriot missile batteries on the ready 24 hours a day, where 14,000 pieces of artillery are trained on the South, 80 percent of which are aimed at Seoul only 40 kilometers away from the demilitarized zone, if they could see in the eyes of the young men and women who are standing face to face with the North Koreans every day as a deterrent to terrorism and rogue nations, there would be no question in their mind as to our continued and increased support for the military. Kosovo and Bosnia have brought to our attention the need to correct imbalances and deprivations that the military has suffered because of budget shortfalls in recent years. This authorization is more than $8 billion over the administration's request, and an additional $18 billion over a greatly reduced budget for defense in 1999. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and members of both parties have worked diligently, courageously and with much forethought to rebuild our military. That is what this rule is about. We have a volunteer force. We should maintain a voluntary and not a draft force. In order to do that, we must do things that are included in this bill, increasing pay, improving health care benefits, restoring REDUX, doing things that we owe to our military to correct years of neglect. {time} 1045 This bill beefs up and strengthens areas that have been eroded over a number of years. It addresses major issues that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) has mentioned, but it also deals with such basics as ammunition and spare parts. So this is a broad-based, common- sense, very necessary piece of support for our men and women in uniform. In order for them to maintain the superiority, the commitment and to provide the protection for a world that is very, very dangerous, we should support them by unanimously passing this rule and this bill. They protect us; we need to support them. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule which sanctifies bad behavior. There was no real conference held on this legislation. Members of the conference who were entitled to be present to participate were not invited and were informed when they showed up that there was no conference to be held, the matter had been disposed of, and that we could simply go our way. Now let us look at what the rule does. The rule waives points of order on two things: One, germaneness and the other, scope of the conference. In each instance the conferees, without holding a meeting, contrived to concede the House rules on both points, so now they need a waiver. Why do they need a waiver? They need a waiver because they wrote something which is not germane, which was never considered in either body and which exceeds the scope of the conference. Now I want to express respect for my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who is a very decent and honorable Member of this body, but I want to say that what has been done here is, first of all, an outrage, and it is a gross abuse of the powers of the committee and a gross disregard to the rights both of other committees and of this body to know what is going on and to have an input into a matter of important concern. Now let us talk about the substance. This proposal in its title 32 recreates essentially the Atomic Energy Commission, one of the most secretive, one of the most sneaky, and one of the most dishonest agencies in government. They lied to everybody, including themselves, and the Congress of the United States, the Executive Branch. They suppressed tracks, and they have created in every area over which they had jurisdiction a cesspool, environmentally and otherwise. The areas which they had jurisdiction over drip hazardous waste and are contaminated beyond belief. Mixed wastes, high-level and low-level nuclear wastes contaminate these areas because of the fact that they diligently suppressed all facts with regard to what they were doing and how they were doing it, and I will be glad to discuss in greater detail because I do not have time now the behavior of that agency. We are now setting up an entity which will be totally exempt from the supervision of the Secretary and which will be totally exempt from the supervision of this body. What they are going to do is to create a situation where now they can lie in the dark, as they did before in the days of the Atomic Energy Commission, and efforts to control this agency will be brought to naught by the absolute power that is being invested in them to suppress the facts to everyone. Now who is opposed to this? First of all, every environmental agency and every environmental organization; second of all, the administration; third of all, the National Governors' Association; and fourth of all, the Organization of Attorneys General, 46 of whom sent us a letter denouncing what is being done here with regard to State, Federal environmental laws and the splendid opportunity for severe and serious misbehavior by this new entity. If my colleagues want to vote for the good things in the bill; and there are many good things, I supported this bill: pay raises and other things which would benefit us in terms not only of our concern for our military personnel, but also our concern for seeing to it that our defense needs are met; vote for the motion to recommit because the only thing it does is to strike title 32. The rest that it keeps are the good things that are in this legislation. So I offer my colleagues a chance to undo what was done in a high- handed arrogance by the committee and in a rather curious and remarkable and unjustifiable rule, one which is going to deny everybody in this country an opportunity to know what is going on inside that agency. Now if we are talking about security, let me just tell my colleagues that the security of the AEC stunk. I was over in a place called Arzamas-16, the place where the Russians made their nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. I saw there a bomb that looked exactly like the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima. I told the guy: That looks familiar. They said it is an exact copy of the bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima. So when they tell us that the recreation of the secrecy and the inbrededness of the AEC and the secretiveness that this legislation will authorize is going to assure the national security, do not believe them. History is against it, and I would just ask my colleagues to understand the secrecy that they are talking about is not against the Russians or against anybody else. It is secrecy which they intend to use to prevent my colleagues, and I, and the Members of Congress, the Members of the Senate from knowing what is going on down there. If my colleagues want to see to it that we continue our efforts to protect the security of the United States, to see to it that things are done which need be done in terms of protecting the security interests of the United States, they can vote for my amendment and [[Page H8299]] should, but if they want to protect the environment, then they you must vote for my amendment. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my colleague. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I share the respect that all Members of this House have for the dean of the House, and I always appreciate his willingness to stand up for what he believes in, as we recently saw when he led efforts to oppose gun control despite the sentiments of most of his party. As much as anyone in this body, the gentleman from Michigan is responsible over the years for the management structure of the Department of Energy, and he does not want to see that changed, and I think we can all understand someone coming from that position. But study after study, report after report, have reached a different conclusion. As a matter of fact, I know of at least 20 studies, reports and in-house reviews in the Department of Energy that have all found that the Department of Energy management structure is a mess and hurts our security, safety, and national security. I point to the President's own study which came out just this summer conducted by his foreign intelligence advisory board, and they concluded, quote, DOE's performance throughout its history should be regarded as intolerable, and they also found, quote, the Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of reforming itself, end quote. Now what they went on to say is we can do one of two things. One is that we can take all the nuclear weapons program completely out of the Department of Energy and set up a whole new agency, or we can create a semi-autonomous agency inside DOE with a clear chain of command and hope to solve some of these problems. This conference report takes the President's own commission's recommendations and implements them down to the letter. Now what that does is it gives the nuclear weapons agency two things that it has never had under DOE. One, it has a clear focus on its mission so that the same people who worry about refrigerator coolant standards and solar power and electricity deregulation day to day are not going to be interfering in the nuclear weapons work. Secondly, it provides accountability so that we have for the first time a clear chain of command so that when an order is given it is followed; and if somebody messes up, they are held responsible and we can get rid of them. And that is one of the most important safeguards we can have to protecting the environment, to having a clear line of accountability and safeguards. The gentleman from Michigan says, oh, this just goes back to the old Atomic Energy Commission. I would say that no more will we ever go back to some of the problems of the past any more than we are going to go back to pouring motor oil out on the ground or we are going to go back to allowing cars to create all the smog that they can create. We are not going to, and I personally, Mr. Speaker, am offended by the suggestion that the people who work at the Pantex plant in my district, who live in the area, whose children go to school in that area, are going to be so careless in disregarding the safety of the drinking water and the other things in that area that they are just going to pollute willy nilly. Now I think there are some important points to be made on the environment. Number one, this bill says that every single standard, environmental standard, that applies before the bill applies after the bill; it does not change. Secondly, this bill says that the Secretary of Energy can set up whatever oversight he wants by whoever he wants, and they can look at every single thing that goes on throughout the weapons complex, and they can make whatever policy recommendations they want to make, and the Secretary of Energy can order anything to happen dealing with the environment or any other subject. The only change is that these oversight people, unless they are within the new agency, cannot order things to be changed, they cannot implement the directions. Policy can be set by anybody that the Secretary wants, but the implementation goes down the clear chain of command. Some of the concerns that have been raised to this bill have been by some attorneys general who are worried about some new court challenge on matters that have been already established under court rulings. Let me make it clear, this bill does not change any of the waivers of sovereign immunity that the attorneys general have been concerned about; and there is a letter that will be made part of the Record later in which the chairman of our committee and the chairman of the Senate committee clearly say we are not changing one single environmental standard. And I would also put as part of the Record at that time a letter from the attorney general of Texas who once he had a chance to look at the actual legislation and what the real intent is says he no longer has any concerns or objections, and I would suggest that if my colleagues have a chance to talk to all the attorneys general and tell them what is really going on, that any of those concerns certainly melt away. Mr. Speaker, I just make two final points. Number one is that we have all been embarrassed and dismayed and shocked at the security headlines which we have seen across the papers this year. For us to walk away and say we cannot do anything about it, it is too complicated, we are just going to let DOE roll along its merry way, is an abdication of our responsibility to fix one of the greatest national security problems with which we have been confronted. The second point I would like to make is this: The gentleman from Michigan's motion to recommit is not like an ordinary bill. It is a conference report. The only effect of the motion is to require us to open the conference back up. That means everything in the conference from the pay raise to the retirement reform to the V-22 to whatever my colleagues care about in this bill is jeopardized because we have got to open everything back up, go back into negotiations with the Senate, and all of the wonderful strides to improve our national security are threatened by the motion to recommit. So I would suggest that it is our responsibility to fix DOE, it is our responsibility to make sure this bill goes forward unimpeded and to vote against the motion when it is offered. Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, September 15, 1999. Hon. Floyd D. Spence, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Spence and Senator Warner: I have received a copy of your September 14, 1999 letter to Michael O. Leavitt and Christine O. Gregoire addressing concerns regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal year 2000, on the safe operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Your letter addresses my two principal concerns with Title XXXII of S. 1059: That this legislation not supercede, diminish or set aside existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity; and that it be clear that under Title XXXII the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to the same extent as before the reorganization. After reading your letter, I am satisfied that this legislation was neither intended to affect existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity nor to exempt in any way the NNSA from the same environmental laws and regulations as applied before reorganization. I also have been advised that your letter will be made part of the legislative history of Title XXXII of S. 1059 by being submitted during the conference debate on this legislation, thus being made part of the Congressional Record. As such, this letter will provide confirmation that this legislation leaves unaltered existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity as well as existing environmental laws and regulations. Given the explanations made in your September 14, 1999, letter as well as the submission of your letter as part of the Congressional Record to be included in the legislative history of this statute, I have no continuing objection to this legislation. I appreciate your efforts to make the intent of Title XXXII of S. 1059 clear. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). [[Page H8300]] Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I rise in strong support of the national defense authorization conference report, and I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and of course the staff of the committee for all the hard work that they put into this conference report. The report addresses the quality of life, the readiness and the modernization shortfalls that the men and the women in our Armed Forces are currently facing. The report also addresses the important issue of domestic violence in the military. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, one occurrence of domestic violence is one too many, and unfortunately reports show that in 1994 in every 1,000 marriages 14 spouses were the victims of spouse abuse, and I am pleased that the conferees from both Chambers worked in a bipartisan manner to address this important issue. The language in the conference report gives the services the opportunity to take on the crime of domestic violence and to protect victims of domestic violence as they never have before. It gives the Department of Defense and the services the opportunity to develop relationships with non-military victims' community and to draw on the expertise of local domestic violence organizations to aid in designing their own programs. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the conference report. {time} 1100 Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member should be proud to vote for this conference report. I think this report is a great manifestation of our ability to work in a bipartisan manner and do something that is important for the country, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and all the Members, Democrat and Republican, who worked on this particular piece of legislation, because today we live in a very dangerous world. That is extremely clear now. China is trying to step into the superpower shoes that have been left by the Soviet Union. Terrorism is becoming more deadly, more technologically capable, and we are seeing new challenges around the world; and against that backdrop we have cut defense dramatically. The defense force structure that we have today is just about half of what it was in 1992. We have gone from 18 Army divisions to 10; 24 active fighter air wings to 13; and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) said, almost 600 ships down to 324 and dropping. Unfortunately, the half that we have left is not as ready as the full force that we had in 1992. We have a $193 million shortage in basic ammo for the Marines; a $3.5 billion shortage in ammo for the Army. Our mission-capable rates have gone down almost 10 percent across the board in the services; that is the ability of an aircraft to take off from a carrier or from a runway, run its mission and come back and land safely. That is now down to an average of about 70 percent. That means about 30 of every 100 planes in our services cannot take off a runway and do their mission because of a lack of spare parts, a lack of maintenance, or just having a real old aircraft that has not been replaced. In fact, we did have 55 crashes, peacetime crashes, last year with the military, resulting in over 50 deaths of our people in uniform. So we are flying old equipment, and we are having to take very valuable resources, these spare parts, the few spares and repair parts that we have, and our trained personnel who can still fix aircraft and other equipment and move them to the front lines when we run an operation like Kosovo. So against that backdrop, we have put an additional $2.7 billion into the modernization accounts, and we put extra money in the pay raise. We have a 4.8 percent pay raise. We put money in readiness. Across the board, we have spent what I consider to be the bare minimum; but in this case, Mr. Speaker, the bare minimum is absolutely necessary. It would be a tragedy to defeat this bill for some reason, for some turf fight or some other reason that has nothing to do with national security. Let me just say with respect to the DOE section of this bill and the reform that we did, let me just remind my colleagues about the tragedy that occurred a couple of years ago. After we had identified an individual who was identified as a spy in our nuclear weapons laboratory, and the head of the FBI, Mr. Freeh, had gone to the Assistant Secretary of Energy and a couple of weeks later to the Secretary of Energy and said, get this guy away from classified areas, take away his access to our nuclear secrets, 14 months later somebody turned around and said, is that spy still next to the nuclear weapons vault? And somebody went over and checked and, yes, he was. We tried to figure out why he hadn't been fired, and there was such a mess and such a confusion that nobody was sure. Everybody thought the other guy was going to get the spy away from our nuclear secrets. Presumably he was upgrading for 14 months, over a year, the nuclear secrets that he had moved out earlier and nobody was there to stop him. That was the confusion that we saw. That is the confusion that we fix. Let us pass this conference report. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity not to comment on this legislation but to comment on the Republican leadership's unwillingness to recognize reality in the scheduling of the House of Representatives. As people may be aware, there is a hurricane headed toward this area, and yet the Republican leadership refuses to adjourn the House at the end of proceedings today, thereby forcing Members to attend a hurricane party here in Washington, D.C. in the capitol tomorrow. It is very likely that the Washington, D.C. airports will be closed tomorrow if the hurricane does, in fact, continue on its path, thereby preventing Members from the southeast who may want to be with their constituents at the time of this national emergency from doing so, and preventing Members from other parts of the country who may actually want to be able to go home this weekend and spend time with their constituents from doing so. I find it extraordinarily shortsighted on the part of the Republican leadership to recognize that there is a hurricane headed straight toward Washington, D.C. The House should be adjourned at the end of today so that Members will not be trapped in Washington and be unable to be with their constituents in the next 5 days. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, back to the debate, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding and congratulate her on her superb management of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from Dallas by saying that we obviously want to do everything that we can to ensure that people are able to get out of town in time, and I will say that we do not want to have to have a hurricane party here. I do not know that the hurricane is headed right towards Washington, D.C. We certainly hope that we do not see any loss of life and that it is, in fact, lessened. But I am struck with the fact that my colleagues really go for everything they possibly can to attack the Republican leadership. We enjoy the fact that they are scraping for something more to criticize us on. Let me say that I believe that this is a very important conference report. We are trying to get the people's work done here, and I am hoping very much that we will be able to have strong bipartisan support of not only the rule but the conference report itself. [[Page H8301]] It was 10 years ago this coming November 13 that the world celebrated the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and many people argued at that point that we would be witnessing the end of history; that the demise of the Soviet Union and Communism, which took place in the following 3 years, was something that was going to change the world, and clearly it has. I think that the leadership that Ronald Reagan and President George Bush have shown and, frankly, in a bipartisan way that we have provided for our Nation's defense capability, brought about that change; but as we mark, in the coming weeks, the 10th anniversary of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, it is very important for us to note that there has been a dramatic change in the national security threat that exists in this country and for the free world. It seems to me that we need to realize that over that period of time we have dealt with a wide range of challenges that exist throughout the world, and I am struck with a figure that I mentioned here several times before, the fact that during this administration we have deployed 265,000 troops to 139 countries around the world and that has taken place at a time when we have actually diminished our level of expenditures. Since 1987, we have seen a reduction of 800,000 of our military personnel. We have consistently pursued this goal of trying to do more with less, and that is wrong. That is why when we, as Republicans at the beginning of the 106th Congress, set forth our four top priorities of making sure that we improve public education, which I am proud to say that we have done; provide tax relief for working families, which in just a couple of hours we are going to be enrolling the bill and sending it to the President, and I hope very much he does not veto that bill as he said he would on Friday; and saving Social Security and Medicare. Those are other priorities. We also included, as a top priority, because of this changing threat, rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. I am happy that we have passed and that the President, reluctantly, but the President finally did sign the national ballistic missile defense bill. I am very happy that we were able to see the President come on board in some of our attempts to deal with these national security issues, and I hope that he will be able to sign this conference report when it gets to him. It is clearly the right thing to do. We are going to be facing more challenges, but we have to make sure that the one issue which only the Federal Government can deal with, virtually every one of the other issues that we deal with can be handled by State and local governments, but our national security is the one issue that we are charged to dealing with. It is in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and it seems to me that we need to step up to the plate. That is why support of this conference report is very important. I urge my colleagues to do it in a bipartisan way. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), that I am not trying to be overly critical of the Republican leadership. Mr. DREIER. That would be a first, I have to say. Mr. FROST. I am just appalled by the fact that they seem to have taken the position of, what hurricane? I mean, everybody in the country knows that the hurricane is heading up the East Coast, and by refusing to adjourn the House at the end of business today they are forcing the staff to try and get into work tomorrow. They are trapping Members in the Nation's capital who want to be home with their constituents. This is an extraordinary development. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just for a moment, I would just like to thank him for his input and tell him that the recommendation that he has made will certainly be taken into consideration. Mr. FROST. I have not yielded. I am sorry. I have not yielded. The Republican leadership seems to be the only ones in the country that do not recognize the fact that a hurricane is moving up the East Coast, and that it is projected that it is going to come very close to Washington, D.C. tomorrow, and that we may have 5 inches of rain here tomorrow. I do not understand. All I want them to do is to turn on their television sets and to listen to the news and to deal with reality so that Members can be treated in a fair way and so that the staff can be treated in a fair way. It is unrealistic and unfair to say we are going to be here tomorrow and everybody come on in, no matter what is happening. They ought to face reality. They ought to adjourn the House at the end of today so that Members and staff will not be forced through the hardship of dealing with the hurricane in Washington, D.C. tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 1 minute remaining. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) if he has any further speakers? Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close for our side. We do not have any other speakers at this point. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, if it is all right, the gentleman should go ahead and close because I have no more speakers either. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good piece of legislation. This is legislation supported by a Democratic President, a Democratic administration, supported by the vast majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. We all are pleased to stand for a strong national defense, to stand for efforts to help our troops, to increase morale, to make sure that we retain soldiers that we need and that we are able to recruit soldiers that our forces need for the future. This is a good conference report. As a Democrat, I am pleased to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on final passage on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 288, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. {time} 1115 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of August 5, 1999, at page H7469.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with all respect for the chairman of the committee and all respect for my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I have been advised that the gentleman from Missouri supports the bill. I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Missouri opposed to the bill, and therefore, is he entitled to time in opposition to the legislation? The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in favor of the conference report? Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri supports the conference report. Pursuant to clause 8(d)(2) of rule XXII, time will be controlled three ways. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) will control 20 minutes; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. [[Page H8302]] Skelton) will control 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will control 20 minutes. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill was reported out of the Committee on Armed Services back in May on a vote of 55-to-1, and it passed the House in June on a vote of 365-to-58. The conference report before us today enjoys equally strong bipartisan support, as all 36 Republican and Democrat committee conferees have signed the conference report. This is only the second time this has happened since 1981. It is truly a bipartisan report. Mr. Speaker, the funding authorized in this bill is consistent with the increased spending levels set by the Congress in the budget resolution. As a result of this increased spending and a careful reprioritization of the President's budget request, we have provided the military services some of the tools necessary to better recruit and retain qualified personnel and to better train and equip them. It is in this context that the conferees went to work, targeting additional funding for a variety of sorely needed quality of life, readiness, and equipment initiatives. However, despite the conferees' best efforts, we are not eliminating shortfalls, we are simply struggling to manage them. Absent a long-term, sustained commitment to revitalizing America's armed forces, we will continue to run the inevitable risks that come from asking our troops to do more with less. This conference report also contains the most important and significant Department of Energy reorganization proposal since the agency's creation more than two decades ago. Earlier this year, the bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee released its report on the national security implications of our United States technology transfers to the People's Republic of China. The Cox Committee identified lax security at DOE nuclear laboratories as a critical national security problem, and unanimously concluded that China had obtained classified information on ``every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the United States ballistic missile arsenal.'' Following the Cox Committee report, President Clinton's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board chaired by former Senator Rudman, issued its report highly critical of DOE's failure to protect the Nation's nuclear secrets. The report of the President's Advisory Board concluded that DOD is, ``a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself.'' The conference report would implement the recommendation of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to create a semi- autonomous agency within DOE and vest it with responsibility for nuclear weapons research and protection. The reorganization will go a long way towards streamlining DOE's excessive bureaucracy and improving accountability, all in an effort to ensure that our Nation's most vital nuclear secrets are better managed and secured. Mr. Speaker, some question has been raised in some quarters on the possible impact that the reorganization provisions could have on DOE's environmental programs and in particular, on the status of existing waivers of solving immunity agreements between the Federal Government and individual States. In a few minutes I plan to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to clarify this point for the legislative record. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record following my statement a letter that Senator Warner and I have jointly written to the National Governors Association and the National Association of Attorneys General that address these questions in more detail. The bottom line is that this conference report does not impact or change current environmental law or regulation, and it does not impact or change existing waivers of sovereign immunity agreements. For the sake of time I will not repeat that statement, but it is true to the letter. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is before the House today only as a result of the efforts of all conferees. In particular, I want to recognize the critical roles played by the Committee on Armed Services subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking members. Their efforts, along with those of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) made my job easier, and their dedication to getting the job done is clearly evident in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report. Washington, DC, September 14, 1999. Hon. Michael O. Leavitt, Chairman, National Governors' Association, Hall of States, Washington, DC. Hon. Christine O. Gregoire, President, National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, DC. Dear Governor and Madam Attorney General: We are aware that concerns have been raised regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2000, on the safe operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Title XXXII provides for the reorganization of the DOE to strengthen its national security function, as recommended by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). In so doing, the NDAA would establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department. However, as the purpose of this effort was focused on enhancing national security and strengthening operational management of the Department's nuclear weapons production function, the conferees recognized the need to carefully avoid statutory modifications that could inadvertently result in changes or challenges to the existing environmental cleanup efforts. As such, Title XXXII does not amend existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations and is in no way intended to limit the states' established regulatory roles pertaining to DOE operations and ongoing cleanup activities. In fact, Title XXXII contains a number of provisions specifically crafted to clearly establish this principle in statue. NNSA compliance with existing environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non- substantive requirements. Concern has been expressed that Title XXXII could result in the exemption of the NNSA from compliance with existing environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non-substantive requirements. We believe these concerns to be unfounded. First, Section 3261 expressly requires that the newly created NNSA comply with all applicable environmental, safety and health laws and substantive requirements. The NNSA Administrator must develop procedures for meeting these requirements at sites covered by the NNSA, and the Secretary of Energy must ensure that compliance with these important requirements is accomplished. As such, the provision would not supersede, diminish or otherwise impact existing authorities granted to the states or the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and enforce cleanup at DOE sites. The clear intent of Title XXXII is to require that the NNSA comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to the same extent as before the reorganization. This intent is evidenced by Section 3296, which provides that all applicable provisions of law and regulations (including those relating to environment

Summary:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
(House of Representatives - September 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H8295-H8318] CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follow: H. Res. 288 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference report rule for S. 1059, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. In addition, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type of rule that we grant for every conference report we consider in the House. The conference report itself is a strong step forward as we work to take care of our military personnel and provide for our national defense. I have always admired the patriotism and dedication of the young men and women in the armed forces, especially given the poor quality of life that our enlisted men and women face. But today, we are doing something to improve military pay, housing, and benefits. It has always been kind of sad, we ask these young people to technically give up their life for their country, but yet we really have not treated them in the way that most of us would like to be treated. Their pay has not been good. They live in housing that has been virtually World War II almost, substandard housing in some cases. A lot of them have had to take second jobs just to exist because they are married and they cannot make it on their pay. So we are helping to take some of this load off of them, and we are helping to take some of them off of food stamps with this bill by giving them a [[Page H8296]] 4.8 percent pay raise. We have added $258 million for a variety of health care efforts. We are boosting the basic allowance for housing, as I said, increasing retention pay for pilots, which is another big problem we have had. We are having a very difficult time retaining good pilots in the military. We are prompting the GAO to study how we can do better. But along with personnel, we have taken care of our military readiness. We live in a dangerous world today, and Congress is working to protect our friends and family back home from our enemies abroad. We are providing for a national missile defense system, something that we have never had and that a lot of people think we have. A lot of people think we are protected if a warhead comes in from China or North Korea or Iraq or Iran, but, no, we are not. So with this bill, we are going to provide the beginnings of that protection for this country if that day ever comes. In light of the recent news about security breaches at our weapons laboratories, we are creating a National Nuclear Security Administration to prevent enemy nations from stealing our nuclear secrets. We are boosting the military's budget for weapons and ammunition. We are providing $37 billion for research and development so our forces will have top-of-the-line equipment for their job. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying conference report because now more than ever we must improve our national security. Mr. Speaker, I graciously yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for allowing me to speak at this point. As my colleagues know, I am the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. From the beginning of this year, the very first hearing, I said that this should be the year of the troops. To the credit of the Committee on Armed Services, on a very bipartisan effort, it is the year of the troops. We have had, as my colleagues know, serious recruiting problems and even more serious retention problems. I am not just talking about pilots; I am talking about young men and young women who have put several years into the military and decide to get out. The old saying is, and it is so true, ``you recruit soldiers'' or in the case maybe Marines, sailors, airmen, ``but you retain families.'' For instance, the Army has been cut some 36 percent, but the operational tempo has increased 300 percent. We are wearing the troops out. I had breakfast about a year and a half ago with some noncommissioned officers of the United States Navy, and they told me about the dispirited attitude of the young men and women who work with them, the feeling that they were not remembered. This bill is a tribute to them. This bill is one where truly we do remember them. It is our job under the Constitution to raise and maintain the military and to write the rules and regulations therefor, and we have done a magnificent job. I am very proud of it. I am very proud of the bipartisanship. I am very proud of the effort made. I especially compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), our chairman, for his outstanding efforts. This is a good bill. The Department of Energy portion that deals with nuclear weapons is under our jurisdiction. That has been a very important part of our effort. To some, it will not meet with their full approval. But I think we took a giant step forward. I am for this bill, for the troops, for the families. I might say, in addition to the pay raises, the pay raise, the pay tables, pension reform, we have done superb work for the barracks, family housing. I think it deserves great, great support. Regarding the Department of Energy effort, I think it is good. Could it be better? Sure. But legislation is a matter of compromise. So I support the bill and all of its portions. I hope this rule will be adopted overwhelmingly because this is a major step in the national security of our country. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that it is my intention to support this conference report. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 contains a number of provisions that are critical to the maintenance of our national defense forces. Most important among them is a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise and additional pay raises targeted to mid-grade officers and NCOs to improve retention and hopefully stem the loss of some of the best and brightest and most valuable members of our armed services. The quality-of-life issues addressed in this package are, in a word, essential to the men and women who serve in uniform and to their families. As Members of this body point out repeatedly, it is unconscionable that service men and women should be paid at rates so low that they depend upon food stamps to feed their families, or the military housing is oft times decrepit or substandard. This bill may not resolve all of those issues, but at least it puts us on the road to fixing a problem that cannot and should not be tolerated. This conference report is not without controversy, however. The ranking member of the Committee on Commerce has raised some serious concerns about the provisions in the conference report, which establish a new National Nuclear Security Administration to manage DOE's weapons programs. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is especially concerned that this provision was added in conference over the objections of the Committee on Commerce and Committee on Science who have jurisdiction over this matter; and he has indicated that it is his intention to offer a motion to recommit to strike language from the conference report. {time} 1030 Members should listen very carefully to his arguments against these provisions which are opposed by the Secretary of Energy, the National Governors Association, and the National Association of Attorneys General. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will also voice strong objections to the process by which these provisions were included in this conference report. His views deserve the attention of the House, and I urge Members to pay close attention. There will, of course, be Members who will oppose his motion to recommit because they do not want to put any barriers in the path of the passage of this very good bill. His objections do not, however, lie against the remainder of the bill, and those provisions deserve the strong support of the House. This conference report authorizes $8.5 billion for military construction and military family housing programs. It authorizes full funding for a proposed program to construct or renovate over 6,200 units of military family housing, and the construction or renovation of 43 barracks, dormitories and BEQs for the single enlisted. The conference report also increases authorization amounts for procurement accounts to provide for a total of $55.7 billion as well as for research and development to provide for a total of $36.3 billion. This increased funding will provide $171.7 million for further development of the B-2 fleet, $252.6 million to procure F-16C aircraft and $319.9 million for F-16 modifications. In addition, the conference report commits to funding an acquisition of the critical next- generation air dominance fighter. It authorizes $1.2 billion for research and development on the F-22 Raptor, $1.6 billion for six low- rate initial production aircraft, and $277.1 million for advanced procurement for 10 LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The conferees are to be congratulated for their support for this critical program. I am also pleased that the conferees have included $990.4 million for procurement of 12 V-22s and $182.9 million for V-22 research and development and $25 million to accelerate development of the CV-22 special operations variant. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report. The conferees have brought us a bill which enhances quality of life for our men and women in uniform, a bill which protects core readiness and a bill which wisely and aggressively addresses the need to replace aging equipment and to find ways to keep our weapons systems second to none in the world. I commend this conference report to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H8297]] Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership on this and my gratitude for yielding me the time. I am pleased to support this very appropriate rule for consideration of S. 1059, the fiscal year 2000 DOD authorization conference report, a major piece of legislation for this Congress. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their diligent, bipartisan, very thorough work to make sure that we significantly improve the support given to our men and women in uniform. They are the ones doing the hard work. They are the ones in harm's way. They are the ones taking the risk. That deserves to be supported to the fullest extent possible. I am grateful for the continued close working relationship that these gentlemen have had with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in ensuring that our fighting forces have access to the best, the most timely, and the most accurate intelligence that we can get. Eyes, ears, brains are actually very crucial to our national security. This legislation reflects our commitment to those capabilities. Force protection, force enhancement, force projection: these are the results, these are the needs, and these are what we are getting. Americans most recently have watched our troops in action in Kosovo. You might have the impression from what I would call photo-op TV that Kosovo is some kind of a big win. Unfortunately, the view emerging from the ground in Kosovo is not quite so rosy. Further, the administration is pursuing policies that could ultimately endanger the chances for a long-term peace and stability in that region in my view and the view of others. Official U.S. policy toward Kosovo is in fact built upon three very uncertain principles: one, Kosovo should remain an ethnically diverse province; two, Kosovo should not become independent; and, three, the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA, should give up its arms and disband. These principles face serious challenges in the field, on the ground. U.S. policy refuses to recognize even the possibility that the Kosovars will eventually vote to declare independence from Yugoslavia. That is a possibility that should not be discounted. Similarly, the administration is naively assuming that the KLA will simply roll over and disband. In my view, the U.S. has no end game strategy. For the sake of the Americans and our allies on the ground in Kosovo, I urge the administration to rethink our situation there and base decisions on fact, not on wishful thinking. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox Committee, I am satisfied with the provision in this legislation establishing a semiautonomous agency to run the weapons program at the Department of Energy under the Secretary's leadership. Critics have suggested that this change could cause the sky to fall with respect to public health, safety, and environmental matters. To the contrary, I say. The Cox Report demonstrates that the sky has already fallen and our national security has been placed at great risk as a result. Given the deeply troubling circumstances surrounding reports of espionage at our national labs, I believe it is very proper for Congress to move expeditiously in enacting new safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conference report also includes a provision based on an amendment I offered with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) requiring an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti. As our defense leaders have made clear, the Clinton administration's insistence on maintaining a permanent troop presence in Haiti has strained an already overburdened military, has unnecessarily put our troops at risk there, and has focused on humanitarian projects more appropriately undertaken by nongovernmental organizations who are ready, willing and able to do the job. In the face of our efforts to force a withdrawal by year's end, the Clinton administration has finally announced an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, to be replaced with periodic deployments as needed, as is customary everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. This action does not, I repeat, does not signal an end to U.S. military involvement or to U.S. support for the democratic process in Haiti but, rather, it is a more realistic policy to provide the help Haiti so desperately needs as our neighbor in the Caribbean. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members should note that this legislation contains a significant increase in counterdrug funding for DOD. Once again, Congress has taken the lead to win the war on drugs, filling the vacuum left by a just-say-maybe message from the Clinton administration. And we are getting results, if you read the papers. This is a good bill. I urge its passage. I commend those involved. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). Mr. SISISKY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and, of course, the rule. I would like to take a few minutes to tell our colleagues why. First, I am pleased to report that in my opinion members were treated equitably. Members on our side of the aisle were given the same consideration as members on the other side. That is not to say everybody got everything they wanted. They did not. Neither did I. Second, this conference report builds on the President's proposal to increase defense spending by $112 billion over the next 6 years. To redress shortcomings in recruiting and retention, this bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise, pay table reforms for middle grade personnel and retirement reform in what may be the best compensation package for our military since the 1980s. The bill also addresses the budget shortfalls that have dogged the weapons research and development and procurement programs of the Department of Defense. In fact, by providing $4.6 billion in increases for weapons, related research and development and procurement, I believe we may have turned the corner and begun the long, steady recovery that is both needed and overdue. Particularly noteworthy is the emphasis on precision stand-off weapons that reduce risks to our troops and, at the same time, risks to innocent civilian populations. Third, I am particularly pleased that we have rejected the status quo and begun the long and difficult task of management and accountability reforms for the national security functions of the Department of Energy. In my opinion, there is no disagreement as to whether such reforms are needed, and to delay starting the reform process while waiting on unanimity or drafting perfection would in my opinion be irresponsible. Admittedly, the provisions proposed in this conference report are not perfect, nor does everyone agree. But, on balance, they are a good first start on what will prove to be a long and difficult process in the years ahead. More importantly, there is nothing in this bill that would amend existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations, nor is there any intent to limit the States' established regulatory roles pertaining to the Department of Energy operations and ongoing cleanup activities. Thus, I do not believe the DOE reform provisions are antienvironmental nor do I believe they should be used as the basis for rejecting this conference report. Finally, our naval forces have shrunk from nearly 600 ships in 1987 to 324 ships today. At the same time, the number of missions for these ships have increased threefold. Worse, the administration's budget would lead to a 200 ship Navy, well below the force level of 300 ships called for by the Nation's military strategy. This bill allows the Navy to dedicate more of its scarce shipbuilding dollars to the construction of needed warships by providing significantly more cost-effective acquisitions through the following measures: The early construction of an amphibious ship for the Marines at a great price; procurement for the final large, medium speed roll-on/ roll-off ship, [[Page H8298]] LMSR, before the line closes; cost-saving expanded multiyear procurement authority for the DDG-51 destroyer program; long-term lease authority for the services of new construction, noncombatant ships for the Navy; and expanded authority for the National Defense Features program to allow DOD to pay reduced life-cycle costs of defense features built into commercial ships up-front. Mr. Speaker, we all know that bills are compromises, and that good bills make good promise compromises. S. 1059 is such a bill. It is a balanced bill with good compromises. In the strongest terms, I urge the adoption of the conference report. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for pointing out a number of the important issues and details that are what this bill and conference report are about. I rise in very, very strong support of our rule, of our military, and of this bill. The gentleman from Virginia and I just returned from a trip where we went to, among other places, North Korea. If our citizens in the Eighth District, home of Fort Bragg, would look at a city whose tallest buildings have missiles on top of them, where our Air Force base has patriot missile batteries on the ready 24 hours a day, where 14,000 pieces of artillery are trained on the South, 80 percent of which are aimed at Seoul only 40 kilometers away from the demilitarized zone, if they could see in the eyes of the young men and women who are standing face to face with the North Koreans every day as a deterrent to terrorism and rogue nations, there would be no question in their mind as to our continued and increased support for the military. Kosovo and Bosnia have brought to our attention the need to correct imbalances and deprivations that the military has suffered because of budget shortfalls in recent years. This authorization is more than $8 billion over the administration's request, and an additional $18 billion over a greatly reduced budget for defense in 1999. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and members of both parties have worked diligently, courageously and with much forethought to rebuild our military. That is what this rule is about. We have a volunteer force. We should maintain a voluntary and not a draft force. In order to do that, we must do things that are included in this bill, increasing pay, improving health care benefits, restoring REDUX, doing things that we owe to our military to correct years of neglect. {time} 1045 This bill beefs up and strengthens areas that have been eroded over a number of years. It addresses major issues that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) has mentioned, but it also deals with such basics as ammunition and spare parts. So this is a broad-based, common- sense, very necessary piece of support for our men and women in uniform. In order for them to maintain the superiority, the commitment and to provide the protection for a world that is very, very dangerous, we should support them by unanimously passing this rule and this bill. They protect us; we need to support them. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule which sanctifies bad behavior. There was no real conference held on this legislation. Members of the conference who were entitled to be present to participate were not invited and were informed when they showed up that there was no conference to be held, the matter had been disposed of, and that we could simply go our way. Now let us look at what the rule does. The rule waives points of order on two things: One, germaneness and the other, scope of the conference. In each instance the conferees, without holding a meeting, contrived to concede the House rules on both points, so now they need a waiver. Why do they need a waiver? They need a waiver because they wrote something which is not germane, which was never considered in either body and which exceeds the scope of the conference. Now I want to express respect for my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who is a very decent and honorable Member of this body, but I want to say that what has been done here is, first of all, an outrage, and it is a gross abuse of the powers of the committee and a gross disregard to the rights both of other committees and of this body to know what is going on and to have an input into a matter of important concern. Now let us talk about the substance. This proposal in its title 32 recreates essentially the Atomic Energy Commission, one of the most secretive, one of the most sneaky, and one of the most dishonest agencies in government. They lied to everybody, including themselves, and the Congress of the United States, the Executive Branch. They suppressed tracks, and they have created in every area over which they had jurisdiction a cesspool, environmentally and otherwise. The areas which they had jurisdiction over drip hazardous waste and are contaminated beyond belief. Mixed wastes, high-level and low-level nuclear wastes contaminate these areas because of the fact that they diligently suppressed all facts with regard to what they were doing and how they were doing it, and I will be glad to discuss in greater detail because I do not have time now the behavior of that agency. We are now setting up an entity which will be totally exempt from the supervision of the Secretary and which will be totally exempt from the supervision of this body. What they are going to do is to create a situation where now they can lie in the dark, as they did before in the days of the Atomic Energy Commission, and efforts to control this agency will be brought to naught by the absolute power that is being invested in them to suppress the facts to everyone. Now who is opposed to this? First of all, every environmental agency and every environmental organization; second of all, the administration; third of all, the National Governors' Association; and fourth of all, the Organization of Attorneys General, 46 of whom sent us a letter denouncing what is being done here with regard to State, Federal environmental laws and the splendid opportunity for severe and serious misbehavior by this new entity. If my colleagues want to vote for the good things in the bill; and there are many good things, I supported this bill: pay raises and other things which would benefit us in terms not only of our concern for our military personnel, but also our concern for seeing to it that our defense needs are met; vote for the motion to recommit because the only thing it does is to strike title 32. The rest that it keeps are the good things that are in this legislation. So I offer my colleagues a chance to undo what was done in a high- handed arrogance by the committee and in a rather curious and remarkable and unjustifiable rule, one which is going to deny everybody in this country an opportunity to know what is going on inside that agency. Now if we are talking about security, let me just tell my colleagues that the security of the AEC stunk. I was over in a place called Arzamas-16, the place where the Russians made their nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. I saw there a bomb that looked exactly like the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima. I told the guy: That looks familiar. They said it is an exact copy of the bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima. So when they tell us that the recreation of the secrecy and the inbrededness of the AEC and the secretiveness that this legislation will authorize is going to assure the national security, do not believe them. History is against it, and I would just ask my colleagues to understand the secrecy that they are talking about is not against the Russians or against anybody else. It is secrecy which they intend to use to prevent my colleagues, and I, and the Members of Congress, the Members of the Senate from knowing what is going on down there. If my colleagues want to see to it that we continue our efforts to protect the security of the United States, to see to it that things are done which need be done in terms of protecting the security interests of the United States, they can vote for my amendment and [[Page H8299]] should, but if they want to protect the environment, then they you must vote for my amendment. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my colleague. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I share the respect that all Members of this House have for the dean of the House, and I always appreciate his willingness to stand up for what he believes in, as we recently saw when he led efforts to oppose gun control despite the sentiments of most of his party. As much as anyone in this body, the gentleman from Michigan is responsible over the years for the management structure of the Department of Energy, and he does not want to see that changed, and I think we can all understand someone coming from that position. But study after study, report after report, have reached a different conclusion. As a matter of fact, I know of at least 20 studies, reports and in-house reviews in the Department of Energy that have all found that the Department of Energy management structure is a mess and hurts our security, safety, and national security. I point to the President's own study which came out just this summer conducted by his foreign intelligence advisory board, and they concluded, quote, DOE's performance throughout its history should be regarded as intolerable, and they also found, quote, the Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of reforming itself, end quote. Now what they went on to say is we can do one of two things. One is that we can take all the nuclear weapons program completely out of the Department of Energy and set up a whole new agency, or we can create a semi-autonomous agency inside DOE with a clear chain of command and hope to solve some of these problems. This conference report takes the President's own commission's recommendations and implements them down to the letter. Now what that does is it gives the nuclear weapons agency two things that it has never had under DOE. One, it has a clear focus on its mission so that the same people who worry about refrigerator coolant standards and solar power and electricity deregulation day to day are not going to be interfering in the nuclear weapons work. Secondly, it provides accountability so that we have for the first time a clear chain of command so that when an order is given it is followed; and if somebody messes up, they are held responsible and we can get rid of them. And that is one of the most important safeguards we can have to protecting the environment, to having a clear line of accountability and safeguards. The gentleman from Michigan says, oh, this just goes back to the old Atomic Energy Commission. I would say that no more will we ever go back to some of the problems of the past any more than we are going to go back to pouring motor oil out on the ground or we are going to go back to allowing cars to create all the smog that they can create. We are not going to, and I personally, Mr. Speaker, am offended by the suggestion that the people who work at the Pantex plant in my district, who live in the area, whose children go to school in that area, are going to be so careless in disregarding the safety of the drinking water and the other things in that area that they are just going to pollute willy nilly. Now I think there are some important points to be made on the environment. Number one, this bill says that every single standard, environmental standard, that applies before the bill applies after the bill; it does not change. Secondly, this bill says that the Secretary of Energy can set up whatever oversight he wants by whoever he wants, and they can look at every single thing that goes on throughout the weapons complex, and they can make whatever policy recommendations they want to make, and the Secretary of Energy can order anything to happen dealing with the environment or any other subject. The only change is that these oversight people, unless they are within the new agency, cannot order things to be changed, they cannot implement the directions. Policy can be set by anybody that the Secretary wants, but the implementation goes down the clear chain of command. Some of the concerns that have been raised to this bill have been by some attorneys general who are worried about some new court challenge on matters that have been already established under court rulings. Let me make it clear, this bill does not change any of the waivers of sovereign immunity that the attorneys general have been concerned about; and there is a letter that will be made part of the Record later in which the chairman of our committee and the chairman of the Senate committee clearly say we are not changing one single environmental standard. And I would also put as part of the Record at that time a letter from the attorney general of Texas who once he had a chance to look at the actual legislation and what the real intent is says he no longer has any concerns or objections, and I would suggest that if my colleagues have a chance to talk to all the attorneys general and tell them what is really going on, that any of those concerns certainly melt away. Mr. Speaker, I just make two final points. Number one is that we have all been embarrassed and dismayed and shocked at the security headlines which we have seen across the papers this year. For us to walk away and say we cannot do anything about it, it is too complicated, we are just going to let DOE roll along its merry way, is an abdication of our responsibility to fix one of the greatest national security problems with which we have been confronted. The second point I would like to make is this: The gentleman from Michigan's motion to recommit is not like an ordinary bill. It is a conference report. The only effect of the motion is to require us to open the conference back up. That means everything in the conference from the pay raise to the retirement reform to the V-22 to whatever my colleagues care about in this bill is jeopardized because we have got to open everything back up, go back into negotiations with the Senate, and all of the wonderful strides to improve our national security are threatened by the motion to recommit. So I would suggest that it is our responsibility to fix DOE, it is our responsibility to make sure this bill goes forward unimpeded and to vote against the motion when it is offered. Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, September 15, 1999. Hon. Floyd D. Spence, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Spence and Senator Warner: I have received a copy of your September 14, 1999 letter to Michael O. Leavitt and Christine O. Gregoire addressing concerns regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal year 2000, on the safe operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Your letter addresses my two principal concerns with Title XXXII of S. 1059: That this legislation not supercede, diminish or set aside existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity; and that it be clear that under Title XXXII the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to the same extent as before the reorganization. After reading your letter, I am satisfied that this legislation was neither intended to affect existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity nor to exempt in any way the NNSA from the same environmental laws and regulations as applied before reorganization. I also have been advised that your letter will be made part of the legislative history of Title XXXII of S. 1059 by being submitted during the conference debate on this legislation, thus being made part of the Congressional Record. As such, this letter will provide confirmation that this legislation leaves unaltered existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity as well as existing environmental laws and regulations. Given the explanations made in your September 14, 1999, letter as well as the submission of your letter as part of the Congressional Record to be included in the legislative history of this statute, I have no continuing objection to this legislation. I appreciate your efforts to make the intent of Title XXXII of S. 1059 clear. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). [[Page H8300]] Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I rise in strong support of the national defense authorization conference report, and I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and of course the staff of the committee for all the hard work that they put into this conference report. The report addresses the quality of life, the readiness and the modernization shortfalls that the men and the women in our Armed Forces are currently facing. The report also addresses the important issue of domestic violence in the military. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, one occurrence of domestic violence is one too many, and unfortunately reports show that in 1994 in every 1,000 marriages 14 spouses were the victims of spouse abuse, and I am pleased that the conferees from both Chambers worked in a bipartisan manner to address this important issue. The language in the conference report gives the services the opportunity to take on the crime of domestic violence and to protect victims of domestic violence as they never have before. It gives the Department of Defense and the services the opportunity to develop relationships with non-military victims' community and to draw on the expertise of local domestic violence organizations to aid in designing their own programs. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the conference report. {time} 1100 Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member should be proud to vote for this conference report. I think this report is a great manifestation of our ability to work in a bipartisan manner and do something that is important for the country, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and all the Members, Democrat and Republican, who worked on this particular piece of legislation, because today we live in a very dangerous world. That is extremely clear now. China is trying to step into the superpower shoes that have been left by the Soviet Union. Terrorism is becoming more deadly, more technologically capable, and we are seeing new challenges around the world; and against that backdrop we have cut defense dramatically. The defense force structure that we have today is just about half of what it was in 1992. We have gone from 18 Army divisions to 10; 24 active fighter air wings to 13; and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) said, almost 600 ships down to 324 and dropping. Unfortunately, the half that we have left is not as ready as the full force that we had in 1992. We have a $193 million shortage in basic ammo for the Marines; a $3.5 billion shortage in ammo for the Army. Our mission-capable rates have gone down almost 10 percent across the board in the services; that is the ability of an aircraft to take off from a carrier or from a runway, run its mission and come back and land safely. That is now down to an average of about 70 percent. That means about 30 of every 100 planes in our services cannot take off a runway and do their mission because of a lack of spare parts, a lack of maintenance, or just having a real old aircraft that has not been replaced. In fact, we did have 55 crashes, peacetime crashes, last year with the military, resulting in over 50 deaths of our people in uniform. So we are flying old equipment, and we are having to take very valuable resources, these spare parts, the few spares and repair parts that we have, and our trained personnel who can still fix aircraft and other equipment and move them to the front lines when we run an operation like Kosovo. So against that backdrop, we have put an additional $2.7 billion into the modernization accounts, and we put extra money in the pay raise. We have a 4.8 percent pay raise. We put money in readiness. Across the board, we have spent what I consider to be the bare minimum; but in this case, Mr. Speaker, the bare minimum is absolutely necessary. It would be a tragedy to defeat this bill for some reason, for some turf fight or some other reason that has nothing to do with national security. Let me just say with respect to the DOE section of this bill and the reform that we did, let me just remind my colleagues about the tragedy that occurred a couple of years ago. After we had identified an individual who was identified as a spy in our nuclear weapons laboratory, and the head of the FBI, Mr. Freeh, had gone to the Assistant Secretary of Energy and a couple of weeks later to the Secretary of Energy and said, get this guy away from classified areas, take away his access to our nuclear secrets, 14 months later somebody turned around and said, is that spy still next to the nuclear weapons vault? And somebody went over and checked and, yes, he was. We tried to figure out why he hadn't been fired, and there was such a mess and such a confusion that nobody was sure. Everybody thought the other guy was going to get the spy away from our nuclear secrets. Presumably he was upgrading for 14 months, over a year, the nuclear secrets that he had moved out earlier and nobody was there to stop him. That was the confusion that we saw. That is the confusion that we fix. Let us pass this conference report. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity not to comment on this legislation but to comment on the Republican leadership's unwillingness to recognize reality in the scheduling of the House of Representatives. As people may be aware, there is a hurricane headed toward this area, and yet the Republican leadership refuses to adjourn the House at the end of proceedings today, thereby forcing Members to attend a hurricane party here in Washington, D.C. in the capitol tomorrow. It is very likely that the Washington, D.C. airports will be closed tomorrow if the hurricane does, in fact, continue on its path, thereby preventing Members from the southeast who may want to be with their constituents at the time of this national emergency from doing so, and preventing Members from other parts of the country who may actually want to be able to go home this weekend and spend time with their constituents from doing so. I find it extraordinarily shortsighted on the part of the Republican leadership to recognize that there is a hurricane headed straight toward Washington, D.C. The House should be adjourned at the end of today so that Members will not be trapped in Washington and be unable to be with their constituents in the next 5 days. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, back to the debate, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding and congratulate her on her superb management of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from Dallas by saying that we obviously want to do everything that we can to ensure that people are able to get out of town in time, and I will say that we do not want to have to have a hurricane party here. I do not know that the hurricane is headed right towards Washington, D.C. We certainly hope that we do not see any loss of life and that it is, in fact, lessened. But I am struck with the fact that my colleagues really go for everything they possibly can to attack the Republican leadership. We enjoy the fact that they are scraping for something more to criticize us on. Let me say that I believe that this is a very important conference report. We are trying to get the people's work done here, and I am hoping very much that we will be able to have strong bipartisan support of not only the rule but the conference report itself. [[Page H8301]] It was 10 years ago this coming November 13 that the world celebrated the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and many people argued at that point that we would be witnessing the end of history; that the demise of the Soviet Union and Communism, which took place in the following 3 years, was something that was going to change the world, and clearly it has. I think that the leadership that Ronald Reagan and President George Bush have shown and, frankly, in a bipartisan way that we have provided for our Nation's defense capability, brought about that change; but as we mark, in the coming weeks, the 10th anniversary of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, it is very important for us to note that there has been a dramatic change in the national security threat that exists in this country and for the free world. It seems to me that we need to realize that over that period of time we have dealt with a wide range of challenges that exist throughout the world, and I am struck with a figure that I mentioned here several times before, the fact that during this administration we have deployed 265,000 troops to 139 countries around the world and that has taken place at a time when we have actually diminished our level of expenditures. Since 1987, we have seen a reduction of 800,000 of our military personnel. We have consistently pursued this goal of trying to do more with less, and that is wrong. That is why when we, as Republicans at the beginning of the 106th Congress, set forth our four top priorities of making sure that we improve public education, which I am proud to say that we have done; provide tax relief for working families, which in just a couple of hours we are going to be enrolling the bill and sending it to the President, and I hope very much he does not veto that bill as he said he would on Friday; and saving Social Security and Medicare. Those are other priorities. We also included, as a top priority, because of this changing threat, rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. I am happy that we have passed and that the President, reluctantly, but the President finally did sign the national ballistic missile defense bill. I am very happy that we were able to see the President come on board in some of our attempts to deal with these national security issues, and I hope that he will be able to sign this conference report when it gets to him. It is clearly the right thing to do. We are going to be facing more challenges, but we have to make sure that the one issue which only the Federal Government can deal with, virtually every one of the other issues that we deal with can be handled by State and local governments, but our national security is the one issue that we are charged to dealing with. It is in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and it seems to me that we need to step up to the plate. That is why support of this conference report is very important. I urge my colleagues to do it in a bipartisan way. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), that I am not trying to be overly critical of the Republican leadership. Mr. DREIER. That would be a first, I have to say. Mr. FROST. I am just appalled by the fact that they seem to have taken the position of, what hurricane? I mean, everybody in the country knows that the hurricane is heading up the East Coast, and by refusing to adjourn the House at the end of business today they are forcing the staff to try and get into work tomorrow. They are trapping Members in the Nation's capital who want to be home with their constituents. This is an extraordinary development. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just for a moment, I would just like to thank him for his input and tell him that the recommendation that he has made will certainly be taken into consideration. Mr. FROST. I have not yielded. I am sorry. I have not yielded. The Republican leadership seems to be the only ones in the country that do not recognize the fact that a hurricane is moving up the East Coast, and that it is projected that it is going to come very close to Washington, D.C. tomorrow, and that we may have 5 inches of rain here tomorrow. I do not understand. All I want them to do is to turn on their television sets and to listen to the news and to deal with reality so that Members can be treated in a fair way and so that the staff can be treated in a fair way. It is unrealistic and unfair to say we are going to be here tomorrow and everybody come on in, no matter what is happening. They ought to face reality. They ought to adjourn the House at the end of today so that Members and staff will not be forced through the hardship of dealing with the hurricane in Washington, D.C. tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 1 minute remaining. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) if he has any further speakers? Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close for our side. We do not have any other speakers at this point. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, if it is all right, the gentleman should go ahead and close because I have no more speakers either. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good piece of legislation. This is legislation supported by a Democratic President, a Democratic administration, supported by the vast majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. We all are pleased to stand for a strong national defense, to stand for efforts to help our troops, to increase morale, to make sure that we retain soldiers that we need and that we are able to recruit soldiers that our forces need for the future. This is a good conference report. As a Democrat, I am pleased to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on final passage on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 288, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. {time} 1115 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of August 5, 1999, at page H7469.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with all respect for the chairman of the committee and all respect for my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I have been advised that the gentleman from Missouri supports the bill. I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Missouri opposed to the bill, and therefore, is he entitled to time in opposition to the legislation? The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in favor of the conference report? Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri supports the conference report. Pursuant to clause 8(d)(2) of rule XXII, time will be controlled three ways. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) will control 20 minutes; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. [[Page H8302]] Skelton) will control 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will control 20 minutes. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill was reported out of the Committee on Armed Services back in May on a vote of 55-to-1, and it passed the House in June on a vote of 365-to-58. The conference report before us today enjoys equally strong bipartisan support, as all 36 Republican and Democrat committee conferees have signed the conference report. This is only the second time this has happened since 1981. It is truly a bipartisan report. Mr. Speaker, the funding authorized in this bill is consistent with the increased spending levels set by the Congress in the budget resolution. As a result of this increased spending and a careful reprioritization of the President's budget request, we have provided the military services some of the tools necessary to better recruit and retain qualified personnel and to better train and equip them. It is in this context that the conferees went to work, targeting additional funding for a variety of sorely needed quality of life, readiness, and equipment initiatives. However, despite the conferees' best efforts, we are not eliminating shortfalls, we are simply struggling to manage them. Absent a long-term, sustained commitment to revitalizing America's armed forces, we will continue to run the inevitable risks that come from asking our troops to do more with less. This conference report also contains the most important and significant Department of Energy reorganization proposal since the agency's creation more than two decades ago. Earlier this year, the bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee released its report on the national security implications of our United States technology transfers to the People's Republic of China. The Cox Committee identified lax security at DOE nuclear laboratories as a critical national security problem, and unanimously concluded that China had obtained classified information on ``every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the United States ballistic missile arsenal.'' Following the Cox Committee report, President Clinton's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board chaired by former Senator Rudman, issued its report highly critical of DOE's failure to protect the Nation's nuclear secrets. The report of the President's Advisory Board concluded that DOD is, ``a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself.'' The conference report would implement the recommendation of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to create a semi- autonomous agency within DOE and vest it with responsibility for nuclear weapons research and protection. The reorganization will go a long way towards streamlining DOE's excessive bureaucracy and improving accountability, all in an effort to ensure that our Nation's most vital nuclear secrets are better managed and secured. Mr. Speaker, some question has been raised in some quarters on the possible impact that the reorganization provisions could have on DOE's environmental programs and in particular, on the status of existing waivers of solving immunity agreements between the Federal Government and individual States. In a few minutes I plan to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to clarify this point for the legislative record. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record following my statement a letter that Senator Warner and I have jointly written to the National Governors Association and the National Association of Attorneys General that address these questions in more detail. The bottom line is that this conference report does not impact or change current environmental law or regulation, and it does not impact or change existing waivers of sovereign immunity agreements. For the sake of time I will not repeat that statement, but it is true to the letter. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is before the House today only as a result of the efforts of all conferees. In particular, I want to recognize the critical roles played by the Committee on Armed Services subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking members. Their efforts, along with those of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) made my job easier, and their dedication to getting the job done is clearly evident in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report. Washington, DC, September 14, 1999. Hon. Michael O. Leavitt, Chairman, National Governors' Association, Hall of States, Washington, DC. Hon. Christine O. Gregoire, President, National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, DC. Dear Governor and Madam Attorney General: We are aware that concerns have been raised regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2000, on the safe operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Title XXXII provides for the reorganization of the DOE to strengthen its national security function, as recommended by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). In so doing, the NDAA would establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department. However, as the purpose of this effort was focused on enhancing national security and strengthening operational management of the Department's nuclear weapons production function, the conferees recognized the need to carefully avoid statutory modifications that could inadvertently result in changes or challenges to the existing environmental cleanup efforts. As such, Title XXXII does not amend existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations and is in no way intended to limit the states' established regulatory roles pertaining to DOE operations and ongoing cleanup activities. In fact, Title XXXII contains a number of provisions specifically crafted to clearly establish this principle in statue. NNSA compliance with existing environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non- substantive requirements. Concern has been expressed that Title XXXII could result in the exemption of the NNSA from compliance with existing environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non-substantive requirements. We believe these concerns to be unfounded. First, Section 3261 expressly requires that the newly created NNSA comply with all applicable environmental, safety and health laws and substantive requirements. The NNSA Administrator must develop procedures for meeting these requirements at sites covered by the NNSA, and the Secretary of Energy must ensure that compliance with these important requirements is accomplished. As such, the provision would not supersede, diminish or otherwise impact existing authorities granted to the states or the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and enforce cleanup at DOE sites. The clear intent of Title XXXII is to require that the NNSA comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to the same extent as before the reorganization. This intent is evidenced by Section 3296, which provides that all applicable provisions of law and regulations (including tho

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
(House of Representatives - September 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H8295-H8318] CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1059, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follow: H. Res. 288 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference report rule for S. 1059, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. In addition, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type of rule that we grant for every conference report we consider in the House. The conference report itself is a strong step forward as we work to take care of our military personnel and provide for our national defense. I have always admired the patriotism and dedication of the young men and women in the armed forces, especially given the poor quality of life that our enlisted men and women face. But today, we are doing something to improve military pay, housing, and benefits. It has always been kind of sad, we ask these young people to technically give up their life for their country, but yet we really have not treated them in the way that most of us would like to be treated. Their pay has not been good. They live in housing that has been virtually World War II almost, substandard housing in some cases. A lot of them have had to take second jobs just to exist because they are married and they cannot make it on their pay. So we are helping to take some of this load off of them, and we are helping to take some of them off of food stamps with this bill by giving them a [[Page H8296]] 4.8 percent pay raise. We have added $258 million for a variety of health care efforts. We are boosting the basic allowance for housing, as I said, increasing retention pay for pilots, which is another big problem we have had. We are having a very difficult time retaining good pilots in the military. We are prompting the GAO to study how we can do better. But along with personnel, we have taken care of our military readiness. We live in a dangerous world today, and Congress is working to protect our friends and family back home from our enemies abroad. We are providing for a national missile defense system, something that we have never had and that a lot of people think we have. A lot of people think we are protected if a warhead comes in from China or North Korea or Iraq or Iran, but, no, we are not. So with this bill, we are going to provide the beginnings of that protection for this country if that day ever comes. In light of the recent news about security breaches at our weapons laboratories, we are creating a National Nuclear Security Administration to prevent enemy nations from stealing our nuclear secrets. We are boosting the military's budget for weapons and ammunition. We are providing $37 billion for research and development so our forces will have top-of-the-line equipment for their job. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying conference report because now more than ever we must improve our national security. Mr. Speaker, I graciously yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for allowing me to speak at this point. As my colleagues know, I am the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. From the beginning of this year, the very first hearing, I said that this should be the year of the troops. To the credit of the Committee on Armed Services, on a very bipartisan effort, it is the year of the troops. We have had, as my colleagues know, serious recruiting problems and even more serious retention problems. I am not just talking about pilots; I am talking about young men and young women who have put several years into the military and decide to get out. The old saying is, and it is so true, ``you recruit soldiers'' or in the case maybe Marines, sailors, airmen, ``but you retain families.'' For instance, the Army has been cut some 36 percent, but the operational tempo has increased 300 percent. We are wearing the troops out. I had breakfast about a year and a half ago with some noncommissioned officers of the United States Navy, and they told me about the dispirited attitude of the young men and women who work with them, the feeling that they were not remembered. This bill is a tribute to them. This bill is one where truly we do remember them. It is our job under the Constitution to raise and maintain the military and to write the rules and regulations therefor, and we have done a magnificent job. I am very proud of it. I am very proud of the bipartisanship. I am very proud of the effort made. I especially compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), our chairman, for his outstanding efforts. This is a good bill. The Department of Energy portion that deals with nuclear weapons is under our jurisdiction. That has been a very important part of our effort. To some, it will not meet with their full approval. But I think we took a giant step forward. I am for this bill, for the troops, for the families. I might say, in addition to the pay raises, the pay raise, the pay tables, pension reform, we have done superb work for the barracks, family housing. I think it deserves great, great support. Regarding the Department of Energy effort, I think it is good. Could it be better? Sure. But legislation is a matter of compromise. So I support the bill and all of its portions. I hope this rule will be adopted overwhelmingly because this is a major step in the national security of our country. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that it is my intention to support this conference report. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 contains a number of provisions that are critical to the maintenance of our national defense forces. Most important among them is a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise and additional pay raises targeted to mid-grade officers and NCOs to improve retention and hopefully stem the loss of some of the best and brightest and most valuable members of our armed services. The quality-of-life issues addressed in this package are, in a word, essential to the men and women who serve in uniform and to their families. As Members of this body point out repeatedly, it is unconscionable that service men and women should be paid at rates so low that they depend upon food stamps to feed their families, or the military housing is oft times decrepit or substandard. This bill may not resolve all of those issues, but at least it puts us on the road to fixing a problem that cannot and should not be tolerated. This conference report is not without controversy, however. The ranking member of the Committee on Commerce has raised some serious concerns about the provisions in the conference report, which establish a new National Nuclear Security Administration to manage DOE's weapons programs. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is especially concerned that this provision was added in conference over the objections of the Committee on Commerce and Committee on Science who have jurisdiction over this matter; and he has indicated that it is his intention to offer a motion to recommit to strike language from the conference report. {time} 1030 Members should listen very carefully to his arguments against these provisions which are opposed by the Secretary of Energy, the National Governors Association, and the National Association of Attorneys General. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will also voice strong objections to the process by which these provisions were included in this conference report. His views deserve the attention of the House, and I urge Members to pay close attention. There will, of course, be Members who will oppose his motion to recommit because they do not want to put any barriers in the path of the passage of this very good bill. His objections do not, however, lie against the remainder of the bill, and those provisions deserve the strong support of the House. This conference report authorizes $8.5 billion for military construction and military family housing programs. It authorizes full funding for a proposed program to construct or renovate over 6,200 units of military family housing, and the construction or renovation of 43 barracks, dormitories and BEQs for the single enlisted. The conference report also increases authorization amounts for procurement accounts to provide for a total of $55.7 billion as well as for research and development to provide for a total of $36.3 billion. This increased funding will provide $171.7 million for further development of the B-2 fleet, $252.6 million to procure F-16C aircraft and $319.9 million for F-16 modifications. In addition, the conference report commits to funding an acquisition of the critical next- generation air dominance fighter. It authorizes $1.2 billion for research and development on the F-22 Raptor, $1.6 billion for six low- rate initial production aircraft, and $277.1 million for advanced procurement for 10 LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The conferees are to be congratulated for their support for this critical program. I am also pleased that the conferees have included $990.4 million for procurement of 12 V-22s and $182.9 million for V-22 research and development and $25 million to accelerate development of the CV-22 special operations variant. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report. The conferees have brought us a bill which enhances quality of life for our men and women in uniform, a bill which protects core readiness and a bill which wisely and aggressively addresses the need to replace aging equipment and to find ways to keep our weapons systems second to none in the world. I commend this conference report to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H8297]] Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership on this and my gratitude for yielding me the time. I am pleased to support this very appropriate rule for consideration of S. 1059, the fiscal year 2000 DOD authorization conference report, a major piece of legislation for this Congress. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their diligent, bipartisan, very thorough work to make sure that we significantly improve the support given to our men and women in uniform. They are the ones doing the hard work. They are the ones in harm's way. They are the ones taking the risk. That deserves to be supported to the fullest extent possible. I am grateful for the continued close working relationship that these gentlemen have had with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in ensuring that our fighting forces have access to the best, the most timely, and the most accurate intelligence that we can get. Eyes, ears, brains are actually very crucial to our national security. This legislation reflects our commitment to those capabilities. Force protection, force enhancement, force projection: these are the results, these are the needs, and these are what we are getting. Americans most recently have watched our troops in action in Kosovo. You might have the impression from what I would call photo-op TV that Kosovo is some kind of a big win. Unfortunately, the view emerging from the ground in Kosovo is not quite so rosy. Further, the administration is pursuing policies that could ultimately endanger the chances for a long-term peace and stability in that region in my view and the view of others. Official U.S. policy toward Kosovo is in fact built upon three very uncertain principles: one, Kosovo should remain an ethnically diverse province; two, Kosovo should not become independent; and, three, the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA, should give up its arms and disband. These principles face serious challenges in the field, on the ground. U.S. policy refuses to recognize even the possibility that the Kosovars will eventually vote to declare independence from Yugoslavia. That is a possibility that should not be discounted. Similarly, the administration is naively assuming that the KLA will simply roll over and disband. In my view, the U.S. has no end game strategy. For the sake of the Americans and our allies on the ground in Kosovo, I urge the administration to rethink our situation there and base decisions on fact, not on wishful thinking. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox Committee, I am satisfied with the provision in this legislation establishing a semiautonomous agency to run the weapons program at the Department of Energy under the Secretary's leadership. Critics have suggested that this change could cause the sky to fall with respect to public health, safety, and environmental matters. To the contrary, I say. The Cox Report demonstrates that the sky has already fallen and our national security has been placed at great risk as a result. Given the deeply troubling circumstances surrounding reports of espionage at our national labs, I believe it is very proper for Congress to move expeditiously in enacting new safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conference report also includes a provision based on an amendment I offered with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) requiring an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti. As our defense leaders have made clear, the Clinton administration's insistence on maintaining a permanent troop presence in Haiti has strained an already overburdened military, has unnecessarily put our troops at risk there, and has focused on humanitarian projects more appropriately undertaken by nongovernmental organizations who are ready, willing and able to do the job. In the face of our efforts to force a withdrawal by year's end, the Clinton administration has finally announced an end to the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, to be replaced with periodic deployments as needed, as is customary everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. This action does not, I repeat, does not signal an end to U.S. military involvement or to U.S. support for the democratic process in Haiti but, rather, it is a more realistic policy to provide the help Haiti so desperately needs as our neighbor in the Caribbean. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members should note that this legislation contains a significant increase in counterdrug funding for DOD. Once again, Congress has taken the lead to win the war on drugs, filling the vacuum left by a just-say-maybe message from the Clinton administration. And we are getting results, if you read the papers. This is a good bill. I urge its passage. I commend those involved. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). Mr. SISISKY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and, of course, the rule. I would like to take a few minutes to tell our colleagues why. First, I am pleased to report that in my opinion members were treated equitably. Members on our side of the aisle were given the same consideration as members on the other side. That is not to say everybody got everything they wanted. They did not. Neither did I. Second, this conference report builds on the President's proposal to increase defense spending by $112 billion over the next 6 years. To redress shortcomings in recruiting and retention, this bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise, pay table reforms for middle grade personnel and retirement reform in what may be the best compensation package for our military since the 1980s. The bill also addresses the budget shortfalls that have dogged the weapons research and development and procurement programs of the Department of Defense. In fact, by providing $4.6 billion in increases for weapons, related research and development and procurement, I believe we may have turned the corner and begun the long, steady recovery that is both needed and overdue. Particularly noteworthy is the emphasis on precision stand-off weapons that reduce risks to our troops and, at the same time, risks to innocent civilian populations. Third, I am particularly pleased that we have rejected the status quo and begun the long and difficult task of management and accountability reforms for the national security functions of the Department of Energy. In my opinion, there is no disagreement as to whether such reforms are needed, and to delay starting the reform process while waiting on unanimity or drafting perfection would in my opinion be irresponsible. Admittedly, the provisions proposed in this conference report are not perfect, nor does everyone agree. But, on balance, they are a good first start on what will prove to be a long and difficult process in the years ahead. More importantly, there is nothing in this bill that would amend existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations, nor is there any intent to limit the States' established regulatory roles pertaining to the Department of Energy operations and ongoing cleanup activities. Thus, I do not believe the DOE reform provisions are antienvironmental nor do I believe they should be used as the basis for rejecting this conference report. Finally, our naval forces have shrunk from nearly 600 ships in 1987 to 324 ships today. At the same time, the number of missions for these ships have increased threefold. Worse, the administration's budget would lead to a 200 ship Navy, well below the force level of 300 ships called for by the Nation's military strategy. This bill allows the Navy to dedicate more of its scarce shipbuilding dollars to the construction of needed warships by providing significantly more cost-effective acquisitions through the following measures: The early construction of an amphibious ship for the Marines at a great price; procurement for the final large, medium speed roll-on/ roll-off ship, [[Page H8298]] LMSR, before the line closes; cost-saving expanded multiyear procurement authority for the DDG-51 destroyer program; long-term lease authority for the services of new construction, noncombatant ships for the Navy; and expanded authority for the National Defense Features program to allow DOD to pay reduced life-cycle costs of defense features built into commercial ships up-front. Mr. Speaker, we all know that bills are compromises, and that good bills make good promise compromises. S. 1059 is such a bill. It is a balanced bill with good compromises. In the strongest terms, I urge the adoption of the conference report. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for pointing out a number of the important issues and details that are what this bill and conference report are about. I rise in very, very strong support of our rule, of our military, and of this bill. The gentleman from Virginia and I just returned from a trip where we went to, among other places, North Korea. If our citizens in the Eighth District, home of Fort Bragg, would look at a city whose tallest buildings have missiles on top of them, where our Air Force base has patriot missile batteries on the ready 24 hours a day, where 14,000 pieces of artillery are trained on the South, 80 percent of which are aimed at Seoul only 40 kilometers away from the demilitarized zone, if they could see in the eyes of the young men and women who are standing face to face with the North Koreans every day as a deterrent to terrorism and rogue nations, there would be no question in their mind as to our continued and increased support for the military. Kosovo and Bosnia have brought to our attention the need to correct imbalances and deprivations that the military has suffered because of budget shortfalls in recent years. This authorization is more than $8 billion over the administration's request, and an additional $18 billion over a greatly reduced budget for defense in 1999. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and members of both parties have worked diligently, courageously and with much forethought to rebuild our military. That is what this rule is about. We have a volunteer force. We should maintain a voluntary and not a draft force. In order to do that, we must do things that are included in this bill, increasing pay, improving health care benefits, restoring REDUX, doing things that we owe to our military to correct years of neglect. {time} 1045 This bill beefs up and strengthens areas that have been eroded over a number of years. It addresses major issues that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) has mentioned, but it also deals with such basics as ammunition and spare parts. So this is a broad-based, common- sense, very necessary piece of support for our men and women in uniform. In order for them to maintain the superiority, the commitment and to provide the protection for a world that is very, very dangerous, we should support them by unanimously passing this rule and this bill. They protect us; we need to support them. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule which sanctifies bad behavior. There was no real conference held on this legislation. Members of the conference who were entitled to be present to participate were not invited and were informed when they showed up that there was no conference to be held, the matter had been disposed of, and that we could simply go our way. Now let us look at what the rule does. The rule waives points of order on two things: One, germaneness and the other, scope of the conference. In each instance the conferees, without holding a meeting, contrived to concede the House rules on both points, so now they need a waiver. Why do they need a waiver? They need a waiver because they wrote something which is not germane, which was never considered in either body and which exceeds the scope of the conference. Now I want to express respect for my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who is a very decent and honorable Member of this body, but I want to say that what has been done here is, first of all, an outrage, and it is a gross abuse of the powers of the committee and a gross disregard to the rights both of other committees and of this body to know what is going on and to have an input into a matter of important concern. Now let us talk about the substance. This proposal in its title 32 recreates essentially the Atomic Energy Commission, one of the most secretive, one of the most sneaky, and one of the most dishonest agencies in government. They lied to everybody, including themselves, and the Congress of the United States, the Executive Branch. They suppressed tracks, and they have created in every area over which they had jurisdiction a cesspool, environmentally and otherwise. The areas which they had jurisdiction over drip hazardous waste and are contaminated beyond belief. Mixed wastes, high-level and low-level nuclear wastes contaminate these areas because of the fact that they diligently suppressed all facts with regard to what they were doing and how they were doing it, and I will be glad to discuss in greater detail because I do not have time now the behavior of that agency. We are now setting up an entity which will be totally exempt from the supervision of the Secretary and which will be totally exempt from the supervision of this body. What they are going to do is to create a situation where now they can lie in the dark, as they did before in the days of the Atomic Energy Commission, and efforts to control this agency will be brought to naught by the absolute power that is being invested in them to suppress the facts to everyone. Now who is opposed to this? First of all, every environmental agency and every environmental organization; second of all, the administration; third of all, the National Governors' Association; and fourth of all, the Organization of Attorneys General, 46 of whom sent us a letter denouncing what is being done here with regard to State, Federal environmental laws and the splendid opportunity for severe and serious misbehavior by this new entity. If my colleagues want to vote for the good things in the bill; and there are many good things, I supported this bill: pay raises and other things which would benefit us in terms not only of our concern for our military personnel, but also our concern for seeing to it that our defense needs are met; vote for the motion to recommit because the only thing it does is to strike title 32. The rest that it keeps are the good things that are in this legislation. So I offer my colleagues a chance to undo what was done in a high- handed arrogance by the committee and in a rather curious and remarkable and unjustifiable rule, one which is going to deny everybody in this country an opportunity to know what is going on inside that agency. Now if we are talking about security, let me just tell my colleagues that the security of the AEC stunk. I was over in a place called Arzamas-16, the place where the Russians made their nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. I saw there a bomb that looked exactly like the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima. I told the guy: That looks familiar. They said it is an exact copy of the bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima. So when they tell us that the recreation of the secrecy and the inbrededness of the AEC and the secretiveness that this legislation will authorize is going to assure the national security, do not believe them. History is against it, and I would just ask my colleagues to understand the secrecy that they are talking about is not against the Russians or against anybody else. It is secrecy which they intend to use to prevent my colleagues, and I, and the Members of Congress, the Members of the Senate from knowing what is going on down there. If my colleagues want to see to it that we continue our efforts to protect the security of the United States, to see to it that things are done which need be done in terms of protecting the security interests of the United States, they can vote for my amendment and [[Page H8299]] should, but if they want to protect the environment, then they you must vote for my amendment. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my colleague. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I share the respect that all Members of this House have for the dean of the House, and I always appreciate his willingness to stand up for what he believes in, as we recently saw when he led efforts to oppose gun control despite the sentiments of most of his party. As much as anyone in this body, the gentleman from Michigan is responsible over the years for the management structure of the Department of Energy, and he does not want to see that changed, and I think we can all understand someone coming from that position. But study after study, report after report, have reached a different conclusion. As a matter of fact, I know of at least 20 studies, reports and in-house reviews in the Department of Energy that have all found that the Department of Energy management structure is a mess and hurts our security, safety, and national security. I point to the President's own study which came out just this summer conducted by his foreign intelligence advisory board, and they concluded, quote, DOE's performance throughout its history should be regarded as intolerable, and they also found, quote, the Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of reforming itself, end quote. Now what they went on to say is we can do one of two things. One is that we can take all the nuclear weapons program completely out of the Department of Energy and set up a whole new agency, or we can create a semi-autonomous agency inside DOE with a clear chain of command and hope to solve some of these problems. This conference report takes the President's own commission's recommendations and implements them down to the letter. Now what that does is it gives the nuclear weapons agency two things that it has never had under DOE. One, it has a clear focus on its mission so that the same people who worry about refrigerator coolant standards and solar power and electricity deregulation day to day are not going to be interfering in the nuclear weapons work. Secondly, it provides accountability so that we have for the first time a clear chain of command so that when an order is given it is followed; and if somebody messes up, they are held responsible and we can get rid of them. And that is one of the most important safeguards we can have to protecting the environment, to having a clear line of accountability and safeguards. The gentleman from Michigan says, oh, this just goes back to the old Atomic Energy Commission. I would say that no more will we ever go back to some of the problems of the past any more than we are going to go back to pouring motor oil out on the ground or we are going to go back to allowing cars to create all the smog that they can create. We are not going to, and I personally, Mr. Speaker, am offended by the suggestion that the people who work at the Pantex plant in my district, who live in the area, whose children go to school in that area, are going to be so careless in disregarding the safety of the drinking water and the other things in that area that they are just going to pollute willy nilly. Now I think there are some important points to be made on the environment. Number one, this bill says that every single standard, environmental standard, that applies before the bill applies after the bill; it does not change. Secondly, this bill says that the Secretary of Energy can set up whatever oversight he wants by whoever he wants, and they can look at every single thing that goes on throughout the weapons complex, and they can make whatever policy recommendations they want to make, and the Secretary of Energy can order anything to happen dealing with the environment or any other subject. The only change is that these oversight people, unless they are within the new agency, cannot order things to be changed, they cannot implement the directions. Policy can be set by anybody that the Secretary wants, but the implementation goes down the clear chain of command. Some of the concerns that have been raised to this bill have been by some attorneys general who are worried about some new court challenge on matters that have been already established under court rulings. Let me make it clear, this bill does not change any of the waivers of sovereign immunity that the attorneys general have been concerned about; and there is a letter that will be made part of the Record later in which the chairman of our committee and the chairman of the Senate committee clearly say we are not changing one single environmental standard. And I would also put as part of the Record at that time a letter from the attorney general of Texas who once he had a chance to look at the actual legislation and what the real intent is says he no longer has any concerns or objections, and I would suggest that if my colleagues have a chance to talk to all the attorneys general and tell them what is really going on, that any of those concerns certainly melt away. Mr. Speaker, I just make two final points. Number one is that we have all been embarrassed and dismayed and shocked at the security headlines which we have seen across the papers this year. For us to walk away and say we cannot do anything about it, it is too complicated, we are just going to let DOE roll along its merry way, is an abdication of our responsibility to fix one of the greatest national security problems with which we have been confronted. The second point I would like to make is this: The gentleman from Michigan's motion to recommit is not like an ordinary bill. It is a conference report. The only effect of the motion is to require us to open the conference back up. That means everything in the conference from the pay raise to the retirement reform to the V-22 to whatever my colleagues care about in this bill is jeopardized because we have got to open everything back up, go back into negotiations with the Senate, and all of the wonderful strides to improve our national security are threatened by the motion to recommit. So I would suggest that it is our responsibility to fix DOE, it is our responsibility to make sure this bill goes forward unimpeded and to vote against the motion when it is offered. Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, September 15, 1999. Hon. Floyd D. Spence, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Spence and Senator Warner: I have received a copy of your September 14, 1999 letter to Michael O. Leavitt and Christine O. Gregoire addressing concerns regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal year 2000, on the safe operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Your letter addresses my two principal concerns with Title XXXII of S. 1059: That this legislation not supercede, diminish or set aside existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity; and that it be clear that under Title XXXII the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to the same extent as before the reorganization. After reading your letter, I am satisfied that this legislation was neither intended to affect existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity nor to exempt in any way the NNSA from the same environmental laws and regulations as applied before reorganization. I also have been advised that your letter will be made part of the legislative history of Title XXXII of S. 1059 by being submitted during the conference debate on this legislation, thus being made part of the Congressional Record. As such, this letter will provide confirmation that this legislation leaves unaltered existing waivers of federal sovereign immunity as well as existing environmental laws and regulations. Given the explanations made in your September 14, 1999, letter as well as the submission of your letter as part of the Congressional Record to be included in the legislative history of this statute, I have no continuing objection to this legislation. I appreciate your efforts to make the intent of Title XXXII of S. 1059 clear. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). [[Page H8300]] Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I rise in strong support of the national defense authorization conference report, and I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and of course the staff of the committee for all the hard work that they put into this conference report. The report addresses the quality of life, the readiness and the modernization shortfalls that the men and the women in our Armed Forces are currently facing. The report also addresses the important issue of domestic violence in the military. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, one occurrence of domestic violence is one too many, and unfortunately reports show that in 1994 in every 1,000 marriages 14 spouses were the victims of spouse abuse, and I am pleased that the conferees from both Chambers worked in a bipartisan manner to address this important issue. The language in the conference report gives the services the opportunity to take on the crime of domestic violence and to protect victims of domestic violence as they never have before. It gives the Department of Defense and the services the opportunity to develop relationships with non-military victims' community and to draw on the expertise of local domestic violence organizations to aid in designing their own programs. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the conference report. {time} 1100 Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member should be proud to vote for this conference report. I think this report is a great manifestation of our ability to work in a bipartisan manner and do something that is important for the country, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and all the Members, Democrat and Republican, who worked on this particular piece of legislation, because today we live in a very dangerous world. That is extremely clear now. China is trying to step into the superpower shoes that have been left by the Soviet Union. Terrorism is becoming more deadly, more technologically capable, and we are seeing new challenges around the world; and against that backdrop we have cut defense dramatically. The defense force structure that we have today is just about half of what it was in 1992. We have gone from 18 Army divisions to 10; 24 active fighter air wings to 13; and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) said, almost 600 ships down to 324 and dropping. Unfortunately, the half that we have left is not as ready as the full force that we had in 1992. We have a $193 million shortage in basic ammo for the Marines; a $3.5 billion shortage in ammo for the Army. Our mission-capable rates have gone down almost 10 percent across the board in the services; that is the ability of an aircraft to take off from a carrier or from a runway, run its mission and come back and land safely. That is now down to an average of about 70 percent. That means about 30 of every 100 planes in our services cannot take off a runway and do their mission because of a lack of spare parts, a lack of maintenance, or just having a real old aircraft that has not been replaced. In fact, we did have 55 crashes, peacetime crashes, last year with the military, resulting in over 50 deaths of our people in uniform. So we are flying old equipment, and we are having to take very valuable resources, these spare parts, the few spares and repair parts that we have, and our trained personnel who can still fix aircraft and other equipment and move them to the front lines when we run an operation like Kosovo. So against that backdrop, we have put an additional $2.7 billion into the modernization accounts, and we put extra money in the pay raise. We have a 4.8 percent pay raise. We put money in readiness. Across the board, we have spent what I consider to be the bare minimum; but in this case, Mr. Speaker, the bare minimum is absolutely necessary. It would be a tragedy to defeat this bill for some reason, for some turf fight or some other reason that has nothing to do with national security. Let me just say with respect to the DOE section of this bill and the reform that we did, let me just remind my colleagues about the tragedy that occurred a couple of years ago. After we had identified an individual who was identified as a spy in our nuclear weapons laboratory, and the head of the FBI, Mr. Freeh, had gone to the Assistant Secretary of Energy and a couple of weeks later to the Secretary of Energy and said, get this guy away from classified areas, take away his access to our nuclear secrets, 14 months later somebody turned around and said, is that spy still next to the nuclear weapons vault? And somebody went over and checked and, yes, he was. We tried to figure out why he hadn't been fired, and there was such a mess and such a confusion that nobody was sure. Everybody thought the other guy was going to get the spy away from our nuclear secrets. Presumably he was upgrading for 14 months, over a year, the nuclear secrets that he had moved out earlier and nobody was there to stop him. That was the confusion that we saw. That is the confusion that we fix. Let us pass this conference report. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity not to comment on this legislation but to comment on the Republican leadership's unwillingness to recognize reality in the scheduling of the House of Representatives. As people may be aware, there is a hurricane headed toward this area, and yet the Republican leadership refuses to adjourn the House at the end of proceedings today, thereby forcing Members to attend a hurricane party here in Washington, D.C. in the capitol tomorrow. It is very likely that the Washington, D.C. airports will be closed tomorrow if the hurricane does, in fact, continue on its path, thereby preventing Members from the southeast who may want to be with their constituents at the time of this national emergency from doing so, and preventing Members from other parts of the country who may actually want to be able to go home this weekend and spend time with their constituents from doing so. I find it extraordinarily shortsighted on the part of the Republican leadership to recognize that there is a hurricane headed straight toward Washington, D.C. The House should be adjourned at the end of today so that Members will not be trapped in Washington and be unable to be with their constituents in the next 5 days. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, back to the debate, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding and congratulate her on her superb management of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from Dallas by saying that we obviously want to do everything that we can to ensure that people are able to get out of town in time, and I will say that we do not want to have to have a hurricane party here. I do not know that the hurricane is headed right towards Washington, D.C. We certainly hope that we do not see any loss of life and that it is, in fact, lessened. But I am struck with the fact that my colleagues really go for everything they possibly can to attack the Republican leadership. We enjoy the fact that they are scraping for something more to criticize us on. Let me say that I believe that this is a very important conference report. We are trying to get the people's work done here, and I am hoping very much that we will be able to have strong bipartisan support of not only the rule but the conference report itself. [[Page H8301]] It was 10 years ago this coming November 13 that the world celebrated the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and many people argued at that point that we would be witnessing the end of history; that the demise of the Soviet Union and Communism, which took place in the following 3 years, was something that was going to change the world, and clearly it has. I think that the leadership that Ronald Reagan and President George Bush have shown and, frankly, in a bipartisan way that we have provided for our Nation's defense capability, brought about that change; but as we mark, in the coming weeks, the 10th anniversary of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, it is very important for us to note that there has been a dramatic change in the national security threat that exists in this country and for the free world. It seems to me that we need to realize that over that period of time we have dealt with a wide range of challenges that exist throughout the world, and I am struck with a figure that I mentioned here several times before, the fact that during this administration we have deployed 265,000 troops to 139 countries around the world and that has taken place at a time when we have actually diminished our level of expenditures. Since 1987, we have seen a reduction of 800,000 of our military personnel. We have consistently pursued this goal of trying to do more with less, and that is wrong. That is why when we, as Republicans at the beginning of the 106th Congress, set forth our four top priorities of making sure that we improve public education, which I am proud to say that we have done; provide tax relief for working families, which in just a couple of hours we are going to be enrolling the bill and sending it to the President, and I hope very much he does not veto that bill as he said he would on Friday; and saving Social Security and Medicare. Those are other priorities. We also included, as a top priority, because of this changing threat, rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. I am happy that we have passed and that the President, reluctantly, but the President finally did sign the national ballistic missile defense bill. I am very happy that we were able to see the President come on board in some of our attempts to deal with these national security issues, and I hope that he will be able to sign this conference report when it gets to him. It is clearly the right thing to do. We are going to be facing more challenges, but we have to make sure that the one issue which only the Federal Government can deal with, virtually every one of the other issues that we deal with can be handled by State and local governments, but our national security is the one issue that we are charged to dealing with. It is in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and it seems to me that we need to step up to the plate. That is why support of this conference report is very important. I urge my colleagues to do it in a bipartisan way. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), that I am not trying to be overly critical of the Republican leadership. Mr. DREIER. That would be a first, I have to say. Mr. FROST. I am just appalled by the fact that they seem to have taken the position of, what hurricane? I mean, everybody in the country knows that the hurricane is heading up the East Coast, and by refusing to adjourn the House at the end of business today they are forcing the staff to try and get into work tomorrow. They are trapping Members in the Nation's capital who want to be home with their constituents. This is an extraordinary development. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just for a moment, I would just like to thank him for his input and tell him that the recommendation that he has made will certainly be taken into consideration. Mr. FROST. I have not yielded. I am sorry. I have not yielded. The Republican leadership seems to be the only ones in the country that do not recognize the fact that a hurricane is moving up the East Coast, and that it is projected that it is going to come very close to Washington, D.C. tomorrow, and that we may have 5 inches of rain here tomorrow. I do not understand. All I want them to do is to turn on their television sets and to listen to the news and to deal with reality so that Members can be treated in a fair way and so that the staff can be treated in a fair way. It is unrealistic and unfair to say we are going to be here tomorrow and everybody come on in, no matter what is happening. They ought to face reality. They ought to adjourn the House at the end of today so that Members and staff will not be forced through the hardship of dealing with the hurricane in Washington, D.C. tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 1 minute remaining. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) if he has any further speakers? Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close for our side. We do not have any other speakers at this point. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, if it is all right, the gentleman should go ahead and close because I have no more speakers either. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good piece of legislation. This is legislation supported by a Democratic President, a Democratic administration, supported by the vast majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. We all are pleased to stand for a strong national defense, to stand for efforts to help our troops, to increase morale, to make sure that we retain soldiers that we need and that we are able to recruit soldiers that our forces need for the future. This is a good conference report. As a Democrat, I am pleased to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on final passage on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 288, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. {time} 1115 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of August 5, 1999, at page H7469.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with all respect for the chairman of the committee and all respect for my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I have been advised that the gentleman from Missouri supports the bill. I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Missouri opposed to the bill, and therefore, is he entitled to time in opposition to the legislation? The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in favor of the conference report? Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri supports the conference report. Pursuant to clause 8(d)(2) of rule XXII, time will be controlled three ways. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) will control 20 minutes; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. [[Page H8302]] Skelton) will control 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will control 20 minutes. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill was reported out of the Committee on Armed Services back in May on a vote of 55-to-1, and it passed the House in June on a vote of 365-to-58. The conference report before us today enjoys equally strong bipartisan support, as all 36 Republican and Democrat committee conferees have signed the conference report. This is only the second time this has happened since 1981. It is truly a bipartisan report. Mr. Speaker, the funding authorized in this bill is consistent with the increased spending levels set by the Congress in the budget resolution. As a result of this increased spending and a careful reprioritization of the President's budget request, we have provided the military services some of the tools necessary to better recruit and retain qualified personnel and to better train and equip them. It is in this context that the conferees went to work, targeting additional funding for a variety of sorely needed quality of life, readiness, and equipment initiatives. However, despite the conferees' best efforts, we are not eliminating shortfalls, we are simply struggling to manage them. Absent a long-term, sustained commitment to revitalizing America's armed forces, we will continue to run the inevitable risks that come from asking our troops to do more with less. This conference report also contains the most important and significant Department of Energy reorganization proposal since the agency's creation more than two decades ago. Earlier this year, the bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee released its report on the national security implications of our United States technology transfers to the People's Republic of China. The Cox Committee identified lax security at DOE nuclear laboratories as a critical national security problem, and unanimously concluded that China had obtained classified information on ``every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the United States ballistic missile arsenal.'' Following the Cox Committee report, President Clinton's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board chaired by former Senator Rudman, issued its report highly critical of DOE's failure to protect the Nation's nuclear secrets. The report of the President's Advisory Board concluded that DOD is, ``a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself.'' The conference report would implement the recommendation of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to create a semi- autonomous agency within DOE and vest it with responsibility for nuclear weapons research and protection. The reorganization will go a long way towards streamlining DOE's excessive bureaucracy and improving accountability, all in an effort to ensure that our Nation's most vital nuclear secrets are better managed and secured. Mr. Speaker, some question has been raised in some quarters on the possible impact that the reorganization provisions could have on DOE's environmental programs and in particular, on the status of existing waivers of solving immunity agreements between the Federal Government and individual States. In a few minutes I plan to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to clarify this point for the legislative record. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record following my statement a letter that Senator Warner and I have jointly written to the National Governors Association and the National Association of Attorneys General that address these questions in more detail. The bottom line is that this conference report does not impact or change current environmental law or regulation, and it does not impact or change existing waivers of sovereign immunity agreements. For the sake of time I will not repeat that statement, but it is true to the letter. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is before the House today only as a result of the efforts of all conferees. In particular, I want to recognize the critical roles played by the Committee on Armed Services subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking members. Their efforts, along with those of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) made my job easier, and their dedication to getting the job done is clearly evident in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report. Washington, DC, September 14, 1999. Hon. Michael O. Leavitt, Chairman, National Governors' Association, Hall of States, Washington, DC. Hon. Christine O. Gregoire, President, National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, DC. Dear Governor and Madam Attorney General: We are aware that concerns have been raised regarding the impact of Title XXXII of S. 1059, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2000, on the safe operation and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Title XXXII provides for the reorganization of the DOE to strengthen its national security function, as recommended by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). In so doing, the NDAA would establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department. However, as the purpose of this effort was focused on enhancing national security and strengthening operational management of the Department's nuclear weapons production function, the conferees recognized the need to carefully avoid statutory modifications that could inadvertently result in changes or challenges to the existing environmental cleanup efforts. As such, Title XXXII does not amend existing environmental, safety and health laws or regulations and is in no way intended to limit the states' established regulatory roles pertaining to DOE operations and ongoing cleanup activities. In fact, Title XXXII contains a number of provisions specifically crafted to clearly establish this principle in statue. NNSA compliance with existing environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non- substantive requirements. Concern has been expressed that Title XXXII could result in the exemption of the NNSA from compliance with existing environmental regulations, orders, agreements, permits, court orders, or non-substantive requirements. We believe these concerns to be unfounded. First, Section 3261 expressly requires that the newly created NNSA comply with all applicable environmental, safety and health laws and substantive requirements. The NNSA Administrator must develop procedures for meeting these requirements at sites covered by the NNSA, and the Secretary of Energy must ensure that compliance with these important requirements is accomplished. As such, the provision would not supersede, diminish or otherwise impact existing authorities granted to the states or the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and enforce cleanup at DOE sites. The clear intent of Title XXXII is to require that the NNSA comply with the same environmental laws and regulations to the same extent as before the reorganization. This intent is evidenced by Section 3296, which provides that all applicable provisions of law and regulations (including those relating to environment