Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding to me this time and commend the Committee on Rules for improving this bill. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the rule. I think it should be supported, but I do have a problem with any part of the bill that tries to blame others for the problems we have inflicted on ourselves. I would remind my colleagues that it was not OPEC who raised taxes on fuel so that now Americans pay 18 cents for every gallon of gasoline, plus State taxes added on top of that to nearly 40 cents a gallon. It was not OPEC which imposed a windfall profits tax on the domestic energy industry, that took $78 billion out of that industry and cost thousands and thousands of jobs. It was not OPEC which vetoed the 1999 tax bill that included several modest provisions to try to enhance domestic exploration and production. It is not OPEC that continues the extensive regulations that increases the cost of production on domestic producers and results in thousands of wells being shut down every year. It is also not OPEC that prevents us from exploring and drilling in ANWR when ANWR itself provided enough oil to the United States as we import from Saudi Arabia over a 30-year period, and it is certainly not OPEC that hinders the distribution of natural gas to the Northeast where those folks are paying more than they should to heat their homes. It has not been OPEC that has prevented us from developing a national energy policy. Mr. Speaker, I think it is kind of like we have fashioned a noose and put it around our own neck and given OPEC the other end of the rope. It should not surprise us that they want to jerk the rope every once in awhile. The only way out of this is to take our neck out of the noose, and we can only do that by increasing the production domestically of oil and gas and having greater use of natural gas here at home. There are a number of good proposals that have been made to increase marginal well production, increase exploration, increase domestic production. We have to have a national energy policy from the administration to get that done.

Mr. THORNBERRY

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. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I think there are three points really that need to be made at the conclusion of this debate. Number one is that there is no narrow motion to recommit on a conference report. We cannot send it back with an amendment. All we can do is send it back to negotiate with the Senate, and everything that is in this conference report is vulnerable then, and there is no indication we can do any better. We may do worse by the gentleman from Michigan if we get back to the negotiations with the Senate, even on the provisions that he is concerned about. There is no free vote here. Second point that has to be emphasized is we do not change the environmental standards one inch. There are several places in this bill we specifically say the same standards that apply before apply afterwards, and as a matter of fact, I would remind this body that the language on the environment was word for word what was adopted unanimously in the other body by an amendment by Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Levin, Lieberman, and Reed, hardly a bunch of environmental extremists as some may have portrayed. I would also like to mention that the National Governors' Association, as opposed to what has been said, do not oppose these provisions. They have expressed some concerns, we have answered them in those concerns by the letter from the chairman, and both they and the Attorney Generals Association, once we talk to them and show them the language, are backing off, and we have that in the record. I think what it comes down to, Mr. Speaker, is that the President's own commission studies this problem and says, ``You have got one of two options. You can create a whole new agency, and there are a lot of folks on our side who would like to do that, put it under DOD or a completely separate agency. Or, we can have a semi-autonomous entity within the Department of Energy which the Secretary of Energy has complete control, authority, and oversight of. That is what we chose to do in this conference report. The more moderate recommendation of the President's own commission is exactly what is adopted in this conference report. If my colleagues look at the responsibilities of this body to provide for the country's defense, I think we have no alternative but to vote against the motion to recommit and support the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. It does a lot to improve the security of the United States, and it should be supported by all members. Because of time limits I am only going to address one portion of the bill, which is Title XXXII, the title which reorganizes the management of the nuclear weapons program in the Department of Energy. Adopting Title XXXII gives us a chance to fix a 20 year problem which has plagued our nation since the Department of Energy was first created. Mr. Speaker, hardly anyone argues today that there is not a significant problem in the Department of Energy. Study after study, report after report have analyzed the problems at DOE for 20 years. The bottom line is that the management structure at DOE is ``dysfunctional,'' to quote the report of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which has caused enormous problems, including, to some degree, the recent security lapses. But in spite of the repeated warnings and efforts at reform, little actual reform has been made. Some recent studies have focused on security and counterintelligence. And we owe Chairman Cox and his colleagues a debt of gratitude for their important, bipartisan report. Other studies have looked at DOE's problems with large construction projects. We read just last week of a cost overrun of $350 million and a delay of two years in the National Ignition Facility about which the Secretary of Energy was as surprised as anyone because he had been assured in June of this year that everything was on track. Other studies have focused on health and worker safety, but whatever the focus they all come back to the dysfunctional organization of DOE as a basic, fundamental problem, which has to be solved before other problems are resolved. This bill gives us the opportunity to do something that virtually everyone who has studied the problem believes should be done, and yet no one has been able to do. It is an opportunity we should not let pass us by. Title XXXII establishes a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy called the National Nuclear Security Administration. The new NNSA will have two traits missing from DOE for the last 20 years--accountability and a clear mission. The current situation was best described by Dr. Victor Reis, who served as the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs from 1993 until last month. Dr. Reis testified, ``The root cause of the difficulties at DOE is simply that DOE has too many disparate missions to be managed effectively as a coherent organization. The price of gasoline, refrigerator standards, Quarks, nuclear cleanup and nuclear weapons just don't come together naturally.'' NNSA will have some measure of insulation from all of those other functions of DOE unrelated to national security. Thus, it can have a tighter focus on the essential work related to nuclear weapons. Reis went on to describe the efforts of Secretary after Secretary to pull the Department together creating new cross-cutting organizations for environment, safety, health, security, information, policy, quality, and so on, but ``because of all this multilayered cross cutting, there is no one accountable for the operation of any part of the organization by the Secretary, and no Secretary has the time to lead the whole thing effectively. By setting up a semi-autonomous agency, many of these problems go away.'' Previously, no one below the Secretary has been in charge of the nuclear weapons complex; no one person had the authority to make something happen; no one could be held accountable for mistakes. Title XXXII establishes a clear chain of command with definite lines of responsibility and of accountability which are essential to accomplishing the core mission of the complex and also ensuring that security, health, safety, and other issues are handled appropriately. There are some who argue that we cannot rely on the people who do the day to day work to look after health and safety too. It's like the fox guarding the chicken coop, they say. Frankly, I am offended by the idea that the people who work at the Pantex Plant in my district and who live in the area and whose children go to school there cannot be trusted to work safely. We just have to have a management system that makes it clear what is expected of them and who holds them accountable if they disregard it. I would also remind my colleague that for more than 40 years the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has had full and complete responsibility for more nuclear reactors than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Any of their reactors can be pulled into virtually any port in the world with no concern to the environment or safety. That kind of record and that kind of commitment is what we need in the nuclear weapons complex, and this bill helps us to accomplish it. Dr. Reis has testified that ``[t]he mission of the nuclear weapons complex is national security at its most profound and long lasting.'' I agree. This is not a place to play political games or worry about turf. The only thing that matters is doing what's right for the security of our country and the freedom of our children. Title XXXII and this entire bill help ensure both. Mr. Speaker, this Title is the result of a lot of hours and work by a number of people. Senators Domenici, Kyle, and Murkowski and their able staffs carried the burden in the Senate. In the House, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Spence and Chairman Hunter for all of their work and support on this portion of the bill. I also want to thank my colleagues, Ms. Wilson and Ms. Tauscher for their tireless work and persistence in making sure that this reorganization was done right. Our committee staff, particularly Dr. Andy Ellis and Robert Rangel deserve special commendation for pushing this product through the conference process. I also can't help but note that Dr. Victor Reis, who served this country with distinction for more than 30 years in key positions lost his job because he believed that we could not continue with business as usual at the Department of Energy. His courage and patriotism in telling the Administration what they did not want to hear should be commended, and I hope that future administrations can take advantage of Dr. Reis's skill, experience, and judgment, as well as his courage and love of country. Finally, I want to single out Clay Sell of my staff for his work, not only on this Title in this bill, but for his work on the issue of DOE management reform over the past four years. I am very fortunate to work with many outstanding people every day, but none can outshine Clay for his hard work, intelligence, and, in this matter, pure persistence--all of which has been devoted toward enhancing the security of our nation.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I have been part of a group that has worked for several weeks on an appropriate, constructive proposal to deal with some of the security problems we have found. I was concerned, frankly, that some of the ideas floating around here were simply a reaction, without thinking and working through the implications. I was also concerned that some of them focus on just little pieces of the problem without looking at the broader problem. I think this amendment is balanced. It does deal with the wide range of security problems. It is commonsense, but yet it significantly improves the security at our nuclear weapons labs and other places, but it also allows important work to continue, work that is in our national interest. It does not cut off our nose to spite our face. I think the other key point to be made is this is not the complete response. I agree completely with what the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) has said, that we have more work to do. The Cox committee said, for example, we need to look at whether the Department of Energy is even equipped to handle the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex. GAO has said the same thing. We have got more work to do to get to the bottom of the problems which arose here.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of important issues in this bill that will not be discussed adequately. One of them is how we can transform our military to deal with the challenges of the future. In last year's bill, we required a science board study to look at that question, and they came back and unanimously agreed there are compelling reasons for aggressive, urgent transformation instead of strategic pause. The task force found that ``change or die'' is a more suitable statement for the current strategic environment. This bill moves us ahead in some significant ways. It requires us to take a closer look at the use of space. It is essential for the operations going on in Kosovo, but we have got to look beyond that. Operations in space and from space have to be studied. We put more money into joint experimentation, which is also going to be essential if we make the most out of the resources that we have available. We also require an immediate assessment of innovative use of resources such as whether we should take old Trident submarines and convert them for more conventional purposes. Those are just some of the ways that in this bill we tried to move ahead, making sure that we are able to meet the challenges that confront us in the future. I commend the chairman and ranking member on the bill.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) for the serious work he has done in this effort. It is certainly rare that I would have a different opinion from my committee chairman, but I believe that the Cox-Dicks approach is better. I think it is important for us to focus on the important parts of these security problems. There has been no indication whatsoever that the foreign visitor program has been in any way related to any of the security lapses that we have had at the national laboratories. Now other things are related, management of DOE and the number of other areas where more work is required, but not the foreign visitor program. I would further say that the numbers that we hear talked about do not really tell us very much. For example, the Governor of California once called Lawrence Livermore and asked that a busload of Chinese tourists be able to visit Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and go to the publicly open museum. Every person on that bus counts as a foreign visitor. I do not think we wanted to have the Secretary of Energy sign a waiver for each and every one of those tourists on a bus going to a public building. I think the Cox-Dicks approach is better and ask that this amendment be defeated.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about the loss of sensitive military information to China. We must take steps to make sure these losses do not happen again, but that responsibility is not just the administration's, it also falls on us in Congress to fix what is broken. One of the things that is broken is the organizational structure and management of the nuclear weapons complex in the Department of Energy. Study after study, report after report, commission after commission have found that DOE's management of our nuclear weapons program has been a mess. In fact, I am personally aware of 18 studies over the past 10 years, all of which are highly critical of the management and organization of the DOE related to nuclear weapons. Just in April, Secretary Richardson's own review team reported that roles and responsibilities are unclear, lines of authority and accountability are not well understood or followed, and this lack of clear accountability and lines of authority is a basic systemic problem which is partly responsible for the serious security lapses. As serious as those lapses are, they are only one detrimental effect of the DOE management structure. The challenge of making sure that our nuclear weapons remain safe and reliable well beyond their design life without nuclear testing is enormously daunting. We simply will not be able to do the job, and our national security will not be protected if we fail to correct the management problems that have plagued DOE for 20 years. It is time to act. This is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. So, if the problem is so clear and undeniable, even according to DOE's own internal findings, why does not DOE fix the problem itself? After the most recent DOE internal management review, Secretary Richardson announced some reforms which do move in the right direction, but they do not move nearly far enough and still retain confusing, overlapping bureaucracies without one clear chain of command. GAO has written a report devoted just to this question of why the DOE, fully knowing what the problem is, cannot fix itself, and the bottom line is that for 20 years DOE has not been able to solve the problem, and even with the best of intentions it will not be able to solve the problem alone. Congress must act, and we must act before it is too late. I will also say that in my view the administration is more focused on containing the political damage arising from the spy scandal than it is on solving the underlying problems which allowed the spy scandal to take place. We in Congress cannot allow ourselves to just respond to today's headlines in a political way, we have to channel all of this energy and concern generated by the scandal into constructive solutions for a long-term problem. Working with Senators and others, I have drafted a proposal which cuts to the heart of the problem and would set the nuclear weapons complex on the right path to do its job and protect our security. My proposal would create a new agency within the Department of Energy called the Nuclear Security Administration. That agency would be responsible for all aspects of development, testing and maintenance of our nuclear weapons and for the facilities which comprise our nuclear weapons complex. It would have only one person at the top who would be an Under Secretary of Energy, and that person would have the authority to do the job with a clear direct chain of command. If something goes wrong, the Secretary, the President, the Congress know who to hold accountable. The essential elements of this proposal have been recommended time after time in study after study, and after all this study I think we would be negligent in our duties if we do not take advantage of those studies and reports and implement their recommendations. I think there is one other point that is important. If the last year has taught us anything, it should have reminded us of the central role that nuclear weapons play in strategic relationships around the world. From India and Pakistan to China, we are reminded that nothing alters the balance of power faster than a change in nuclear capability. If we do not protect our own nuclear deterrent against espionage and against aging, the security of our Nation and ideals will be threatened. We should act today when the path is clear and the time is right.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult, and probably inappropriate, for me to publicly express the despair I feel over our policy in the Balkans. With noble motives, we have waded into complex, ancient hatreds, and we have only aggravated the situation. In a place and situation where the United States has no vital national security interests, we have become deeply involved. We have staked the credibility of the United States and NATO on achieving an acceptable solution where none may exist. I did not believe that the U.S. should participate in a peacekeeping force and voted accordingly on March 11. I did not support U.S. involvement in the air campaign which is now underway. It is very tempting to vote to require that our forces be withdrawn immediately from this conflict. Yet, whatever differences we may have with past decisions, we are where we are. Where we are today is that we are left with no good options. That is particularly true with the provisions upon which we are forced to vote today. I believe it would be better not to have these votes today. I do not want the outcome of a vote to be seen as authorizing an escalation in the conflict without clear objectives and the will to carry it through until those objectives are achieved. But neither do I want any vote to be seen as undercutting the efforts of the brave men and women conducting the current air offensive. Nor do I wish for any vote to give comfort to Mr. Milosevic. Two of the votes today are on resolutions submitted pursuant to the War Powers Act. As I noted during debate related to Bosnia a year ago, I believe that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act attempts to give Congress authority to force the President to remove U.S. forces by passing a concurrent resolution. The Supreme Court's 1983 Chada decision struck down a similar provision, and most scholars and observers believe that section 5(c) is also unconstitutional because it would require the President to remove troops by a concurrent resolution, which require the signature of the President. I believe that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional on broader grounds as well, as I detailed in the debate last year. I will vote against both War Powers Resolutions because I believe that the Act is unconstitutional and because I do not believe it is prudent for Congress to declare war against Yugoslavia or to force the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from an ongoing NATO military operation. Congress certainly has the constitutional authority to restrict funding for a military operation. While I have real concern about any measure which takes a military option off of the table, I believe that the Administration should get Congressional approval before using ground troops in this conflict. Therefore, I will vote for the provision requiring prior authorization for use of ground forces, although I do so with some hesitation. Mr. Speaker, I continue to harbor some hopes that a negotiated solution to this conflict can be found through the efforts of Russia and others. Certainly, we should carefully consider the consequences of any U.S. action upon a number of factors, including: U.S. credibility and the effectiveness of our deterrent now and into the future; the reaction of other significant powers, especially Russia; the best interests of the refugees and of the people still in Kosovo; long-term stability in the Balkan region; the effects on the NATO alliance; and the consequences for the military position of the United States around the world. Today, the United States finds itself in a quagmire which may be only a taste of what's to come. I hope that an honorable solution can be achieved, but I am not sure that any of the measures we consider today will move us any closer to that goal. I also hope that our nation can come to a clear understanding and establish guidelines for the proper role of the United States and of NATO in a complex world and especially for the circumstances under which we are willing to risk the lives of the men and women who defend our nation and our freedoms.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there is no higher priority in this budget for me than making sure that our troops are taken care of and that there is a pay raise. For some reason, a number of opponents of this budget have come up with a variety of reasons to try to argue that it is not so. I very much appreciate the gentleman from Missouri because I know his commitment to taking care of the troops is every bit as strong as mine. But what happens, for example, is that in some press accounts questions and answers get misrepresented. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for example, was asked whether the full amount in Senate bill 4 was taken care of in this budget, and the answer to that, of course, is no. But I can tell the gentleman from Missouri, as well as all my colleagues, as well as all of those who are in the armed services, that this budget includes the pay raise for the members of the armed services. And as a member of the committee and a member of the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over that issue, there will be legislation within the next couple of months on this floor to implement that pay raise, as there should be. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that this budget is so strong that some opponents of the budget have to dig pretty deep to come up with some reason to oppose it. It is clear, if we look at the numbers, that there is an extra billion dollars in here for VA; that there is money in here to take care of the crop insurance program; and that there is room in here for tax relief, which is so essential, I think, for the American people. We have often heard it described that taxes are higher than at any point in the country's history except for the war year of 1944. Look at it another way. Under President Clinton, Federal tax revenue has gone up 52 percent faster than the personal income of this country. And in the last fiscal year it grew 70 percent faster. So what is happening is the regular middle class folks are getting squeezed. Their income is going up a little bit, but their taxes are going up far faster. They need the tax relief that is included in this budget.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I hesitate somewhat to wade off into the number of issues that are being discussed, but there has been a lot of discussion today about the offset dealing with some of the nonproliferation funds. I think this is a very important issue. It is a very important part of our security. I want to take just a moment to discuss this in the larger context of our nonproliferation efforts. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I share some of the concerns that have been expressed over the course of the day. I think at the end of this bill, when it comes back from conference, it would probably be better if this offset were not taken, if this money were left alone. But I also think that we should not over-play the dangers that may result from this particular program. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I speak as one who on this side of the aisle has strongly supported much of what the administration has tried to do in our nonproliferation efforts and in our cooperative efforts with the former Soviet Union, but in those efforts there are priorities. Some things are more important than others. For example, if we can spend money this year to put better security around plutonium or uranium which could be used for a bomb, that ought to come first. That prevents someone from walking out with it. That prevents someone from stealing it and selling it to someone who we would prefer not get their hands on it. The program we are dealing with here is a different kind of priority. It is a long-term, a long-range sort of approach, and I think it becomes much more difficult to argue that the results would be catastrophic this year if this money were taken aside. What is going on is that there are negotiations which have just recently begun with Russia on taking some of the weapons-usable plutonium that Russia now has, turning it into a fuel which could be burned in a nuclear reactor, and thus preventing it from being used for weapons. This involves international consortiums. This involves nuclear power companies from a variety of countries and some very delicate negotiations from Russia and from the United States. The goal is to take 50 tons of weapons-usable plutonium and ultimately turn it into a fuel for nuclear power. We should not forget that we are sure that Russia has at least 200 tons of weapons-usable plutonium now. So what we are talking about, in the best circumstance, is taking about a fourth of this plutonium that we know they have and turning it into a fuel for nuclear reactors. That is going to take 20 to 25 years under the very best circumstances. The Department of Energy indicates that under the very best circumstances, if everything goes perfectly in their negotiations, they might be able to obligate about half of this money in the year 2000 and maybe spend about a third of it. So taking this money off the table, as it were, would not have a catastrophic effect on this program designed to last 20 to 25 years. The concern is that taking it off the table would make the Russians question the seriousness of our negotiations, and I think we ought to think about that. There are a lot of negotiations underway now with Russia, and they need to know that we are serious about working with them to control the proliferation of this kind of material, and that is not easy to quantify. It is hard to put our finger on exactly what the result would be. It is a concern that we certainly ought to take into account. But to say that this would have catastrophic consequences I think is not accurate. As a matter of fact, the committee's action would leave $375 million left in the fund for nonproliferation activities. It is possible that that could all be used for the uranium purchase this year. If the plutonium issue becomes a higher priority, of course it may well be possible to rearrange those priorities. I think at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, for me it would be better if another offset is eventually found for these funds, but it is not true that this would completely obliterate our nonproliferation efforts, which are very important to our security.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), others and the Rumsfeld Commission, no one seriously questions whether we are threatened today by the spread of missiles, nor does anyone question whether that threat is going to grow in the future. No one seriously questions whether the American people want and in fact demand a defense against those missiles, which even the administration now seems to acknowledge. Mr. Speaker, if the national security is the first responsibility of the Federal Government and if protecting the homeland of the United States and the people of the United States is the first job of national security, then I do not know of any program that ought to be higher on the priority list than this one. The question is do we in Congress and does the administration really mean what we say in this resolution? Are these words merely a way to try to deal with a political problem and the polls, or do they mean something, and are they going to be backed up with action? Since 1983, we have heard a million excuses about how we could not do this or we should not do this. Even today we hear excuses. But we cannot give Russia or anyone else a veto over our right to defend ourselves, we cannot be afraid of test failures, and we certainly cannot be fooled by those few people who say that by weakening ourselves we are really making ourselves stronger. Mr. Speaker, the time for excuses has ended. The time for action is now. The time to back up these words with real actions that protect the American people is today.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I am acutely aware of the gravity of this situation, of this process, and of the potential consequences for the nation. I do not face it lightly or without serious thought and soul-searching. The decision on whether to impeach a President is a decision that few in our history have been called to make, and it is a decision that will reverberate for generations in our nation, its government, its ideals and values. The facts here are not seriously in dispute. The President lied under oath in two separate judicial proceedings. The President caused or encouraged others to lie, and he attempted to prevent evidence from coming to light. The President deceived Congress and the American people. His actions have rightfully been denounced across the country. The President's conduct has embarrassed him and his family, as well as our entire Nation. He has severely damaged the institution of the Presidency, particularly in its role of providing moral leadership for the Nation. Not all wrongful conduct by a President meets the standard for impeachment in the Constitution, however. The House is assigned the duty of determining whether a President should be impeached, and the Senate must then conduct a trail to determine whether the President will be convicted of the charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment. In considering the appropriate constitutional standards for the House vote on impeachment, I find it helpful to look back at a report produced by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 as the impeachment inquiry of President Nixon was about to begin. That report found that: Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of misconduct, incompatible with the official position of the officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. [p. 17-18] Less than one-third of the eighty-three articles the House has adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word ``criminal'' or ``crime'' to describe the conduct alleged, and ten of the articles that do were those involving the Tenure of Office Act in the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. . . . Much more common in the articles are allegations that the officer has violated his duties or his oath or seriously undermined public confidence in his ability to perform his official function. (emphasis added) [p. 21] It is useful to note three major presidential duties of broad scope that are explicitly recited in the Constitution: ``to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'' to ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States'' and to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States'' to the best of his ability. The first is directly imposed by the Constitution; the second and third are included in the constitutionally prescribed oath that the President is required to take before he enters upon the execution of this office and are, therefore, also expressly imposed by the Constitution. [p. 27] (Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, February 1974.) Lying Under Oath in a Judicial Proceeding Violating a criminal statute in itself may well be a sufficient basis for impeachment, and of course, lying under oath in a judicial proceeding is a crime. A President should not escape the consequences of his actions just because he is President. President Washington warned in his Farewell Address in 1796 that ``[t]he very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.'' The rule of law is the basis for the fundamental rights of each American and requires that no one, including the President, be above the law. But in addition, I believe that a President who lies under oath in a judicial proceeding is subject to impeachment because such conduct undermines our legal system, violates the President's oath and his constitutional responsibilities, and seriously undermines public confidence in a President's ability to perform his official functions. There are three reasons for this. First, lying under oath in a judicial proceeding undermines the legal system of the United States because it attacks its most fundamental underpinning--the requirement of every individual to tell the truth. If the President can lie in a judicial proceeding without paying the consequences, it means either that the President is above the law or that no citizen need fear the consequences of not telling the truth. Neither can be permitted. Some say that other Presidents have not always told the truth and were not impeached. Assuming that past Presidents have lied, they have not done so while under oath in a judicial proceeding. By doing so here, President Clinton has undermined the American judicial system in a way that threatens the rights of every American citizen. Second, I believe that lying under oath in a judicial proceeding violates the President's oath ``to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.'' It also violates his duty ``to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Violating his oath of office and his constitutional duties certainly meets the constitutional standard of impeachment. Third, by lying under oath in a judicial proceeding, the President has violated the confidence and trust of the American people. Public trust and confidence are essential elements of the presidency. President Franklin Roosevelt said in one of his ``Fireside Chats'' on April 14, 1938, ``I never forget that I live in a house owned by all the American people and that I have been given their trust.'' Betrayal or abuse of that trust was exactly what the Framers believed would require impeachment. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 65 that impeachable offenses are ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violations of some public trust.'' (emphasis added) Trust in what a President says is uniquely important because of the awesome duties and responsibilities invested in one person, including his duties as Commander in Chief. President Clinton's lies and deceptions ``seriously undermine public confidence in his ability to perform his official function.'' As one of his former cabinet members, Robert Reich, wrote: The second offense is the public lie--not simply the fact of it (presidents aren't always honest), but its passionate intensity. . . . If he can so convincingly fake a lie, how can the public believe anything else he says--including his current stream of apologies? (Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1998.) Recent events involving Iraq highlight again the importance of public trust in the President. Obstruction of Justice In addition to lying under oath, the President has used or attempted to use the power and influence of his office to shield himself from the political and legal consequences of his actions. He attempted to falsely shape the testimony of witnesses and to prevent evidence from being discovered. In so doing, he ``employ[ed] the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.'' Thus, in comparing President Clinton's conduct with the standards of impeachment as articulated by the Framers, as well as by the Judiciary Committee in 1974, the President's conduct clearly meets or exceeds that standard required for impeachment. But even if the constitutional standard for impeachment is met, some argue that the House should exercise its discretion and look for some other remedy so as to not put the country through a trial in the Senate. A variety of arguments are used about how it is in the best interests of the nation not to subject the country and its institutions of government to a Senate trial. For example, some voice concern about a trial's effects on the economy. But as one writer has stated: The first responsibility of the [president] is not to achieve growth of 2.5 percent but to ensure the legitimacy of the system itself. In this fundamental task, Clinton has clearly not only failed; he has deliberately broken his oath of office. Clinton's attitude toward the law has not been how he can best uphold it but how he can best evade it. His attitude toward democratic political discourse has been not how he can address the issues honestly but how he can best dissemble, obfuscate, and lie. At some point, such a person does not merely demean himself; he demeans and threatens the entire system of government he is elected to defend. (Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic, September 14, 1998.) In fact, it is this pattern of unlawful and reckless behavior, in which the nation's interests are secondary to this President's own selfish interests and desires, which establishes his betrayal of the public trust and mandates his removal. A newspaper editorial earlier this year states the heart of the matter: He should resign because he has resolutely failed--and continues to fail--the most fundamental test of any president: to put his nation's interests first. (USA Today, September 14, 1998.) To me, Mr. Speaker, that is the essential truth from which we cannot escape. This President has violated the law; he has betrayed his oath and constitutional duty; he has undermined the legal system and the rule of law--all to promote his own selfish interests and desires, which he consistently puts ahead of the country's best interests. A number of our colleagues point out that opinion polls indicate most Americans do not favor removing the President from office. Even if one assumes that current polls accurately reflect popular opinion, pollsters have not yet claimed to speak for future generations. I believe such matters cannot be decided by polls. I also believe that the nation is strong and will remain strong so long as we try to stay true to the values which built this nation. If we were to abandon those values because of unpleasant facts or an uncomfortable process, we would break the tether which binds us to the strength of the past. We have to try to do the right thing on the question before us-- wherever that may lead--to affirm the principles and values that make America unique in the history of the world and that give us our only chance to remain the light of the world into the 21st century. We affirm the principles of our legal system and the values of truth, equal justice, and the rule of law by voting to impeach William Jefferson Clinton.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, in a bill this huge, there are obviously a number of good provisions and a number of provisions that are not so good. Each of us is called to weigh the good and the bad and to render our best judgment on the whole. While this bill does continue funding for a number of important government programs, I am particularly interested in the assistance to farmers and ranchers hit hard by the worst year for agriculture in my lifetime. My district has been devastated by the most severe drought in 103 years. Those who did produce a crop found that they were offered extremely low prices while their costs of production only continue to rise. It is essential that we try to do something to offset the effects of drought and a world market which is neither free nor fair. The disaster assistance, market loss assistance, and tax provisions will be a significant help to producers in my district. I am also very concerned about the state of our defenses, and the many years of real cuts in spending on our military. There are some additional resources for defense in this bill, and those are badly needed. The additional push for missile defense and the extra resources to compensate for readiness shortfalls are essential. LIkewise, it is better to appropriate additional funds for the Bosnia operation than it would be to further reduce our readiness and modernization to pay for it. But, as badly as these additional funds for our military and intelligence efforts are needed, no one should think that this bill solves all of our problems. We have a serious mismatch between policy and resources which must be resolved. We also have to make tough decisions to ensure that the country gets the maximum benefits of each dollar spent on defense. Those decisions cannot be put off much longer. There are a number of other provisions in the bill which I favor, yet I am also very disappointed that there is no broad tax relief contained in this bill. Families are having a tough time making ends meet all around the country. We had an opportunity to let them keep more of the money they earn, but we have not taken advantage of it. I am also disappointed that we have not done more to address the severe problems many of my constituents are experiencing with home health care. This administration has mishandled this issue at every turn, and innocent people are suffering because of their ineptitude. We should have done more to remedy the situation. There are a number of other provisions which I would vote against if I had the opportunity to vote on each of them. Unfortunately, none of us has that opportunity. We must vote on the entire, forty pound, four thousand page document. So, I will reluctantly vote for this bill. At the same time, I have to express deep regret at this process which yields a gigantic bill, containing much of the year's work, for a single up or down vote. While Members know the major provisions in this bill, none of us has had the opportunity to become familiar with all of the provisions. That is wrong. It is absolutely essential that we overhaul the budget and appropriations process to prevent a repeat of this kind of legislation.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I support the Resolution before us today. The bottom line question is: Should we investigate the allegations that have been made against the President. As someone has said, ``Do we look further or do we look away.'' To fulfill the oath that each of us took, I believe that we must look further. Some may try to change the subject by quibbling with the parameters of the inquiry or the lack of a time limit. Those are details--if not excuses--which do not change the fundamental question. The only precedent of modern times, the Watergate inquiry, is being followed. Others seem to have concluded that even if all of the charges are true, it doesn't matter; they do not constitute an impeachable offense. Those Members are wrong. Perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power do matter--by anyone--and especially by the one person charged in the Constitution with executing the laws of the land. We must fulfill our oath to the Constitution that we have sworn to ``support and defend.'' We cannot stick our heads in the sand and wish this unpleasant duty away. We cannot pass along our responsibility to polls, the media, or the other body. We have to try to do what is right, wherever that may take us, even if some of the facts are distasteful. But, we must also remember that our response to these facts will help determine what kind of nation we will be in the future. Young people-- and even those not so young--are watching. They are learning lessons-- lessons about telling the truth, lessons about selfish, reckless behavior, lessons about self-discipline and responsibility. They are watching to see if we really mean what we say, whether actions really do have consequences. We can teach them good, constructive lessons, or we can teach them lessons of another kind. How we all handle this episode--what we say about it and what we do about it--will affect how much trust people are willing to give their elected representatives and the institutions which have navigated us through more than 200 years of often treacherous waters. Even more importantly, however, how we handle this episode will affect the values and moral character of a whole generation of Americans. There are important decisions to be made in Washington over the coming weeks, but there are even more important decisions to be made around the kitchen table in every American home. I pray we all make the right decisions.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report and in admiration of the work of our chairman and the ranking member. This bill is not perfect, but it certainly deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight two areas. One deals with nuclear weapons. The administration has not asked for enough money, and Congress has not provided enough money, to make sure that our nuclear weapons laboratories and production facilities can do the job that we are asking them to do. This bill does, however, put some extra money into those places and begins to make up some of that deficit. But it is very important that we keep a strong nuclear deterrent. That will be a tough job in the future. The bill also supports our continuing efforts to dismantle Russian delivery systems and to put tighter security around Russian nuclear weapons and Russian nuclear materials, both of which are very important. With all the terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and instability around the world, we cannot afford to neglect either of these areas at all. Secondly, this bill helps take some steps toward preparing for the future. Part of that is getting and keeping the best people we can. It has got a pay raise, and thanks to the work of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and others, it has a demonstration project for military retiree health care that takes us a step closer to keeping our commitments to military retirees. There is a study on the organization of the Pentagon to try to make sure that we are the best organized possible to deal with the challenges of the future. And there is a clear expression of the importance of joint experimentation to try to make sure that whatever money we spend on future procurement items is spent on the right things that will help us to meet the challenges of the future. Mr. Speaker, we are going into a period where the challenges are more difficult than they have ever been in the past. We have a long way to go, but this bill helps take us in the right direction and deserves the support of all our colleagues.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, September 9, 1998.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3687 by myself authorizes prepayment of amounts due under a water reclamation project contract for the Canadian River Project in Texas and is cosponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest). Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recognize Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Combest, cosponsors of this bill, for all their work in bringing this bill to the floor and in this matter generally over the past two years. This bill does not authorize transfer of the title to any Government property. It is strictly a bill to authorize prepayment of a debt. Title transfer is already authorized by the original Project authorization act and by the repayment contract to take place automatically when the debt is paid. H.R. 3687 has the support of all the affected or involved parties. There is bipartisan support for the bill and the Bureau of Reclamation representatives have stated that the bill has their support. Passage of H.R. 3687 is badly needed during the current session of Congress. Further delay will cause the eleven cities which are members of CRMWA to suffer unnecessary hardship, especially if the current drought in Texas were to continue into next year. H.R. 3687 and the subsequent title transfer will clear the way for CRMWA to provide additional supplies which will prevent water shortages. Over five hundred thousand people rely on water from the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. This legislation will ensure that they have access to a safe, clean and abundant supply of water. I urge your support for this important legislation.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3687) to authorize prepayment of amounts due under a water reclamation project contract for the Canadian River Project, Texas, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns this legislative day, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Friday, August 7, 1998.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1379.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the two bills just passed.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 1865) to designate certain lands in the San Isabel National Forest, in Colorado, as the Spanish Peaks Wilderness.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Wednesday, September 9, 1998, the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.