Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. First, I thank Senator Specter for raising this issue and suggest to him that the same issue has been raised by his distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum. Senator Specter and I have been speaking about that the last few minutes. Let me say, in answer to the questions that the Senator asked with reference to the Lackawanna project, I will answer them as best I can, maybe not in the same order in which they were asked, but I believe I will answer all of them. First, we have had to go through this bill and where we found unfunded obligations that were not going to be needed for a substantial period of time, in some instances well beyond a year, and that the project or projects would continue at full pace exactly as planned, we have decided, since we have some desperate projects that are not going to get any money, to move the money around, but that does not mean we do not intend to fully fund the project. If you will note in my remarks, I said we are not funding any unauthorized projects. The projects in Pennsylvania, including the one I just mentioned, are authorized and proceeding. They do not need any work by any other committee. They are ongoing. All I can do is give you assurance that there is no intention to take these projects off of their natural course of completion. That is what the Corps says we need each year and can spend each year, and there will be $17 million left in this account, only $6 million of which is needed for the year 2000. Nobody should be concerned about that project not proceeding at full speed ahead. I can assure you that is what I have been informed. I believe that is what you would have in a letter from the Corps, if you wanted it. I can further commit to you that we continue each year with these water projects, and clearly we always have substantial amounts of money. Last year, the President very much underfunded projects. We had to find money to fund them. This year, because the nondefense portion of this bill is squeezed some and because the President cut some things we can't cut, we have had to squeeze some of these other accounts, some in the manner we are discussing. But there is no reason to be concerned about the projects getting funded. As a matter of fact, we may find ourselves in conference with the House, which would make available more money for the water projects because of the way they will fund things. It may very well be that they won't want to do it this way, that they want to save money some other way. We will work on that. If, before we are finished here on the floor, this was unsatisfactory for any reason that you or Senator Santorum or you together find, I will be willing to discuss it again and see what we could do to assure you that these projects are going to be fully funded. In reference to the fact that last year three projects were put together in a technical manner but in a manner that is acceptable in terms of analyzing the benefits versus the costs, sometimes called a cost-benefit ratio, that has been done. There is no change in this bill. They fit together, and they are evaluated together, and they meet the criteria. There is no effort on the part of the Appropriations Committee I chair that I am aware of that would want to change that so as to demean in priority and effectiveness one versus the other two or two versus one or the like. I do not know if we can do anything more to be sure of that than what I am telling you now and what is in the law as it is now. Somebody would have to change it, not just come along and say we are not going to do it. They would have to change something. You would know; I would know. Everybody in Pennsylvania would know. It would not be easy to do.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know the bill. I am a cosponsor. I hope it gets passed soon this year. I understand you are going to file a bill but not call it up because meetings are taking place and we will want to pursue those.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I need to get amendments filed. Madam President, we have a series of amendments in a managers' package. They have been cleared on both sides. When I send them to the desk to be considered en bloc, it is for adoption, not just for sending to the desk. Amendments Nos. 651 through 660, En Bloc

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I send a managers' package of amendments to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid is on his way. Mr. President and fellow Senators, the ranking member and I have decided that it won't do us any good to remain any longer on the energy and water appropriations bill, because we are now in the process of working out a number of amendments and apparently there is one that may have to be voted on; we just got it, and participants would not be ready this evening in any event. Everyone understood that they needed some time at the earliest convenience tomorrow, or when we can get back on the bill. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, the ranking member, we are ready to get off the bill tonight and wait our turn as early as possible in the process tomorrow. We are working on a number of amendments. There is probably one that is going to require a vote tomorrow. But they won't be ready this evening in any event. We knew that.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bill before us today. I would like to sincerely thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for their strong leadership on the Defense Subcommittee. I also would like to recognize the hard work and diligence of the staff on this Committee. Every year this Committee goes through the exercise of trying to allocate sufficient funds for the foremost priorities of providing for our nation's defense. Every year under the current funding constraints the difficulty of this task increases. This year is no exception. I would like to briefly mention some of the most important aspects of our defense addressed in this spending package. The bill provides $264.7 billion in new spending authority for the Department of Defense for FY 2000. This is $1.4 billion above the President's request. This recommendation meets the budget authority and outlay limits established in the 302(b) allocation. In parallel with the Defense Authorization bill, the bill funds almost 1.4 million active duty military personnel. This bill fully funds a 4.8-percent pay raise for FY2000 and includes more than $1.838 billion in supplemental spending for military pay. This legislation provides approximately $2.1 billion for overseas contingency operations in Southwest Asia and Bosnia. I and many others suspect we'll be forced to pass an additional emergency supplemental for peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. As Chairman Stevens has already indicated, it would be premature to speculate about those possible appropriations at this time. The bill includes appropriations totaling $92 billion for operation and maintenance (O&M). This is $626.1 million above the Administration's request. The bill supports the establishment of 17 Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams. And it provides $1.3 billion for combating terrorism. Within the funds for combating terrorism, the bill makes $79.6 million available to provide Army and Air National Guard full-time personnel to facilitate successful achievement of this mission. I fully support the decision to appropriate $475.5 million for Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction programs. These are important programs that address one of the most significant proliferation threats we face today. I also would like to voice my strong support for the decision that $25 million be used only to support Russian nuclear submarine dismantlement and disposal activities. I also sincerely appreciate the Committee's effort to restore some of the funding required for research, development, test, and evaluation. The increase of $2.1 billion to the budget request will help prevent the loss of scientific and technical expertise within our defense infrastructure. Moreover, this will help ensure that the U.S. maintains its technological lead in its defense capabilities. The Committee also funded several items that will ensure that New Mexico based defense installations and programs remain robust. I would like to briefly highlight some of the items that received funding in the appropriations bill. Directed energy weapons provide the potential of low cost per kill ratios sought for our missile defense capabilities. In the area of directed energy, $14 million will go for the High Energy Laser Test Facility at White Sands, the Army's premier facility for directed energy programs. There is an additional $15 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser program. This joint program with Israel is very important to proving the concept of using lasers to achieve defenses against short and medium range missiles. After significant cuts and changes to its development plan last year, the Airborne Laser program is fully funded at $309 million. The Committee added $40 million to the Warfighter Information Network program. Based at Laguna Industries, this program manufactures mobile command and control headquarters for a digital Army. An additional $7.5 million was appropriated for modernization of testing equipment at White Sands Missile Range. Also, $6 million will be made available for much needed perimeter fencing to prevent further accidents from unexploded ordnances at the range. $10 million is included for the Scorpius Low Cost Launch program. A significant portion of the research and development for this program is based at Phillips, and testing of the engines and the rocket itself is conducted at New Mexico Tech and White Sands. This is an important program both because of the implications to our national security that arise from exorbitant launch costs and due to potential cost savings to taxpayers by lower costs for getting payloads into orbit for U.S. defense programs. Several other Phillips based programs also received additional support, including: $5 million for further research and development on radio frequency weapons, $25 million for military spaceplane efforts, $5 million for advanced countermeasures using solid state laser technologies. At my and other member's request, an additional $10 million of funding will be made available for research and development of new technologies to counter chemical and biological threats. $4 million in support was included for the blast mitigation research of both military and nonmilitary explosives at New Mexico Tech. Lastly, $10 million in additional funding was added for the Theater Air Command and Control Simulation Facility (TACCSF) at Kirtland Air Force Base. This will help a great deal in making this facility the world class training facility necessary to maintain combat readiness of our Air Force in the coming years. I believe this bill demonstrates the balance required to best fund our armed forces under current fiscal constraints. Again, I am pleased by the hard work of my colleagues on this Committee and express, once again, my admiration for the hard work of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye in achieving an appropriate spending package for our military men and women.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 1122, the Defense appropriations bill for FY 2000. As scored with adjustments, the pending bill provides $264.9 billion in total budget authority and $176.9 billion in new outlays for the Department of Defense and related activities. When adjusted for outlays from prior years and other actions, the bill totals $263.9 billion in BA and $254.6 billion in outlays. There are some major elements to this bill that are important for the Senate for review. The bill is consistent with the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement and the discretionary spending cap. In fact, in both budget authority and outlays the bill is below the amount that the Congressional Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2000 would contemplate for the Defense Subcommittee's allocation. This is in recognition of the fact that readiness items originally planned for fiscal year 2000 were accelerated into fiscal year 1999 in the 1999 Emergency Kosovo Supplemental, which the President has signed into law. As a result, for budget authority, this bill is $3.1 billion below the allocation originally contemplated for it; for outlays it is $2.2 billion below. Because of this situation, the allocation approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee for defense has been reduced and held for subsequent reallocation. In addition, this year the defense budget is once again confronted with a serious mismatch between the DOD/OMB and the CBO estimates of the outlays needed to execute the programs in the budget request. CBO's estimate of outlays was $10.5 billion higher than OMB and DOD's estimate. Because the President's proposed budget was over the discretionary cap by such a larch amount, compensating for the OMB and DOD undercount of outlays would require very large reductions in manpower, procurement, or readiness, or all three. Cuts like that are simply not acceptable, especially in view of the conflict in the Balkans. To enable this bill to be considered on a basis commensurate with the President's request, an outlay adjustment of that size is included in the scoring of this bill. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has assured me that this action reduces the 2000 outlays shortage to manageable dimensions and avoids the negative effect on readiness or modernization that would otherwise be necessary. I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption. I want to compliment the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on his very skillful handling of this important legislation and for his statesmanlike approach to some serious and troubling issues in this year's defense budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee table displaying the budget impact of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill would renew the withdrawal of the McGregor Range for use by the U.S. Army. McGregor Range is one of six military parcels withdrawn from public domain in 1986. These parcels comprise nearly 30 percent of the Department of Defense's 25 million acres. The lands will revert to the public domain in 2001 unless Congress passes new legislation. This amendment is specific to the 608,000 acres utilized by Fort Bliss and does not address any of the other renewals for other military installations. McGregor Range comprises nearly 700,000 of Fort Bliss's 1.12 million acres. The Fort Bliss garrison is adjacent to El Paso, Texas, but the McGregor Range is located entirely in New Mexico. Sections of McGregor are used for cattle grazing and other nonmilitary purposes such as hunting and recreation. The Bureau of Land Management manages the cattle-grazing program through close coordination with the Army. These cooperative efforts provide for efficient use of the lands as well as effective stewardship of the natural resources located there. Recent studies of this issue provides a succinct summary of the most relevant policy issues surrounding the renewal of withdrawal for military purposes. Mr. President, allow me to briefly list the major findings of this study: Fort Bliss has a critical role as a national center for air defense and McGregor Range is essential for fulfilling that role; McGregor Range is the only range in the United States capable of training America's air and missile defense forces. Because all CONUS Patriot forces are stationed at Ft. Bliss they depend on McGregor for the training needed to ensure their full readiness prior to deployment. Successive BRAC rounds have reduced the capability of the DOD to support both current and future training and testing requirements with the available infrastructure. Range complexes such as McGregor and White Sands Missile Range are critical now and will become more critical in the future as weapons systems and doctrine evolve which allow greater stand-off distances and mobility in the future. These capabilities are wasted if we fail to train our forces to the maximum extent of their capabilities. McGregor Range supports the U.S. Air Force in the training activities at Holloman Air Force Base. The combined space of McGregor Range and White Sands can be leveraged to accommodate the needs of a more modern Army. Currently, the range supports specialized test operations by White Sands Missile Range which require additional safety buffer zones to ensure public safety. Military training and testing requirements for McGregor Range are foreseen for at least the next 50 years based on weapons systems that are either currently fielded, such as Patriot, or are planned for fielding in the near future. Additionally, emerging doctrine and weapon systems part of the Army-After-Next will require large areas to fully train soldiers in the employment of these weapons systems. If the requirement is known for the next fifty years, then it is unclear why a shorter withdrawal period is reasonable. The BLM's 1986 Wilderness Study made a ``No Wilderness'' recommendation regarding the Culp Canyon WSA. This recommendation was ``based on the low-quality wilderness value of the WSA and the potential conflicts with associated military use of the area.'' Without this portion of the range, the Army's ability to conduct Patriot and related air and missile defense training will be reduced by approximately one-third. There is strong regional support for this renewal. 176 public comments expressed support for the Army's preferred alternative. An additional 26 expressed support for one of the other alternatives. The Army's proposal will continue historic non-military uses of the range which include livestock grazing and hunting for 50 years. The Army has already met its obligations with respect to performing an Environmental Impact Statement, holding public hearings, and submission of request for renewal to the Administration. In sum, all of the legal requirements set forth by Congress have been met. Congressional action is now required to ensure that the Army retains its ability to test, simulate, and train for missions at Fort Bliss. Allowing the Army's continued access to these lands is critical to adequate training and readiness now and in the future. One of the fundamental duties of Congress is the maintenance of the national defense. Nothing is more fundamental than the provision of training ranges, such as McGregor, in maintaining a trained and prepared military.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. He can rest assured that we intend to answer any questions he might have, debate any amendments he might have, and do this in a way that all of us can feel is right. Nobody was more saddened than this Senator when the Cox report was issued and when many of the facts broke in the New York Times and other newspapers about a Chinese espionage effort. I have been working with these Labs for a long time. I believe we are very fortunate as a people to have these National Laboratories in our midst. Looking at the science they practice, the technology they develop, and the way they have protected and preserved our nuclear options during a long cold war, with a formidable opponent who chose another route in terms of making nuclear weapons but is nonetheless formidable both in capacity and number, we are very fortunate that up until this time in history, with a few times when it wasn't true, almost without limit the very best scientists in America cherished working at one of these three great Labs and at the defense portion of the Lab in Tennessee at Oak Ridge. Great scientists, great Nobel laureates serving America well. The problem now is, it has become obvious that for a long time, with the biggest emphasis here in the last 3 or 4 years, the Chinese, the People's Republic of China, and their spies and cohorts have engaged in a solid effort on many fronts to extract as many secrets as they could from these Laboratories. We now know there is a high probability that they have succeeded and that our children in the future will have a much more formidable Communist Chinese leadership confronting the world with a much more formidable set of rockets, delivery systems, and nuclear weapons. All of their sabotage did not occur, all of their efforts to spy did not occur, at just the Laboratories. They have had a concerted effort across our land. But there is an adage that says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The counter one to that is, if it is broke, fix it. Frankly, before the day is out, as I attempt to answer questions about this approach, I will read to the Senate reams of reports, many of which have occurred in the last 4 or 5 years, telling us that we must change the way we manage the nuclear defense part of the Department of Energy. Now we have a reason to do it and a reason to get on with that business. Frankly, I have struggled mightily to try to figure out what is the best approach under these circumstances. I am firmly convinced that with the assault on the Laboratories and our scientists that is coming from the Congress and coming from across this land, we had better take a giant step right now to move in the right direction and to assure people and assure the Laboratories that we are not going to do anything to hurt their science base and their professionalism and their capacity to stay on the cutting edge for us and our children and our future. The Laboratories, under this proposal, will retain their multiple-use approach. They can do work beyond and outside of what they do for the nuclear deterrent part of this bill. I am very disturbed when I hear that the President of the United States is against this, that he may have even made a few phone calls. I figured those are coming because his trusted friend, the Secretary, who is also my friend, Bill Richardson, wants to make all of the changes in the Department part of an administrative change. Let me say loud and clear, as good as he is, as hard as he is trying, as much autonomy as the President gives him, the Secretary of Energy cannot fix this problem without congressional help. That is what we are trying to do here today. We are trying to fix something so our nuclear deterrent will have a better chance of remaining the best in the world and as free as humanly possible from espionage and spying. Frankly, before the afternoon is finished, I will read excerpts from three reports in the past 5 years just crying out to fix it. We piled together various functions and put them in the Energy Department. We created a bunch of rules within the Department that do not distinguish between the management of nuclear deterrent affairs and the management of such things as refrigerator efficiency research. They are all in the same boat, all subject to the same management team, hundreds of functions that have nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. Yet security was left in a position where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. And if you look at how it is structured, you can probably figure out that there is some justification for it being in such a state of chaos. There is not enough focus on the seriousness of the issue. Even when signs and signals came forth, there have been people within the Department of Energy who didn't do their job right. There have been people at the Laboratories who didn't do it right. There have been people at the FBI who clearly messed up, and there have been people in the White House who surely didn't rise up strongly enough and say something must be done now. Essentially, what we are doing in this bill is to carve out within the Department of Energy--carve out kind of an agency, for lack of a better word. It is going to be called the Security Administration, or Security Administrator, and an Assistant Secretary will run it and be responsible to the Secretary and in total charge. That one individual will be in total charge of the nuclear deterrent effort, as defined in this bill. There will be an extra reporting system that Senator Murkowski asked us to put in with reference to security breaches being transmitted to the President of the United States and to the Congress, as soon as they are known, by this Assistant Secretary who is totally in charge of this new administration within the Department of Energy. They will have their rules and regulations, and they will conduct the affairs singularly and purposefully to make sure our nuclear deterrent is handled correctly and that the security apparatus is done efficiently and appropriately. Once again, I say to the Senators on the other side of the aisle, including my friend Senator Bingaman, and the Secretary of Energy, who, obviously, is working hard to defeat this amendment, we ought not to defeat this amendment. If you have some constructive changes, let's get them before us. We ought to send to that conference at least something that is much more formidable and apt to do the job than we have done in this bill, because we are apt to find some very serious suggestions coming from the House. If this bill goes there with no serious changes in the Department of Energy, they are apt to be changed by the House. We ought to have our input, and I am very proud that every chairman of every committee on our side of the aisle who will have anything to do with this in the future has signed onto this amendment--the Intelligence Committee chairman, the Energy and Natural Resources chairman, Government Operations, and I am the Senator who appropriates the money. We are all on board asking that we take this step in the direction of real reform and that we can go home saying this defense bill, when it finally comes out, may indeed start us down a path that not only the Chinese, but nobody will be able to breach the security the way they have in the past. Now, from my standpoint, there is not going to be a perfect structure ever designed for the nuclear deterrent work, nuclear weapons work, of the Department of Energy. It is complicated, it is complex. That Department is complicated and complex, but there is nothing within that Department more important than this. I have been listening, as people have ideas about what ought to happen, and I am worried about some of those ideas. I am not worried about this idea. I am not worried about this idea; this idea will work. What I am worried about are ideas that are talking about putting these Laboratories in the Department of Defense, which started from Harry Truman on down that it was something we thought we should not do as a Nation. I am worried when this bill goes to conference and, in the heat of all this, we will do something we should not do. If they adopted this amendment, I would feel very comfortable, as a Senator, with these Laboratories. I have probably worked longer and harder on these issues than any Senator around, and I would be comfortable that we are starting down a path to make it work and yet keep alive that enormous prestige and scientific prowess that has served us so well. Before the afternoon is finished, we will have more remarks. I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and thank him for his efforts in this regard.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time has been used on the other side of the aisle with reference to this amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. There is no need to do that. Let me say to Senator Bingaman, first of all, I believe that over the past 15 years-- certainly within the last 6 or 7--and I am not casting aspersions in any way on anybody else, but I believe I have had as much to do with keeping the labs diversified as any single Member of Congress. I believe we have done an exciting job in dealing with the cards that were dealt to us when we decided not to do anymore underground testing. And I believe what Senator Reid spoke about, which has the very fancy words surrounding it--``science-based stockpiled stewardship''--you have no idea how long it was difficult for me to put all four of those words together. I used to leave half of them off. But I think I have got it now. It was a very complicated concept. It was imposed on a laboratory system that, I regret to say to you and everybody, was broken down. In fact, I am going to quote from some reports--all current ones, because they go back years--saying the Department of Energy, in terms of doing its work right for the nuclear weapons part--I haven't seen an analysis about solar, but that is a little program, whether they run it or fund it. I have not seen a report in the last decade, and there are two within the last 6 years, that does not say the Department of Energy's ability to handle nuclear weapons development is not broken to the core. That is principally because it is stuck in a department with so many other things to do that are, with reference to urgency, much different and much easier and not as important as nuclear weaponry and all that goes with it. Yet, decisionmakers are making decisions on refrigerator efficiency, and then they move over and make a decision on nuclear weapons. I would almost say with certainty--but I am not going to say I will predict--if they don't adopt this amendment--and we are going to stay here for a while and see if we are going to adopt it. Maybe some of you want to filibuster it. Some of you haven't filibustered yet, so it might be exciting. But I can tell you, either this model or a totally independent department for nuclear weapons is going to be the aftermath of this espionage. I am not worried that it is going to be the Department of Energy managing this because I think too many people have spoken out about that. But when those looking at the management end up saying it cannot fit in a department of the type that is the Department of Energy and be run in a regular, ordinary chain of command decisionmaking, which is what I call this proposal--you can allude to it as stovepipe. I choose the Marine concept that is chain of command--I almost would predict today--but not quite--that it will be one of those, freestanding. When, finally, it is determined what I have been frustrated with for years about the ability to manage that Department, perhaps you can manage the other aspects that are not so critical, but you can't manage the nuclear part under the current environment. It needs dramatic change. The reason we are on the floor and the reason we are going to finally get it done is because we are scared, because now it is not a question of efficiency and how long it takes to make decisions for nuclear weaponry. It is because we are frightened that we are getting kicked to death. So being frightened, we are going to fix something. This fix is not going to be a little tiny fix as we have done in the past. If anybody chooses to say this is the most dramatic change in 22 years since it was created from its former underpinnings called ERDA, which was another department put together with bits and pieces from everywhere, they are right. It is the most significant proposal to streamline nuclear weaponry that has ever been put forward. But let me suggest that this administration has had two reports, or three, suggesting that dramatic changes ought to be made, and nothing has been done of any significance. Secretary Richardson, in the aftermath of what some have called the ``greatest espionage'' in our whole history, is busy and is to be admired and respected for trying to reform. But if you try to reform it, and you are the Secretary of Energy, and you are as diligent as Bill Richardson--and one who likes to run a lot of things, which I admire him for, and one who is a good politician, so he wants to do things politically acceptable, especially for the White House and those he works for--you will never come to the conclusion that this Department should be streamlined such that the Secretary has only one person to be responsible for the nuclear weapons and they will run it inside out, because in a sense it diminishes the role of the Secretary. I don't know whether Secretary Richardson does or not. But they are not in office more than 6 months, and they run around calling these great laboratories, including those in my State, ``my laboratories.'' It is just like: Isn't this great? The Secretary of Energy has this big, $3 billion laboratory, and he calls it ``my laboratory.'' I did not say Secretary Richardson does that. I have not heard him. But, if he did, he would be consistent with the other ones. We have a suggestion here that is probably going to make it a little more difficult for Secretaries of Energy to run around and call them ``my laboratories,'' because they are going to be a laboratory system run by an administrator within the Department, whether he ends up being an Under Secretary or an Assistant Secretary who is going to run the whole show. For those who do not think there are models such as this, there are. You can take a look at DARPA. You can take a look within the Energy Department at the nuclear Navy. It is different than this, but if you want to look at a model that is within a big department where you have something structured to handle a very important role and mission, there are such models. As a matter of fact, there are experts who say this is a good model, if you want to keep it within the department. I want to address two other things, and I want to read some notes. First, if this Senator thought for 1 minute that the implementation of this approach would minimize the diversification and versatility of these three major laboratories to do outside work for the government and others, I would pull it this afternoon. I don't believe that will happen. I don't believe it is inherent in this amendment. I believe that if there is concern it can be fixed with language, because the fact that it is so poorly managed under this structure that we have is not what is contributing one way or another to its versatility. It is the efficiency and effectiveness of the scientists that are making these laboratories multiuse, multipurpose, multifaceted and that do work beyond nuclear work. Since my colleague asked that his first speech not be counted as two speeches, which I didn't object to, I gather that the other side doesn't intend to let us vote on this. I don't know what we should do about that. I will meet with our leadership. If it is just up to me, I will debate it as long as we can tonight, and I will go home without the bill completed and bring it up and take another week on it when we come back. The time is now to fix this tremendous deficiency in terms of how our nuclear weapons and everything attendant to it are managed. Secretary Richardson is doing a mighty job, but he will never fix it without reorganization and streamlining and chain of command that is provided in this amendment, which is not perfect and not the only one. But this is what it is intended to do. Let me just read a couple of things. This is Admiral Chiles' report, the so-called Chiles report of March 1, 1999: Establish clear lines of authority in DOE. The commission believes that the disorderly organization within DOE has a pervasive and negative impact on the working environment. Therefore, on recruitment and retention, accordingly the commission recommends that the Secretary of Energy organize defense programs---- That is what we are talking about---- consistent with the recommendations of the 120-day study. We recommend three structural changes. They recommend three, for starters. I use this because anybody, including my colleagues and Senator Reid, who has today spoken about how well the laboratories have done, would almost have to admit that they have done well in spite of the absolute chaotic condition with reference to sustained accountability within the laboratories as a piece of DOE. Frankly, I have appropriated for 5 years--this is my sixth--the Committee on Energy and Water, which funds totally the laboratories, to some extent, not totally, with reference to nuclear work and to some extent on nonnuclear. There were Congressmen asking that we create some new regional centers for headquarters, Albuquerque, for example, or a greater region somewhere in Texas and the like. We asked, rather than do that, that the appropriations fund a 120-day study. That was done. I am sure my colleague has that. If he doesn't, his staff does. I am going to quote from the executive summary of this, which is dated, incidentally, February 27, 1997. Still reports are saying ``fix it, fix it.'' At the bottom of page ES-1, ``These practices''--after describing practices within this Department of Energy as it pertains to nuclear weaponry--``are constipating the system.'' I am quoting. They undermine accountability, making the entire system less safe. Further, the process prevents timely decisions and their implementation. Untold millions of dollars are wasted on idle plants and equipment awaiting approvals of various types, or on investments which age and become obsolete and expensive to maintain without ever having been used for the original productive purposes. Finally, the defense program has a job to do--maintenance of a nuclear deterrent, which is not well served by the ES&H review and approval process that drags on forever. That is the current system of environmental safety and health review in this Department. People worry about what this amendment is going to do. Let me tell you. This report says that we are not well served by that which exists in the Department now, and an approval process that drags on forever helps no one. There is much more to be read in the most current studies that kind of clamor for doing something dramatic and different. The largest problem [says this same 120-day study on page ES-1] uncovered is that the defense program practices for managing safety, health and environmental concerns are based on nonproductive, hybrid, or centralized and decentralized management practices that have evolved over the past decade. It goes on to say that because they have evolved doesn't mean they are effective or operative. I very much am pleased that Senator Bingaman yielded so I could have a few words. Senator, I will be back shortly, but I am called to the majority leader's office to discuss this issue. It will not take me over 15 minutes, and I will return. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss three interrelated aspects of our country's security at the brink of the new millennium. There has already been discussion of NATO in this new world. We have also intermittently discussed the war in the region of Kosovo. It's important to reflect on NATO's mission under changed circumstances. It is critical to address the U.S. role as part of NATO. At the same time, we must evaluate threats globally, and we must be vigilant in safeguarding our security and defense capabilities. In April we celebrated NATO's 50th Anniversary. Despite the circumstances, we had good reason to celebrate. After the horrors of World War I and II, U.S. decision makers sought to construct European structures for integration, peace, and security. U.S. policy focused on two tracks: the Marshall Plan for economic reconstruction and NATO for transatlantic security cooperation. The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 acknowledged what we failed to admit after World War I. Europe was and is a precarious continent. Twice in the first fifty years of this century America fought against tyrannical and malevolent forces in Europe. It is important to remember that NATO did not begin as a response to the Warsaw Pact. This primary objective evolved as a de facto result of Stalinist expansion into Central Europe. Fifty years later NATO remains the strategic link between the Old World and the New. NATO achieved its Cold War mission and even now, in a changed era and very different world, NATO is a vital element of transatlantic cooperation and security. We must, however, be conscious and careful in applying the lessons of the past to current circumstances. None of what I've just talked about should be interpreted as an argument for current NATO action in the region of Yugoslavia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro. The Administration repeatedly suggests that violence in the Balkans ignited the First World War. This is true. A member of the Black Hand, A Serbian nationalist group, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Serbia, at that time was a small nation fighting for independence within a crumbling Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Due to Russia's alliance with Serbia and Germany's open-ended military pact with Austria, both Germany and Russia mobilized immediately. Other than a few neutral countries--Norway, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, and Spain--the rest were locked in polarized blocs that set the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente. Such polarized blocks do not exist today. Serbia's aggression against Kosovar Albanians can and has created regional instabilities. But this would not lead to World War Three. This is not 1914. Only one alliance dominates Europe--NATO. NATO can be used as a force for peace. Acting without regard to security perceptions outside of NATO, however, can lead us down a very different and dangerous path. Our current actions disregarded others' views of their own security. Our actions in Kosovo may yet unravel any gains achieved in nuclear arms reductions and cooperative security alliances since the Soviet Union collapsed. Furthermore, NATO's response in Kosovo has accelerated and exacerbated regional instability. We've managed to create a humanitarian crisis, while not achieving any of our military objectives. Of course, any rational person could see that an air campaign from 20,000 feet would not prevent executions, rapes, and purges on the ground. This is especially true given the five months of time we gave President Milosevic to plan, prepare, and position his forces. One relevant aspect of today's world that the Administration failed to mention in their arguments for involvement in this campaign is the impact this would have on U.S.-Russian relations. We have a tendency to believe that Russia is so weak and needs our money so bad that we can disregard their views or interests. I ask you to consider two key facts: as Russia's conventional military declines, reliance on their nuclear arsenal increases; global stability cannot be achieved without cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. The reciprocal unilateral withdrawal of thousands of tactical nuclear warheads between the U.S. and Russia may also be reversed. Russia has recently announced its intent to redeploy components of its tactical nuclear arsenal. We were on a path through arms reduction and steps toward increased transparency to addressing tactical weapons. These gains are steadily unraveling. The Administration never suggested that NATO strikes against Serbs may lead to a worst-case scenario over the next five years in Russian politics. Russia faces Parliamentary elections this year and a Presidential election next. According to one of the most pro-American Duma members, the U.S. Administration picked the best route to influence the upcoming elections in favor of Communist and ultra-nationalist parties. In Russia, 90 percent of the public support the Serbs and are against NATO. This war will have profoundly negative impact on the relationship between Russia and the U.S. for a long time. The U.S. was supposedly not fighting for either side. We were trying to be the honest broker, at least in the beginning. Now, our actions have created enemies. These enemies have historical ties to Russia. Russia's economy is in tatters, but Russia still controls the only means to obliterate the United States. We feel we're in the right, because we are fighting a tyrant, one capable of great evil. I don't disagree with the objectives sought, but I do believe that the Administration should have taken into account the possible political consequences of our actions on Russia's political future, as well as our future relationship with Russia. There are those who suggest that NATO must be victorious in the Kosovo conflict. Victory in Kosovo is short-term if we do not sort out the broader consequences of a victory dictated on NATO's terms. Russia is edging closer to China, and India. Our blatant disregard of other's security needs and perceptions may culminate in a Eurasian bloc allied against us--against NATO. And election campaigns in Russia will begin very soon. As European leaders converged to celebrate NATO's 50th birthday, they spent much time debating and deliberating on NATO's future. NATO's present reflects poor policy decisions and an ineffective military approach. Mr. President, I'd also like to take this opportunity to discuss the grievous situation of our military today. Recent actions in Kosovo underscore the self-inflicted damage we have done to our national security in the years since the Cold War. I was one of many Senators during the 1980s who supported seeing our nation's defenses bolstered in order to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. We defeated them--not through hot war--but by demonstrating the unparalleled power of American democracy and free market dominance over a command economy. The collapse of the Soviet state was inevitable, but it would have taken a lot longer without the catalyst of our rapid defense buildup. This charge greatly accelerated the breakdown in the Soviet Union's economy. Their political and economic institutions unraveled in light of America's clear superiority. In 1991, after years of focus on a strong defense, when the Iraqis occupied Kuwait, U.S. forces were able to demonstrate their dominance. The U.S. military liberated Kuwait in a short, decisive campaign. The Gulf war was a ground and air war. It was a full blown offensive. And at no time during the Gulf war did anyone even so much as hint that U.S. forces were spread too thin. There were no reports of not being able to thwart an attack from North Korea due to our commitment in the Gulf. Never did we hear of depleted munitions stores, shortages in spare parts for our equipment, or waning missile supplies. Eight years later, the cracks in our defense capabilities emerged after less than 60 days of an air campaign in the Kosovo region. In less than forty days of what have been limited air strikes, respected officials reported that U.S. defenses are spread too thin. If North Korea or Saddam wanted to capitalize on our distraction in the Balkans, we currently would not have the means to defend our interests. We've been forced to divert resources from other regions in the world to meet NATO's needs in the Balkans. Our transport capabilities are insufficient. We evidently have too few carriers. Our munitions reserves are depleted. And, as ludicrous as it may sound, for years our military personnel have had to scramble to find spare parts. In the early nineties, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was viewed as the only remaining ``Superpower.'' Our global economic and military dominance was unquestioned. That time was, in the words of respected scholars and strategists, the Unipolar Moment. There was no doubt that the U.S. could defend its interests in any situation--whether military action or political persuasion were necessary. We have squandered that moment and missed many opportunities to capitalize on our success. In fact, out of complacency and misplaced perceptions of the post-Cold War world, our defense capacity today is insufficient to match the threats to our national interests. Many years of self-indulgence and inattention to our nation's defense cannot be corrected with a one-time boost. This is a complex and long- term problem. But I'm committed to ensuring that our nation's defenses are not further eroded. I'm fed up with the complacency that has created our current situation. We must have a strong defense. We must ensure that the men and women in uniform have the right equipment, the best training, and are afforded a quality of life sufficient to keep them in the military. This cannot be done by sitting on our hands and hoping that the world remains calm. Additions to readiness accounts, ammunition, and missile stocks in the emergency supplemental for Kosovo will help ensure that our fighting forces are not in worse shape than before this engagement. It provides a small, but significant, step forward. The Defense Authorization bill before us takes additional steps in the right direction. I commend Senator Warner and his diligent staff on the hard work they've done to balance priorities and provide for our men and women in uniform. Let me briefly outline some major provisions of this bill that I consider important and appropriate to address some of our military's most pressing needs. As an additional boost to problems in readiness, this bill authorizes an additional $1.2 billion in operations and maintenance funding. The bill also includes over $740 million for DoD and Department of Energy (DoE) programs that provide assistance to Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union. These programs address the most prevalent proliferation threat in our world today. The $3.4 billion increase in military construction and family housing is an essential element of providing our armed forces with the quality of life they deserve. In addition, pay raises and improved retirement plans demonstrate our commitment to the people who serve in our military. I do not believe that increased pay and better retirement address the full spectrum of issues that feed into retention problems. The preliminary findings of a GAO study requested by myself and Senator Stevens indicate that the main problem is not pay, but rather working conditions. Lack of spare parts and deficient manning were the most frequent reasons offered for dissatisfaction with their current situation. These are important findings, because it's something we can address. As more conclusions come to light, we can do a better job in fixing the problems that currently contribute to recruitment and retention. We must pay close attention to these issues. The men and women serving in our military are the sole assurance of a strong, capable U.S. defense capability. A strong defense must be coupled with a consistent set of foreign policy objectives that strive to reduce or contain security threats. At present, we have neither. Mr. President, it seems we must focus on shifting the balance back in our favor. This cannot be done ad hoc. Securing U.S. interests requires sustained commitment and well-planned execution. First, we must provide the domestic means for strong, capable armed forces. Second, we must be calculated and careful in the application of force as a fix to failed diplomacy.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Leader, would you take the time you have allotted to the two of us, the Arizona Senator and myself, and add Senator Murkowski, equally divided?

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Chair will advise me when I have used 10 minutes so there will be 10 minutes remaining for Senator Murkowski.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would greatly appreciate it if you notify me when I have used up 8 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I first want to say how sorry I am at the treatment of this amendment, the first major, significant effort to put our nuclear weapons development house in order and stop the espionage we have been hearing about. The American people are now very fearful of the consequences of this situation. There can be all the talk the other side wants that the Secretary of Energy is going to fix this. The truth of the matter is, the Secretary of Energy is lobbying very hard against this, even calling the President about it. I think it is because the Secretary wants to fix it himself. As good a friend as I am of his, and as complimentary as I am about his work, the truth of the matter is he cannot fix what is wrong with the Department of Energy as it pertains to nuclear weapons development and maintenance. Second, he cannot correct the lack of accountability among those various elements of the Department that are charged with security transgression activities. It is impossible under the current structure of the Department. Some have said this is being done too quickly with not enough notice. One of my fellow Senators was saying the Chinese did not give us very much notice when they set about to steal our secrets. We already know the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. We already know about that. It is not going to get better until we decide to change things dramatically and raise, within the Department, the concern about the tremendous value of nuclear secrets and nuclear weapons development information. It cannot any longer be dealt with in the same way we deal with all the other things in the Department of Energy. There are hundreds of energy issues in that Department that take up the same time of the same people, the same regulators who are supposed to be concerned about nuclear weapons. That must stop. Sooner or later something like we proposed here is going to take shape. I hear some have said it is the status quo. It is the opposite of the status quo. I understand our Secretary has said it is the status quo. It is the very opposite of it. I understand some have said it gives the nuclear part of this, the nuclear weapons people, total control where they are not responsible to anyone. That is not true. The Secretary is still in charge. The truth of the matter is, if we made them a little less responsible for all the goings on in this monster department, we would all be better off. So in that regard, we will take some credit for that. There are others who suggest this has not previously been thought of in this way. I want to read from a 1990 report of the Defense Committee in the House. We concur with the recommendation of the Clark task force group to ``strengthen DOD's management attention to national security responsibilities.'' These steps should include raising the stature of nuclear weapons programs management within DOE, for example by establishing a separate organizational entity and administration with a clearly enunciated budget, reporting directly to the Secretary. That is precisely what we have done. I want to close tonight by saying this issue will be revisited. We can say to the Secretary and the Democratic whip, and those on that side who would not let us vote--who did not bother to try to amend this, just decided they would threaten a filibuster and be prepared to do it--that they have not seen the last day of this approach. Because it is imperative, if our country is going to do justice to the future and be fair with our children and their children, we cannot continue down the path we have been on with reference to nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons design and development. We must do better. If you were to design a system calculated to give the most important and most effective part of the Department the least attention, that is what you would do. You would do it like we are doing it. Or if you were to decide that the most important function for our future should be treated along with other functions that are rather irrelevant to our future, you would design this Department and you would be here fighting this amendment because you would have that situation that I just described right on top of the most important function of the Department of Energy. So, with a lot of care and attention, I worked on this. I will continue to work on it. I know a lot about it, but I do not assume that I know more than other people. We ought to all work on it. But I suggest to the President and to Secretary Richardson, they better get with suggesting to Congress some real ways that we can be involved in stopping what has been going on in the Department of Energy on both fronts, the sabotage and the stealing of secrets, which we will never correct unless we change the structure, making the nuclear weapons system the most important function of the Department of Energy, bar none, second to none, at the highest elevation, not fettered or burdened by all these other functions of the Department. If you can imagine that the bureaucracy within that Department worries about--I said a couple times on the floor--refrigerators and their ability to be more energy efficient, and those who worry about that are the same group of people who worry about the same kind of things as pertains to nuclear energy. They do not belong in the same league. They should be separated. Our suggestion, for accountability and more direct reporting, more opportunity for committees in Congress and the President himself to know when security violations are occurring and are serious, must at some point be adopted. Frankly, none of this is said with any idea that my good colleague, Senator Bingaman, is anything but totally concerned about this issue. He has different views than I tonight, but clearly I do not in any way claim that he has anything but the highest motives in his lack of support for the amendment on which I have worked. Neither do I think the distinguished minority whip in his remarks should have said about this amendment that it will put the national security at risk and that it will put our nuclear weapons and development of them at risk. He should retract that statement and take it out of there. If anything, any management team would say it would improve the situation. I yield the floor and reserve my 2 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that, but did somebody keep time?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation, cosponsored by Senator Kyl, that would allow the Forest Service to convey parcels of land to States and local governments, on the condition that it be used for a specific recreational or local public purpose. The National Forest System Community Purposes Act is patterned after an existing law that set in place one of the most successful local community assistance programs under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That law, the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, was enacted in 1926. Under its authority, the BLM has been able to work cooperatively with States and communities to provide land needed for recreational areas and other public projects to benefit local communities in areas where Federal land dominates the landscape. With skyrocketing demands on the Forest Service and local communities to provide accommodations and other services for an ever-increasing number of Americans who take advantage of all the opportunities available in the national forests, I believe the time has come to provide this ability to the Forest Service. In the 1996 Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act, there were no fewer than 31 boundary adjustments, land conveyances, and exchanges authorized, many of which dealt with national forests. Had this legislation been enacted at that time, I cannot say for sure how many of these provisions would have been unnecessary, but I expect the number would have been reduced by at least one-third. During the 105th Congress, I sponsored three bills that directed the Secretary of Agriculture to convey small tracts Forest Service land to communities in New Mexico. All three bills were subsequently passed in the Senate unanimously, but two of these bills were not enacted last year, and the Senate has once again seen fit to pass them in the 106th Congress. We now await action in the House. I know that other Senators are faced with a similar situation of having to shepherd bills through the legislative process simply to give the Forest Service the authority to cooperate with local communities on projects to meet local needs. Over one-third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the federal government, and therefore finding appropriate sites for community and educational purposes can be difficult. Communities adjacent to and surrounded by National Forest System land have limited opportunities to acquire land for certain recreational and other local public purposes. In many cases, these recreational and other local needs are not within the mission of the Forest Service, but would not be inconsistent with forest plans developed for the adjacent national forest. To compound the problem, small communities are often unable to acquire land due to its extremely high market value resulting from the predominance of Federal land in the local area. The subject of one of the bills I just alluded to provides an excellent example of the problem. That bill provided for a one-acre conveyance to the Village of Jemez Springs, New Mexico. The land is to be used for a desperately needed fire substation, which will obviously benefit public safety for the local community. Since over 70 percent of the emergency calls in this particular community are for assistance on the Santa Fe National Forest, however, the Forest Service would also benefit greatly from this new station. In fairness, the Forest Service was very willing to sell this land to the village, but they were constrained by current law to charge the appraised fair market value. Herein lies the biggest problem for small communities like Jemez Springs. In this case, the appraised value of an acre of land along the highway, obviously necessary for this kind of a facility, was estimated to be around $50,000. Combined with the cost of building the station itself, this additional cost put the project out of reach of the community's 400 residents. Through this example, it is clear to see that both the national forests and adjacent communities could mutually benefit from a process similar to that under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. This program has worked so well for the BLM over the years, I see no reason for the Forest Service not to have the same kind of authority. The National Forest System Community Purposes Act would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to convey or lease parcels of Forest Service land to States, counties, or other incorporated communities at a cost that could be less than fair market value. In order to obtain the land, the State or community would develop a plan of use that would be subject to Forest Service approval. In closing, Mr. President, I think the time has come for this legislation. In fact, during a recent discussion I had with Forest Service Chief Dombeck, he was somewhat surprised to learn that the agency did not already have this authority. I would urge the Senate to provide this needed assistance to local communities around the country.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and honor that I rise today to introduce a bill to extend the useful life of the Santa Fe National Cemetery in New Mexico. The men and women who have served in the United States Armed Forces have made immeasurable sacrifices for the principles of freedom and liberty that make this Nation unique throughout civilization. The service of veterans has been vital to the history of the Nation, and the sacrifices made by veterans and their families should not be forgotten. These veterans at the very least deserve every opportunity to be buried at a National Cemetery of their choosing. However, unless Congressional action is taken the Santa Fe National Cemetery will run out of space to provide casketed burials for our veterans at the conclusion of 2000. I believe all New Mexicans can be proud of the Santa Fe National Cemetery that has grown from 39/100 of an acre to its current 77 acres. The cemetery first opened in 1868 and within several years was designated a National Cemetery in April of 1875. Men and women who have fought in all of nation's wars hold an honored spot within the hallowed ground of the cemetery. Today the Santa Fe National Cemetery contains almost 27,000 graves that are mostly marked by upright headstones. However, as I have already stated, unless Congress acts the Santa Fe National Cemetery will be forced to close. The Bill I am introducing today allows the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for the use of flat grave markers that will extend the useful life of the cemetery until 2008. While I wish the practice of utilizing headstones could continue indefinitely if a veteran chose, my wishes are outweighed by my desire to extend the useful life of the cemetery. I would note that my desire is shared by the New Mexico Chapter of the American Legion, the Albuquerque Chapter of the Retired Officers' Association, and the New Mexico Chapter of the VFW who have all endorsed the use of flat grave markers. Finally, this is not without precedent because exceptions to the law have been granted on six prior occasions with the most recent action occurring in 1994 when Congress authorized the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for flat grave markers at the Willamette National Cemetery in Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Bill and four letters of support for the use of flat grave markers be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with some sadness but also with some pride, that I stand before the Senate today to recognize Austin Smythe--a longstanding and highly respected member of the Senate Budget Committee staff. After nearly 15\1/2\ years of service to the Senate and the Congress, Austin will begin employment in the private sector at the end of this week. Those who know Austin in this Chamber, know he is a Senator's dream staffer. Austin is dedicated, loyal, intelligent, and above all else possessing integrity beyond reproach. He came to the Senate Budget Committee in December 1983, as the committee's energy budget expert. Over the years, he gradually took on more responsibilities to where today, as he leaves the Senate, he is my staff director's right-hand man on issues related to the budget act, process reform issues, and the often arcane world of budget score keeping. He has been instrumental in the passage of many a budget resolution and reconciliation bills over these last many years. He has also taken the lead on helping to reform the process by his work on the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the Unfunded Mandates Control Act of 1995, and the Line Item Veto Act of 1996--that unfortunately was ruled unconstitutional. He has been my key budget committee staffer on my quest to get Congress to change its appropriation and budget process into a biennial system--that work, I promise you Austin, will continue. Along the way, Austin was able to find the time to get married and start a family. It is his wife, Katie, and his two young girls that have borne the real burden of Austin's dedicated service to the Senate and his country. The American public is unaware of the role staff play in helping us elected officials ``to do the right thing.'' Sometimes even with good staff, we get it wrong, and of course, when it doesn't come out right we blame our staff. But if the legislation advances public policy in an affirmative way, we will take the credit for success. In truth, of course, it is to staff like Austin Smythe, who work under very difficult circumstances, long hours, and sleepless nights, that we--and indeed the country--all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude. For without Austin's dedication, and staff like him, the things we have gotten right would never have happened. I wish Austin and his family the best. And on behalf of all the Budget Committee members, the committee staff, and indeed the entire Senate, thank you Austin for a job well done. We all will miss you.