Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Did the gentleman have an opportunity to offer an amendment in committee?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my distinguished colleague for his leadership on the rule. I also want to pay my respects to my good friend, the ranking Member on the Committee on Rules, who is a real gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I want this debate to be focused on factual information and not rhetoric and so I am going to go through the comments made by my colleagues in opposition to this rule one at a time. We heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts. He said this was a Republican partisan effort. When I introduced this bill last August, I reached out to the Democrat side. The bill had 24 Democrats and 24 Republicans when I dropped the bill in, because I did not want it to be a partisan battle. There were some in my party who criticized me for that. When I introduced the bill in this session of Congress, Mr. Speaker, it had 28 Democrats and 30 Republicans. In fact, when it passed the Committee on Armed Services, the vote was 50 to 3, with Democrats joining Republicans in support. This has been a totally bipartisan process. Mr. Speaker, amendments could have been offered. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) could have offered an amendment. He chose not to. Now, are we being unfair, Mr. Speaker? At the Committee on Rules yesterday there were two people who wanted amendments, one Republican and one Democrat. I opposed both because each would have taken the bill to an extreme position that perhaps would not have been the clear-cut debate that we need on this issue, which is whether or not to move forward. Some say there has been no debate. Mr. Speaker, in the 5 years I have controlled the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, there have been over 60 hearings, briefings, classified sessions. For someone to say there has been no debate is just a case where they do not understand what in fact has transpired. One of my colleagues on the other side said the cost. Let us look at the cost, Mr. Speaker. We have spent $9 billion in Bosnia already. The administration's estimate for the cost of NMD is $6 billion. So we are going to spend more to protect peace in Bosnia than we are to protect our own people. In fact, we are spending $10 billion this year on environmental cleanup, $10 billion on environmental cleanup versus the administration's estimate of $6 billion for an NMD system. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said this is going to jeopardize our relationship with Russia. I say hogwash. If one wants to know what is going to jeopardize our relationship with Russia, Mr. Speaker, ask the administration why they cancelled the funding for the only joint Russian-American missile defense initiative that we have last October, the Ramos project. When we were in Russia this past weekend, that is what the Russians were concerned about, that this administration cancelled all the funding for the only joint program to build confidence that we have. Ask the administration why they cancelled the Ross-Mamaedov talks back when they took office in 1993. It was President Bush who started those talks because Yeltsin said, let us work together. What did this president do? When he came into office in 1993, he cancelled the talks and said, no, we are not going to work together in missile defense. If one wants to talk about instability, ask the arms control crowd. The arms control crowd who was arguing against our bill today, and I am glad they are because this is what they are, this was a chart that they had inserted in a national magazine on the debate about missile defense. One of my Russian friends read this to me and he said, ``Curt, I understand what you are trying to do but this is what is going to be all over Russia.'' The arms control crowd, the Natural Resources Defense Council, has a chart saying destroy Russia, killing 20 million people. This is the kind of rhetoric that inflames the Russian side, not what we are doing. I ask my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill in a true bipartisan fashion.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This debate today is going to be a serious debate. I think we ought to set the tone early. I reject as a Member of this Congress trivializing this issue with an umbrella, because 28 young Americans 8 years ago came home in body bags because we had no system to defend against. And to say that somehow an umbrella with nothing there is the way we are going to discuss this issue is absolutely disgusting to me because half of those young men and women came from my State. It is not a joke to hold an umbrella up with nothing there and say this is what we are doing. We have no defense today against any missile system. It is a national priority that this Congress needs to address. And to trivialize this debate as has been done in this body for 30 years has got to come to an end. I think we should treat this debate with more sincerity and dignity than that.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). What he does not tell our colleagues is that we have spent $19 billion in contingency funds out of our defense budget for deployments that were never budgeted for over the past 6 years. Nineteen billion dollars, all over the world, $9 billion in Bosnia; all of that money came out of a defense budget that was already shrinking. So, we have made a commitment. We should oppose the Allen motion to recommit. H.R. 4 is a simple, straightforward bill with bipartisan support; the Allen motion is not. It is complicated, it is hard to understand. H.R. 4 does not mandate a system architecture which is why the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I worked together. His amendment would, in fact, say we must have a ground-based system. It precludes a system that perhaps one day could use our AEGIS technology. H.R. 4 addresses the serious threats we face today, not unknown threats that may emerge down the road. We cannot predict what they will be. Operational effectiveness should be key in determining. The Allen motion mandates operational effectiveness prior to establishing a policy. Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. If we had done that, we would not have the Poseidon program, we would not have Trident, we would not have the AIM-9 side winder, we would not have AMRAAM, we would not have the Hawk. What a ridiculous way to try to fund defense needs by saying we are going to have the operational effectiveness prior to establishing a policy. The Allen motion also could give Russia a veto over our own NMD policy. No foreign Nation should have the ability to have a veto over us. If an arms control agreement gets in the way, then we have got to renegotiate that treaty or we have got to do what is best for our people, not allow another Nation to hold us hostage. H.R. 4 establishes and indeed is a high priority, it is got bipartisan support, and it is time for us to vote on this issue, to cut through the rhetoric; yes, if my colleagues are in favor, no, if they are not. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Allen substitute and to vote in favor of H.R. 4.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to applaud the level of debate today on this issue and thank Members from both sides for their diligence in focusing on this issue. I want to applaud the integrity of the opponents of this issue. And I want to point out the difference between the opponents in this body who stood up and focused on their opposition and the opponents in the other body who twice stopped a similar bill from getting up to a vote and then had the audacity to change and vote for it on the Senate floor yesterday. So I applaud the opponents who have a logical and philosophical difference with what we have done here and I applaud them for taking the steps to oppose it, even though I disagree with them. I do take issue with those who say that we do not care about human concerns. Mr. Speaker, I am a teacher. I spent 7 years teaching in the public schools of Pennsylvania and for 3 of those years I ran a chapter 1 program serving those children with educational and economic deprivations. I support education. I support human services and needs. But what do we tell, Mr. Speaker, the families of those 28 young Americans who came home in body bags? They were hit by a missile. Do we tell them that we are not going to pursue a defense? Do we tell them that there is some other more important priority after they volunteered to serve our Nation? We have no choice but to pursue missile defense, Mr. Speaker, because that is the weapon of choice by rogue nations. I do take issue with those who say that we are trying to harm our strategic relationship with Russia. For the last 20 years since graduating from college with a degree in Russian studies, I have focused on Russia. I have been there 18 years and I have been focusing on ways to provide more economic stability with that nation. That is not a reason for us to deny protection for our people. We need to provide this system to protect Americans. It is time for us to vote. Not to provide cover for Members. If Members support the President's policy of waiting a year and then deciding whether or not he should deploy, vote against this bill. But if they feel as we do, it is time based upon the threat and based upon the changing world to move in a new direction, where instead of threatening each other with long-range missiles, we begin developing a new relationship where we defend ourselves and our people and our troops. I happen to think as a teacher and a person very concerned about human issues that that is the right thing to do as we approach the new millennium. I ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and support this bill to provide protection for our people.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, just on the budget issue, we really ought to deal with it. My colleague made a good point here. Let me also add, and my colleague is well aware that over the past 4 years, it was this Congress, this Republican Congress, who gave the Defense Department over $20 billion more than the President asked for because of the gross underfunding of the budget. It is easy for a President to project a massive increase when he is no longer in office. After he has decimated defense spending for a continuing period of 6 years, it is easy for him to say, well, when I am out of office, we are going to increase the top number by a significant margin. He is not going to be here to be held accountable. The fact is that this Congress, and I might add, in a strong bipartisan vote, Democrats were adamant in supporting our position, increase the defense budget over the past 4 years by almost $25 billion more than this administration requested. Now that is not pie in the sky pipe dreams after the President is out of office. That is, in fact, what we did. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding, and I want to thank both him and our distinguished ranking member the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their leadership in working to bring a solid bipartisan resolution to the House floor. I want to set the tone, Mr. Speaker, for the debate and why we are here, so I want to outline for my friends why we are offering this bill at this time. It was back in 1995, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the United States vetoed our Defense Authorization bill; and in his veto message, one of the key elements that he referred to was that our intelligence community does not foresee a missile threat in the coming decade. This is President Clinton. And he went on to say that we should not force an unwarranted deployment decision then, which we had in our bill, again with a bipartisan vote, and so he vetoed the legislation. Since that point in time, Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community, in support of the Rumsfeld Commission's findings, which were briefed to Members of Congress on the House floor today in an unprecedented 90- minute closed session, has stated the threat is here now. In fact, the intelligence community publicly has said that North Korea, with their test of a three-stage Taepo Dong rockets on August 31 of last year demonstrated that it can put a small payload with a chemical or biological or small nuclear warhead into the heartland of the U.S., not to just Alaska or Hawaii, but to the heartland of the U.S. That is the first time we ever faced such a threat. With the Rumsfeld Commission and intelligence community now in total agreement on the threat then, the question is, let us make a deployment decision so that we can move forward. Unfortunately, the administration has chosen not to do that. This is the statement of Defense Secretary Bill Cohen on February 1 of this year. This statement says, and I would ask my colleagues to look at this, ``If the President decides that the deployment should go forward,'' if he decides, ``next June the President would make that decision.'' This bill, make no mistake about it, is a clear and definitive difference between the administration's policy of waiting a year until June and us making that decision right now. We need to make that decision now. It does not mean we know the architecture, how long it will take. It does not mean that we should immediately abandon the ABM Treaty or have the Russians in fact think we are trying to back them into a corner. Because some who will support this bill want to keep the ABM Treaty until we can negotiate with the Russians. So the bill was written in such a way as to allow a number of Members in each party to support it. Let me talk for a moment since we have now identified the fact that the threat has been verified by the intelligence community. Some would say, what about the cost? As I mentioned during the debate on the rule, we have today spent $9 billion on Bosnia protecting the Bosnians and the people in the Balkans. This system the President is proposing would be less than or, at most, equal to what we will spend in the Balkans, less than what we spend each year on environmental cleanup, less than one half of one percent of our total defense acquisition budget. The third issue that is raised is this will destabilize our relationship with the Russians. We heard that repeatedly. This past weekend, eight of us, two Democrats and six Republicans, along with Don Rumsfeld, former Defense Secretary, the former CIA Director Jim Woolsey for President Clinton, and Bill Schneider, former Deputy Secretary of State, traveled to Moscow and we briefed the Duma on why we are doing this. This is not about destabilizing our relationship. I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution and vote ``yes.''

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joseph W. Dorsey, an outstanding public servant and a close personal friend, who passed away March 15. Joe Dorsey was that rarest of individuals who always placed the interests of his community above his own. Joe served honorably in the Army Air Corps during World War II, and afterward returned to his hometown of Collingdale, Pennsylvania. He felt a strong duty to help maintain his town as a solid place to live, work and raise a family. From that time forward, Joe became a tireless worker for his community and the local Republican Party. He served as president of the Borough Council and as tax collector in Collingdale. From 1966-1972, he represented the 162nd district in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. At that time he was elected Delaware County's Clerk of Courts, later becoming director of the new Office of Judicial Support. In each of these important positions, Joe exhibited strong leadership and he ably represented the interests of local citizens and taxpayers. Joe was equally committed in his service to the Republican Party. Beginning as a local committeeman, he rose to become chairman of the Collingdale Republican Party and leader of his legislative district. Three times he served as a delegate to the Republican National Convention. Joe's commitment to Republican ideals, and his ability to bring out the vote on election day, made him one of the most influential leaders in my Congressional district. In fact, he managed several of my Congressional campaigns, including my election to Congress in 1986. I counted heavily on Joe for his political acumen and his knowledge of grassroots political organizing. Joe's community service was varied, as well. He was a 40-year member of the Collingdale Fourth of July Association, a lifetime member of Collingdale Fire Company 1 and 2, and a member of the Collingdale VFW and American Legion. Joe owned an insurance business in his hometown, and he provided outstanding service to many of the municipalities and businesses in his area. To Joe Dorsey, community service wasn't an option. It was a responsibility, and it was an honor. Whenever his neighbors called upon him, Joe was always there. There aren't enough Joe Dorseys in our local communities anymore, and his presence will be greatly missed. I extend my deepest condolences to Joe's wife, Mae, to whom he was married for nearly 54 years, and to his daughter, Dorothy, who has served as my office manager since my election to Congress over 12 years ago. To them, Joe was a loving husband and devoted father. To me, he was a loyal friend and trusted advisor. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in a tribute to Joseph W. Dorsey for his selfless dedication to his community and his country.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in a very difficult situation for us and unfortunately have come to a very difficult decision. I have supported this President on a number of occasions that have been very difficult for me, but because I believe we must support the Commander in Chief in very difficult deployments. When he stood up to Saddam Hussein and the Russians were staring us down and very upset with our position, I traveled to Moscow. I met privately with the leadership of the Duma to convince them that they should understand why this Republican supports our Democrat President in his position with Saddam Hussein. It was the right thing, and I felt strongly about that position. Tomorrow I will travel to Moscow a second time with eight of our colleagues, with former Defense Minister Rumsfeld, former CIA Director Woolsey, former Deputy Undersecretary of State Bill Snyder, and we will make the case on Sunday and Monday and Tuesday of why the proliferation is so great that it threatens both Russian people and American people. I will again underscore my support for the steps being taken by this administration. The positions of the administration are clear in those areas, and I support them, but I cannot support the insertion of troops now in Kosovo. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the case is not yet been made. There has not been a case made by this President to the American people, let alone to this Congress, about why at this point in time we should place American young people on the ground in Kosovo. At least we are having a debate, Mr. Chairman. At least we are discussing the pros and cons in a very careful and deliberate way, and I applaud both sides for the level of the debate. We need to debate this issue. Some are saying, Mr. Chairman, this is not the right time. It is too delicate of a time in the negotiations. Mr. Chairman, there is never a right time to debate these issues. When is the right time? After the President makes a decision? When our troops are on the way in? Then we debate not to support them? This Congress needs to play its appropriate role in deciding whether or not we should take the steps to deploy our troops in Kosovo. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that bothers me is this past week I met with two members of the German Bundestag. They came in and talked to me about our NATO responsibility, and I agree with them that we need to keep NATO strong. But let me tell my colleagues what the Bundestag members told me, Mr. Chairman. They said in their vote they understood the dollar amount that was being requested for the deployment. In fact, they authorized 400 million Deutsche marks to pay for the operation. We have no idea not only what the mission is, we have no idea what the dollar cost is. Mr. Chairman, I am very sad. In the previous 40 years to 1991, from World War II until 1991, 40 years under Democrat and Republican Presidents, we deployed our troops a total of 10 times at home and abroad. Ten times. Mr. Chairman, in the 8 years from 1991 until today, we have deployed our troops 32 times. This will be the 33rd. Mr. Chairman, none of these 32 deployments were budgeted for up front. None of them, except for the deployment to the Middle East in Desert Storm, were requested by the Congress to support. Each of the payments that were required to pay for these deployments were taken out of an already decreasing defense budget. Mr. Chairman, we spent $19 billion in contingency costs on these 32 deployments, 9 billion alone on Bosnia. Mr. Chairman, those who support the use of our troops in Kosovo had better be prepared to start to put the funding on the table to pay for these deployments. Mr. Chairman, we are in an impossible situation now. We are not being asked, we are being told for the 33rd time that we are going to send our troops into harm's way. We were told in Bosnia there would be a time limit, they would be back home in a few years. We were told in Haiti they would be back home. We have troops in Somalia, in Haiti. We have troops in Macedonia. We have troops all over the continent, and the money is being taken out of our defense budget because we did not have the authorization up front, we did not have a legitimate debate on whether or not this Congress supported placing our troops into harm's way, and we are about to do it again. Mr. Chairman, I may support the deployment of our troops to Kosovo, I may support the President because I want to support my Commander in Chief. He is my President. Even though he is not of my party, he is my leader, and I want to support him, make no mistake about it. But this President needs to make the case to us and to the American people, and he has not done that. This President needs to tell us how much it will cost, and he has not done that. This President needs to tell us what the allied commitment will be in hard terms, and he has not done that either. Until he does that, we should vote no and not support the deployment of troops in Kosovo.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide for the reliquidation for certain entries of self-tapping screws and to correct an error of omission made by the U.S. Customs Office in Philadelphia, PA. In August of 1993, a customs broker in my district entered industrial screws for liquidation at the Port of Philadelphia under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule provision 7318.12, a provision for wood screws. While the customs broker disagreed with the U.S. Customs Service's position to assess these screws under this provision, the broker did as directed to minimize friction. The company believed at that time that the screws fit a different description and that a lower rate of duty applied. As a result of the Customs' assessment, however, the rate of duty on the imported screws more than doubled from 6.2 percent to 12.5 percent. In 1996, the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed with the customs broker and ruled that the U.S. Customs Service was incorrect in its classification of the merchandise as a wood screw and that the importer was due a refund. While the U.S. Customs Service did pay a refund on some of the entries, a clerical error in their Philadelphia office prevented several entries from coming properly before the court for judgment. As a result, those entries were not included in the report even though they are subject to the same ruling. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation last year with the intention of including it in the Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Correction Act. It is my understanding that it was not included in that legislation in the last session because it was opposed by the Customs Service which cited that it posed an undue administrative burden on them. Currently, Mr. Speaker, if you do not include the interest on that money, the U.S. Customs Service has imposed $106,000 worth of burden on this local business even though the court has ruled against them on this issue. The U.S. Customs Service currently has more than $100,000 that it simply has no right to. With that in mind, I will look forward to having this bill included in legislation to correct similar problems, with the full support of the Administration.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man whose accomplishments in the field of public education are limitless. Dr. Michael Pladus, principal of Interboro High School since only 1994, recently received the 1999 National Principal of the Year Award in the shortest time ever recognized by its sponsors, MetLife and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Richard Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education, presented Dr. Pladus with the award on January 28, 1999 at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Dr. Pladus received this honor in recognition of his exceptional role in improving the school's student activities, standardized testing scores, and overall climate of academia. Before going to Interboro High School four years ago, Dr. Pladus, holding a Masters Degree from both Temple University and the University of Scranton and a doctorate from Columbia University, served as a Middle School Principal in the Upper Merion School District. Since assuming his position at Interboro, he has worked vigorously to install innovative programs which will help our students. Besides establishing closer relations between parents, teachers, students, and administration at Interboro, Dr. Pladus re-designed the academic curriculum and up-graded the math advanced placement program. Moreover, he has implemented a co-teaching pilot program for special education students and developed a proactive strategy to deal with the needs of ``at risk'' teens. Through his commitment and success, Dr. Pladus helped the school earn ``blue ribbon'' status from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In a nation toiling to upgrade educational standards, people like Dr. Pladus yield hope. As a former school teacher, I know well the difficult challenges facing today's educators, and commend those who overcome them. With the innovating ideas and continual resolution of people like Dr. Pladus, our nation and its children will become much closer to the educational system they deserve.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 25th wedding anniversary of my life-long friend, James Clark, and his wife, Clare. Jimmy and Clare Clark were married on February 15, 1974. Jimmy and I grew up together in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, and his wife, Clare, grew up just a few blocks away from my wife, Mary, in Wilmington, Delaware. Jimmy and Clare have devoted many years of their lives to public service. Jimmy and I served together as members of the Viscose Fire Company in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. We fought fires together, and established a bond of friendship and trust that can never be broken. He followed in my footsteps, first as a member of the fire company, and later as chief of the company. He later went on to become Chief of the Borough of Marcus Hook Fire Department. Clare previously worked for the Wilmington, Delaware Bureau of Police, and served the Viscose Fire Company for many years as a member of the Ladies Auxiliary. Jimmy currently is employed by Epsilon Products Company in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, and Clare is employed by Christiana Care in Wilmington, Delaware. Jimmy and Clare are terrific people, dedicated to their family and concerned for their neighbors and friends. They are leaders in their community. America needs more people like them. Mr. Speaker, in this era where we seem to have rediscovered the importance of marriage and family, it is all together fitting and proper for us to honor this couple on the achievement of this significant milestone. I am proud to represent the Clarks in the United States Congress, and I ask you and my colleagues to join with me in congratulating them on the 25th wedding anniversary.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this special order to discuss America's patriots. The patriots of America have been extremely important in the struggle for this great Nation over the past 220 years, to allow us to enjoy the freedoms and the independence that oftentimes we take for granted. My discussion today will focus on the patriots of America of the past and the patriots of America today, those who are defending our country around the world. Let me start off by discussing a situation I think requires national attention. Over 220 years ago, Mr. Speaker, this Nation was fighting for its existence. Young patriots, many of whom were undertrained, who were not properly fed, who were ill-equipped, were fighting against the forces of England to allow us to have a free independent Nation. There were some very serious battles in that process. We know those battles from our history books, the battles of Valley Forge, the battles that took place in Brandywine. But, Mr. Speaker, what we have failed to understand is that one key battle that many historians would argue was the turning point in the morale of our troops to defeat the British was the battle that resulted in the outcry of our troops, ``Remember Paoli.'' It occurred in the spring of 1777 when the British were conducting the Philadelphia campaign to then take over the capital of our Nation because at that time Philadelphia was the capital of the United States. There was a major effort on the part of the British to move to capture Philadelphia, and in the process a series of battles took place. The first of two American attempts to stop the British invasion that fall was the battle of Brandywine, September 11, 1777, and the unsuccessful Battle of the Clouds, September 16, 1777. There was also a third attempt to contain the British General Sir William Howe's advance on Philadelphia, and each of them were unsuccessful. But a very important history lesson shows us that in the Battle of Paoli the British troops sought and successfully committed a surprise attack on our troops that were encamped at Paoli at a cornfield, a cornfield that still exists today. The British went to do this in the early morning hours so as to avoid detection, and they did not want to use their guns because they wanted a surprise attack to wipe out the patriots for the fight for our independence. The battle took place, and the British massacred the American patriots. Their bayonet attacks on the American young men who fought there, many of whom were 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 years of age, were by all accounts devastating. Fifty-three young Americans were slaughtered, slaughtered by the British. They were slaughtered in such a fierce way that the story of that battle traveled throughout the Revolutionary War troops and the cry of ``Remember Paoli'' became a rallying cry for the American patriots in all future battles of the revolution which we all know we successfully won. ``Remember Paoli'' was about a battle fought on a 40-acre site in Malvern and Chester County in Pennsylvania, not far from Valley Forge and not far from Brandywine. Today there are 53 young American patriots whose bodies lay in rest at that site. The challenge we have, Mr. Speaker, is that that 40-acre battlefield adjacent to the burial site of these young American patriots is about to be sold. It is about to be developed; perhaps another shopping center, perhaps another housing project, perhaps being paved over by someone who wants to build some new type of development in the area that we call the Main Line coming out of Philadelphia, a very affluent area. But the owner of the property, a private school right next to the site, has issued a challenge, that America, the State, the county and the local community should undertake an effort to preserve that 40-acre site so that those 53 young American patriots, so that their memory is never forgotten. Two and a half years ago when the owner of that property came forward, the owner of the school, the board of directors said, ``We challenge the community, we challenge the country to protect this site and allow us to move on to other things. But if you do not take up that challenge, we will sell the site to developers.'' Mr. Speaker, that sale is imminent, and if in fact the Paoli site is sold, it will be one of the last remaining significant sites that was a part of our Revolutionary War history. It is a site that needs to be protected. It is a site that needs the Federal Government, the State, the county and the local government to come together with the private sector to show those American patriots and all of our war heroes, including those serving the country today, that we will always remember and honor their service, and in this case especially because of the symbolism associated with the battle at Paoli and the massacre that occurred there. Two and a half years ago a local group led by citizens in Malvern Borough, where Paoli is located, joined together to begin to raise the private money to acquire this site. Now many would argue this site should be protected by the Federal Government. After all, it was a major battle, just as Valley Forge was a battle and Brandywine was a battle and other historical sites were battle grounds. But they decided they would set the tone, so they set out to raise money. To date they have raised over $500,000 in actual money and commitments to help protect this site. They came to me one year ago, and they said, ``Congressman, can you assist us? Because there are patriots of the Revolutionary War who are buried at this site.'' And I said absolutely unequivocally I would help to have the Federal Government include this site as a part of the history of this great Nation. Throughout last year we worked on a bipartisan piece of legislation that worked its way out of the Committee on Resources. With the full support of Jim Hansen and his subcommittee and Don Young on the full committee the bill was passed in the Senate, but because of a difficulty in getting the bill under unanimous consent on the floor on the last day could not be brought up for passage. I have reintroduced that measure in the House this session. Yesterday I introduced the Patriot Act, Mr. Speaker, which would, in fact, allow us to assist the local folks in protecting the site of the Paoli massacre and the revered site where those 53 young Americans are buried. The bill has the unanimous support of the entire Pennsylvania congressional delegation, our neighbor in Delaware, Congressman Castle, our neighbor in south Jersey, Rob Andrews, because they understand, as I do, the historical significance of this site. The legislation, Mr. Speaker, would allow us to authorize up to $2.5 million to show this local school that we want to work with the local folks to acquire this site. This act would require that a study be done by the National Park Service as to whether or not the site of the Paoli massacre should be included as a part of the Valley Forge National Park right down the road. In the meantime, it would allow the Federal Government to an appropriate on a dollar-for-dollar basis one-half of the $2.5 million needed to acquire this site. Now, Mr. Speaker, the local folks in Chester County have already raised $500,000. What we would do is then move to provide a matching dollar-for-dollar basis up to a cap of $1.25 million, so we would have a combined total of $2.5 million to acquire the 40-acre site. The Borough of Malvern, where the battlefield is located, has agreed to maintain the site until the Park Service determines whether or not it will take the site as a part of Valley Forge National Park. In the meantime, they will police it, they will oversee it. That site will remain as it was 222 years ago. It will still be the cornfield that it was when those soldiers bravely fought for our independence. To do anything less than protect that site would in my opinion be a national embarrassment, and I urge my colleagues to sign on, to jointly support and honor those brave patriots who fought for America's independence, to allow us to help protect one of those final sites in our history that is today threatened by developers. Mr. Speaker, the precedent is clear here. We are not asking for the Federal Government to go out and buy the land itself. The local community is raising the funds. The local community is committed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, two days ago I visited one of the elementary schools right near the Paoli site, the Exton Elementary School, where the combined students of the fourth grade class of the Exton elementary school handed me 41,000 and 500 pennies. In their Pennies for Paoli campaign these young students for the past five months collected pennies from throughout their neighborhood because they want to show the Federal, State and county governments that they think it is important that we take the time to protect this sacred site where these 53 American heroes are buried. They handed me the money and the accompanying check for $415 as a part of their ongoing commitment to help indicate their support and their involvement in saving Paoli. Other schools in the region have taken similar initiatives to help protect the Paoli site. Mr. Speaker, the Sugartown Elementary School, the KD Markley Elementary School, the Charlestown Elementary School and the Exton Elementary School all have conducted letter writing campaigns. My office has received thousands of letters from young people, not just in our region, but because this story was the subject of a national news story on Good Morning America on July 4th of last year, thousands of people around America have written to say that we too think America should protect and preserve this final site that is so important to understanding the history of America during our struggle for freedom and independence. I think our students have set the example for us. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit some of the letters from these elementary students about what they think about the Paoli site. From Nick, dated January 4, 1999: ``Dear Mr. Weldon, please save the Paoli Battlefield. It is very special to us. It helps us learn about our country's history.'' He drew pictures of the battle. I have another letter from Myles Neuman from Sugartown School: ``Dear Curt Weldon, the Paoli Battlefield should be preserved as a national park because those graves should honor the brave soldiers that fought for our country. If you were one of the honorable soldiers that fought on this field, would you like builders to develop something or develop it for other uses in Paoli? This would be a great honor for us and the kids that are learning about our history. It would be a wonderful addition to Valley Forge Park.'' That is from Myles Neuman. Or Alyssa Jackson, who says: ``I am in Mrs. Weigal's fourth grade class. I live in Frazer, PA. I am writing to you to do all that you can to save the Paoli Battlefield. I think the builders are wrong to want to build homes or businesses where over 50 people are buried. I hope you can do something about it.'' Finally, from Emily: ``Please save the Paoli Battlefield. It is very special to us. It helps us to learn about our country's history. I have seen the Paoli Battlefield. It is very pretty.'' Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the thousands of letters that I have received from young people, not just in my district, but throughout the region and throughout the country, that are asking this Congress to do something very small, very simple, yet very historic, and that is to pass the authorizing legislation that passed the Senate in the last session, that passed the Interior Committee, to allow us to work with the local folks to preserve the Paoli Battlefield. Nothing I think of could be more important for the remembrance of our patriots. Also in our P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, Mr. Speaker, we authorize the continued funding of approximately $6 million for the full definition of the Brandywine Battlefield. The Brandywine Battlefield, where another historic battle was fought between our patriots and the British, has not yet been fully completed in terms of acquiring the space around it. We are not talking about money to build buildings. We are talking about the easements necessary to keep this battle site as it was 222 years ago. In the case of Brandywine, again, we are saying that the authorization is for $6 million, but the local folks must raise $3 million, so on a dollar for dollar basis, with state money, with county money, with private dollars, we will match on a dollar for dollar basis the funding necessary to complete the full dimensions of the original site of the Brandywine Battlefield. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the third provision in my P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act would allow us to approve an agreement between the National Park Service and the largest collectors of Revolutionary War artifacts in America. For the past 5 years I have been working with the collectors, those people who have the largest private collections of Revolutionary War materials. Most of these materials are today being housed within their own control or they are loaned to museums when they see fit. The collectors approached me and said, ``Congressman Weldon, we would like to work with you to privately fund a major new display area and museum at the site of Valley Forge. We are not asking for Federal money. We are asking you to work with us in an agreement with the Park Service that will allow us to have a trade of property that is currently owned by the Valley Forge historical society to allow us to raise the money to build this new 21st century learning center about the Revolutionary War.'' The collectors that I have been working with, Mr. Speaker, have agreed that they would make their collections available to this site, that they would be permanently on display for all Americans to see, artifacts that Americans otherwise would not have access to, to compliment those artifacts that are already existing at Valley Forge. All we are asking in this bill is to give the Park Service the approval to finalize that agreement between the private collectors and the National Park Service. We are asking for no authorization of dollars to allow this new museum to go forward. Mr. Speaker, he think these three initiatives are very logical. I think they are the kind of thing that Republicans and Democrats can jointly support. I think there is no better series of actions that we can take in 1999 to remember the Pennsylvania patriots who fought to give us the freedoms and liberties and independence of this great Nation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the patriots of the Revolutionary War and to cosponsor the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act of 1999. Meeting the Needs of America's Patriots of Today

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in the second half of my special order I would also like to discuss America's patriots of today, because we have some major problems that need to be addressed in this session of the Congress. We need to address these, Mr. Speaker, because the patriots of today are finding it extremely difficult to do the job that they voluntarily signed up to do on behalf of our great Nation. I am ashamed to tell you, Mr. Speaker, today, as a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services, as the chairman of one of our key subcommittees, that we have some of our fighter wings where up to one- third of our airplanes are not flying because they have had to be cannibalized to use the parts from those planes to keep the other two- thirds flying. I am ashamed to report, Mr. Speaker, that we have ships at sea, our carriers, where we are hundreds of sailors short, going out to complete missions and coming back home without the proper staffing that we have identified as appropriate for these most important vessels of our Navy. I am embarrassed that we are asking our Marine Corps to fly in CH-46 helicopters that were built during the Vietnam War that we will continue to fly until they are 55 years old. I am embarrassed that we will be flying the B-52 bomber when it is 75 years old. Mr. Speaker, we have problems in our military that we need to address, and these problems did not happen overnight and these problems need to be addressed this a bipartisan manner. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have to understand why we are where we are today. Let me take a few moments to inform our constituents and our colleagues, especially our colleagues who are sitting in their offices or perhaps back in their homes, about the problems that our military is suffering today, because the perception in America is that we have given so much money to our military that they should have the need of no new dollars. In fact, there are some who say we should cut the defense budget even more than we have cut it. Mr. Speaker, over the past 14 to 15 years, the only area of the Federal budget that we have cut in real terms has been our defense budget. Fourteen consecutive years of real cuts, not inflationary cuts, but real cuts, in the level of defense spending. Now, some would say, well, that was justified because the Cold War ended. Let me give you a simple comparison, Mr. Speaker. Let me use the time of John Kennedy, not Ronald Reagan. When John Kennedy was the President in the 1960's, this country was spending 52 cents of every Federal tax dollar on our military, on those brave patriots who serve our country. That was a time of peace. It was after Korea, yet it was before Vietnam. Yet in those years that John Kennedy served, 52 cents of every Federal tax dollar sent to Washington went to support the men and women in the military. Nine percent of our country's gross national product was used on defense. In this year's budget, Mr. Speaker, we are spending 15 cents of the Federal tax dollar on the military. We are spending approximately 2.8 percent of our country's gross national product on the military. By anyone's calculation, that is a dramatic decline. Now, some would say that is still enough money. It is more than others nations spend collectively, and we should be able to handle that because, after all, the Cold War has ended. But, Mr. Speaker, things have changed since the 1960's. Let's go through a few of those changes. First of all, when John Kennedy was President, we had a draft. We sucked young people out of high school, we paid them next to nothing, they served the country for two years, and then they went on to do their chosen career or their job in the private sector. We no longer have the draft, Mr. Speaker. Our troops today are well paid. Our troops today have high school educations, many have college degrees, many are married, they have children. Therefore, we have housing costs, health care costs, education costs, travel costs, that they never had when John Kennedy was the President. Mr. Speaker, even though we have cut defense spending dramatically, the portion of our defense budget that we use for the quality of life for our troops has increased dramatically. This is where the bulk of our money goes today, to educate the young offspring, to take care of health care needs, to provide housing for our troops and families and travel to move them at home and around the world. But some other things have happened, Mr. Speaker. Back when John Kennedy was the President, we spent no money in the defense budget on the environment. In this year's defense budget, Mr. Speaker, we will spend $12 billion of DOD money on environmental mitigation. Approximately half of that money goes for our nuclear program, to deal with our decommissioned nuclear vessels. The other half goes for a variety of programs, ranging from base cleanups to environmental cooperation with nations and militaries around the world. But that is $12 billion more out of our defense budget that wasn't spent during John Kennedy's era. That is increasing each year. But perhaps the most dramatic change, Mr. Speaker, since the 1960's, is best reflected by this chart. From World War II until approximately 7 to 8 years ago, the commanders-in-chief of our country, who were both Democrats and Republicans, committed our troops to just 10 deployments at home and abroad. Ten times over 40 years our troops were sent into harm's way. They were sent into Vietnam, they were sent into Grenada, they were sent into Chicago and Detroit and Watts, but only 10 times in 40 years. Mr. Speaker, in the past 7 years, most of them under the current administration, this commander-in-chief has deployed our troops 32 times. Thirty-two times in 8 years, 10 deployments in 40 years. At a time where the bulk of our money is going for quality of life, at a time where we are spending $12 billion a year on the environment, we have 32 deployments, and the President is talking today about sending 4,000 to 5,000 troops to Kosovo, which would raise this to 33 deployments. Now, why is that important, Mr. Speaker? Because every time the commander-in-chief commits our troops, he has not identified the dollars to pay for those deployments. He simply commits the troops, and then we are left to pay the price that is required to pay for those deployments around the world. The deployment to Bosnia, Mr. Speaker, as of today, has cost the American taxpayers $9 billion. Where did that money come from, Mr. Speaker? Because we did not allocate that money in advance, all of that $9 billion had to come out of an ever-decreasing defense budget. So what did we do? Instead of building replacement helicopters for the CH-46, we slid the replacement program out to some other administration. Instead of building the Army's replacement helicopter for their existing helicopter, we shipped the Comanche out to the out years. Instead of taking care of the replacement parts for those fighter planes, we slipped that out and we have to cannibalize existing planes. And because we cannot recruit new young people to fill the slots for the Navy and the other services, we have had to go to deployments with less than the required slots filled. In fact, Mr. Speaker, our retention rates for pilots in the Navy and the Air Force is the lowest rate since World War II. Mr. Speaker, these deployments have robbed our modernization and our research for the future. It has caused us, in my opinion, to face the time when we will look back on these eight years as the worst period of time for undermining our national security in the Nation's history. Now, Mr. Speaker, critics will look at this and say, ``Wait a minute, wait a minute, what about President Bush?'' Because eight years ago he was the one who sent our troops into Desert Storm, and after all, that was a major war. Mr. Speaker, they would be right. President Bush did send our troops into Desert Storm. He sent 400,000 of our troops over there. But, Mr. Speaker, when Commander in Chief Bush sent our troops into Desert Storm, he went to all of our allies and he said, ``You either send troops, or you pay for the cost of Desert Storm.'' Desert Storm cost the American taxpayers $52 billion, but unlike this administration, President Bush was able to receive $53 billion in reimbursements. Those allied nations that did not send troops to Desert Storm gave us the dollars to pay for that deployment, so the net cost to us in terms of dollars was zero. And the deployments under this administration, every one of them, have been paid for by the U.S. taxpayer by robbing the DOD budget. When we sent our troops into Haiti, President Clinton said it was going to be a multinational force, and some would say it is. But what he did not tell us, Mr. Speaker, is that we are paying for the salary and the housing costs and in some cases the food costs for foreign troops to go into Haiti. Bangladesh sent 1,000 troops. It was a good deal for them because American taxpayers are paying for the costs of keeping them in Haiti. Mr. Speaker, unlike Desert Storm, these most recent 31 deployments or 32 deployments have been paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, taking money out of the defense budget that was already dramatically being decreased. The irony of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is I have to focus on two points. First of all, by deploying American men and women around the world, this President has created the impression that all of a sudden the world is safe. There are no more wars in Bosnia, there is no more conflict in Haiti, there is no more conflict in Macedonia and there will be no more conflict in Kosovo, because America has our troops around the world. And the irony is that the American people think by perception that therefore we must cut the defense budget because the world is so much safer today, when in fact it is safer because we have troops on standby and on alert around the world that is costing us dearly in terms of dollars necessary to modernize our military. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, the President got a standing ovation when he went to the U.N. If I were the President and went to the U.N. and all of those nations out there saw America ready to put our troops on the spot around the world and not pay for it, I would get a standing ovation too. Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon's own numbers show that for these deployments just in this administration, the American taxpayers have spent a total of $19 billion, $9 billion for Bosnia alone. Mr. Speaker, $19 billion, to send our troops to places some of which I support, but which should have had our allies pay the bill. When many of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and Republicans, objected to deploying our troops into Bosnia, it was not because we did not think that Bosnia was important or that we did not think we should be part of a multinational force, because we do. What we objected to, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that America was going to send 36,000 troops into Bosnia, both in theater and in the support around Bosnia, when neighbors like France and Germany were only sending in token components. In the case of Germany, 4,000 troops; in the case of the French and the other neighbors of Bosnia, much smaller amounts. The question we had is, why is the U.S. footing the bill? Why should not these other nations do what George Bush got nations to do in Desert Storm? Why should they not chip in and help to pay for these operations? That did not happen, Mr. Speaker, and right now we are facing a situation where the President is saying to the American people, we need to send 4,000 to 5,000 troops into Kosovo. That may or may not be justified, but, Mr. Speaker, he is not going to ask for the approval of the Congress. For the 33rd time in 7 years, he will simply send our troops, as he can do as the commander in chief. He is not going to tell us how much it will cost, because we already asked and he said we do not know. And he is not going to tell us how long they are going to stay there. He is going to send our troops and the Congress is going to be left to foot the bill. The second irony of this whole thing, Mr. Speaker, is as we in this Congress, Republicans and Democrats over the past four years have tried to replenish some of these funds, to reimburse the military for the extra costs of these deployments, we have been criticized for putting more money in the Pentagon's budget than what the service chiefs asked for. In each of the past four years, Democrats and Republicans came together in both the House and the other body and we said, we want to replenish some of these funds because they have been taken away for military operations and the Pentagon was not reimbursed for the cost. Each year that we did that, this White House that sent our troops on these deployments and did not ask for our approval publicly criticized us for putting more money into the defense budget than what the service chiefs had asked for. Amazing, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, $19 billion to pay for these deployments. This Congress, in a bipartisan way trying to reimburse the Department of Defense for those deployments, gets criticized because we are putting pork that was not asked for back into defense budget. Because of these shortcomings, Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis today. We have slipped the modernization of our military systems to the next administration. The service chiefs have now publicly come on the record, and in a hearing last week before the House and the week before before the Senate, they said this year they are $19 billion short just to meet their needs. Now, the President has given some great speeches over the past 30 days. We heard the Secretary of Defense give a speech where he said the White House had now agreed with the Congress that the threat of external missile proliferation is now real and it is here, and therefore they put hundreds of millions of dollars into the outyears budget for missile defense, something we have been saying for the past three years. The President gave a speech on cyber terrorism. He said we need to put more money in the budget to protect this country from those who would threaten to take out our smart systems, both our weapons systems and our information systems that control our quality of life. He gave another speech where he said we needed to spend more money against terrorism and for detection of use of weapons of mass destruction. But what he did not tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, is that his budget request for next year actually does not increase funding for any of those areas. The missile defense budget decreases by a significant amount over five years. The budget for antiterrorism does not increase the way it needs to, in spite of this Congress's leadership in that area; and the budget for cyber terrorism and information warfare likewise does not increase. In fact it stagnates and, I would argue, decreases, when the Defense Science Board three years ago told us we should be spending $3 billion more on the issue of information warfare to protect America from a cyber attack. Mr. Speaker, we are in a very unusual situation. We have an administration that has used our military more than any administration in this century, in this country's history. Mr. Speaker, 32 and soon to be 33 deployments in 7 to 8 years, versus 10 in 40 years. Yet, during that time the administration has continued to decrease the funding for the services, has paid for none of these deployments, has asked to take all of that money out of the backbone of our military budget and then has criticized the Congress for wanting to put more money back in, and goes around the world saying how nice and calm things are. Mr. Speaker, we need to be real. This is not an argument between Republicans and Democrats. In the House and the Senate, the defense battles have been won by Democrats and Republicans coming together to tell this administration that they have got it all wrong. And in this Congress, the single most important debate we will have is about the future of the support of our patriots. I started off my talk today by focusing on the patriots of 222 years ago. I end my talk today in talking about the patriots of 1999, young people around the world who are being asked to go from Bosnia to Haiti, from Haiti to Somalia, from Somalia to Macedonia. In the trips I have taken to meet with our young troops they talk about their pride in America and their pride in the service and they are the best in the world, but they also say, ``Mr. Congressman, can you please stop sending us from one deployment to the next? We need some time off with our families. We need some time off just to have some rest.'' We need to stop being deployed around the world, because while we have not done that for them, our morale has declined. That is why our retention rates are so low. That is why we do not have the staffing needs that we should have for the military. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this period of time is going to go down in history as the worst period of time for undermining our Nation's security in the history of America. In spite of the presence of our troops all around the world in all of these deployments today, I would argue the world is more unstable than in some cases it was during the Cold War. Russia has many internal problems: economic instability, massive proliferation that is in many cases totally uncontrollable. We have instances where China and North Korea have been caught sending technology to countries like North Korea. We know that Pakistan and India both got their technology from Russia and China. We know that Iran and Iraq have developed missile systems because of cooperation from those nations. And all of this instability is causing us to face increasing threats in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, we need to be real with the American people. This administration has not been real with the American people. They have painted a rosy picture. They have had the photo ops of the commander in chief walking down the White House lawn with the troops behind him. They have had the photo opportunity of the commander in chief on the decks of the carrier when it was dedicated. But that is not what supporting our troops is all about. It is about funding them. It is about asking for the dollars to support these deployments. It is about giving them the systems to protect their lives. Mr. Speaker, another example of an attempt to back-door the defense budget is the administration's backhanded effort to pay for the Wye River Agreement. The Wye River Agreement, which I applaud the administration for achieving, is important for security, and we need to understand the importance of that. But instead of coming to this Congress and asking us openly to support the funding for the Wye River Agreement, the administration has proposed and has informed the Congress that they will take an additional $230 million out of our defense budget for missile defense purposes to fund the Wye River Agreement, which has nothing to do with our defense budget. Mr. Speaker, how much longer will this continue? How much more will we tolerate the efforts of this administration to undermine the security of this country? Democrats and Republicans alike have been working together in this area to do the job that America needs. I urge my colleagues in this 106th Congress to pay attention, to work together as we have in the past to convince the administration that this must stop, that we must support our troops, that we must make sure that everyone understands that the reason we have a strong military is not just to deploy our troops around the world but to deter aggression. No Nation has ever been defeated because it was too strong, and we must understand that one of most important responsibilities outlined in the Constitution is the defense of the American people wherever they might be, at home or abroad. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the students of the outstanding schools in my Congressional District--Sugartown Elementary School, KD Markley Elementary School, Charlestown Elementary School, and East Goshen Elementary School. The fine students of these schools have contacted me to inform me of an issue which is important to them, to their schools, to their community and to our nation--they are fighting to save the Paoli Battlefield. The Paoli Battlefield, which is located in my Congressional District, remains one of the only historic sites from the Revolutionary War left untouched since 1777. This land was the site of the ``Paoli Massacre'' in which British troops led by Major General Grey attacked the American Army of Pennsylvania Regiments on the wooded hillside and two fields between what is now Sugartown Road and Warren Avenue. The ensuing battle resulted in at least 52 American deaths and 7 British fatalities. The British night-time bayonet charge was aided by the fact that Americans were silhouetted against the light of their campfires. Some American troops panicked and fled and general disorder spread throughout the American line. British dragoons, arriving on the field, shattered the American column and pursued retreating Americans as far as Sugartown Road. Only the more disciplined American soldiers escaped the original onslaught unscathed, but a following British assault completed the rout. The Paoli Massacre was part of the Revolutionary War's Philadelphia Campaign, a chapter of the war that witnessed the occupation of Philadelphia and the famed American encampment at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78. The first two American attempts to stop the British invasion that Fall were the Battle of Brandywine, September 11, 1777, and the unsuccessful Battle of the Clouds, September 16, 1777. The Paoli Massacre was part of the third effort to contain British General William Howe's advance on Philadelphia. In an effort to save the Paoli Battlefield, I will be introducing the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act--Preserve America's Treasures of the Revolution for Independence for Our Tomorrow. Passage of this legislation will forever insure that the sacrifice made by our nation's first veterans will be remembered. This legislation will also protect the Brandywine Battlefield. The Battle at Brandywine was the most significant battle of the Philadelphia campaign. My bill further memorializes this campaign by authorizing the Superintendent of Valley Forge National Historical Park to enter into an agreement with the Valley Forge Historical Society to build a museum which would house the world's largest collection of Revolutionary War artifacts and memorabilia, including the tent in which General Washington slept at Valley Forge. And so Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the outstanding young patriots of my district who have made their voices heard in the fight to preserve this piece of our nation's history. The students of these schools sent me almost five hundred letters, pictures, and banners with their plea for this body to ``Remember Paoli!''--this small piece of land that is so important to their communities. As a former school teacher and a father of five, I am heartened by their dedication and commitment to this cause. The future of America lies with our youth, and with youngsters like these, I am confident that America's future will be bright. I would like to congratulate these young patriots of my district, and thank them for taking part in this campaign to preserve the history of the Revolutionary War. I would also like to thank their teachers and parents who also sent me letters, and taught these students that their involvement could make a difference. I would like to include the letters of Melissa Clark, who is in the first grade at KDMarkley; Bonnie Hughes-Sobbi, mother of a fourth grader at KDMarkley; Bess McCadden who is in the fourth grade at Charlestown Elementary; and Catherine Wahl who is in the fourth grade at the Sugartown School for the record so that my colleagues can also appreciate them. January 6, 1999. Dear Sir: I am writing to you to ask you to save the Paoli Battlefield. We need to remember the men who who fought to make our country free. Please do not build houses on the Paoli Battlefield. Sincerely, Melissa Clark.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Alexander Koulakovsky and his company ``Nafta Sib'' which has undertaken an exciting new project in Russia. In September of 1998 at the beginning of the new school year, a traditional Christian School opened in Moscow. This school, which was built in one year, was funded by the company ``Nafta Sib,'' which also engages in several charities and projects aimed at restoring old churches, and preserving icons and religious artifacts. Mr. Koulakovsky is currently in the process of putting together a Board of Trustees for the Christian School which will provide financial support and assist in maintaining high standards of education. This new Christian School is the first since the communist revolution in 1917. Prior to the opening in September, the school would provide occasional lessons in a rented apartment. Two hundred and sixty students are now enrolled in the school, and the erection of the new building will provide the opportunity for one hundred and twenty more students to enroll in this outstanding educational program. The school has received all of the educational licenses required, and is permitted to conduct lessons in accordance with the state school programs. For the past two years, many graduates were accepted by the most prominent Russian universities. The students are also receiving religious instructions as part of their curriculum. The school has an in-house church which is named after martyr St. Pytor, the archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church and close advisor to the Russian Patriarch in the 1930s and was killed during the Stalin regime. Regular religious services are conducted for the students. This church is also the first one to be named after a martyr of this century and be recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church. I traveled to Russia last September, and visited this school on its opening day. I was impressed with the school's curriculum, and with the quality of the students who attended it. As a former school teacher and the father of five, I know that education is the key to the future. For Russia's democracy to succeed, they must look to tomorrow and educate a new generation of Russians in the tenets of freedom. I applaud Alexander Koulakovsky for schooling Russia's leaders of tomorrow and for taking steps to bring quality education and religious freedom to the children of Moscow.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the students of the outstanding schools in my Congressional District--Sugartown Elementary School, KD Markley Elementary School, Charlestown Elementary School, and East Goshen Elementary School. The fine students of these schools have contacted me to inform me of an issue which is important to them, to their schools, to their community and to our nation--they are fighting to save the Paoli Battlefield. The Paoli Battlefield, which is located in my Congressional District, remains one of the only historic sites from the Revolutionary War left untouched since 1777. This land was the site of the ``Paoli Massacre'' in which British troops led by Major General Grey attacked the American Army of Pennsylvania Regiments on the wooded hillside and two fields between what is now Sugartown Road and Warren Avenue. The ensuing battle resulted in at least 52 American deaths and 7 British fatalities. The British night-time bayonet charge was aided by the fact that Americans were silhouetted against the light of their campfires. Some American troops panicked and fled and general disorder spread throughout the American line. British dragoons, arriving on the field, shattered the American column and pursued retreating Americans as far as Sugartown Road. Only the more disciplined American soldiers escaped the original onslaught unscathed, but a following British assault completed the rout. The Paoli Massacre was part of the Revolutionary War's Philadelphia Campaign, a chapter of the war that witnessed the occupation of Philadelphia and the famed American encampment at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78. The first two American attempts to stop the British invasion that Fall were the Battle of Brandywine, September 11, 1777, and the unsuccessful Battle of the Clouds, September 16, 1777. The Paoli Massacre was part of the third effort to contain British General William Howe's advance on Philadelphia. In an effort to save the Paoli Battlefield, I will be introducing the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act--Preserve America's Treasures of the Revolution for Independence for Our Tomorrow. Passage of this legislation will forever insure that the sacrifice made by our nation's first veterans will be remembered. This legislation will also protect the Brandywine Battlefield. The Battle at Brandywine was the most significant battle of the Philadelphia campaign. My bill further memorializes this campaign by authorizing the Superintendent of Valley Forge National Historical Park to enter into an agreement with the Valley Forge Historical Society to build a museum which would house the world's largest collection of Revolutionary War artifacts and memorabilia, including the tent in which General Washington slept at Valley Forge. And so, Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the outstanding young patriots of my district who have made their voices heard in the fight to preserve this piece of our nation's history. The students of these schools sent me almost five hundred letters, pictures, and banners with their plea for this body to ``Remember Paoli!''--this small piece of land that is so important to their communities. As a former school teacher and a father of five, I am heartened by their dedication and commitment to this cause. The future of America lies with our youth, and with youngsters like these, I am confident that America's future will be bright. I would like to congratulate these young patriots of my district, and thank them for taking part in this campaign to preserve the history of the Revolutionary War. I would also like to thank their teachers and parents who also sent me letters, and taught these students that their involvement could make a difference. I would like to include the letters of Melissa Clark, who is in the first grade at KDMarkely; Bonnie Hughes-Sobbi, mother of a fourth grader at KDMarkely; Bess McCadden, who is in the fourth grade at Charlestown Elementary; and Catherine Wahl, who is in the fourth grade at the Sugartown School, for the record so that my colleagues can also appreciate them. January 6, 1998. Dear Sir, I am writing to you to ask you to save the Paoli Battlefield. We need to remember the men who fought to make our country free. Please do not build houses on the Paoli Battlefield. Sincerely, Melissa Clark. January 5, 1999. Dear Representative Weldon: It has come to my attention, through my daughter's fourth grade class, that a part of our local history is being threatened by ``progress''. The site to which I refer is the Paoli Battlefield, located in Malvern, PA. Our children are being taught the importance of this site in their local history lessons and are also being taught to respect sites such as this for their intrinsic and irreplaceable value. We should be willing to support our lessons to our children by protecting the Paoli Battlefield from development. Thank you for your efforts in support of protecting this site, hopefully with permanent registry as an historic landmark. I will be happy to lend any assistance, as I am able, to further this cause. Very truly yours, Bonnie Hughes-Sabbi. December 22, 1998. Dear Representative Weldon: People know that it is wrong to build something on historical land. Valley Forge Park is part of our history, so we should also save the site of the Paoli Massacre Battlefield. My classmates and I have been studying it, and I think that building things on historical land is destructive. If General Anthony Wayne were here, he would do all he could to stop people from building something on the ground of our past. Don't let people build on the site of the Paoli Massacre Battlefield! Please save it! Sincerely, Bess McCadden. December 11, 1998. Dear Mr. Weldon: I think that you should stop this craziness because it should remain a burial ground. Paoli isn't very popular except for the Paoli Battlefield. That puts us in the battlefield book. It is a historical sight [sic]. It's disrespectful to know down a memorial battlefield. One of my ancestors was buried at that battlefield there so I care very deeply about this battlefield. Catherine Wahl.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Committee on the Judiciary, I am not an attorney, and I am not sure that the President's actions warrant his removal from office. But I am absolutely unequivocally convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this President lied under oath, lied in a court proceeding and lied to a grand jury, and that requires us to take action. Eighty percent of the American people and many of my colleagues on that side have acknowledged the President lied under oath and in fact have said he committed perjury. In fact, this administration has convicted two women, two Federal employees who are serving jail time today for the exact same offense that the President has been charged with, exact same offense, no different. We must take action. The Constitution gives us one option in taking action. That option is basically to move on the impeachment, to charge the President. The other body can take the appropriate action of what the punishment would be. I would hope that the other body does not prolong the process. I would hope the other body would consider the censure resolution. That is the appropriate response here. But we must do our response, and that is to charge the President and let the Senate take its action, and hopefully they will end this process quickly. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this sad day of our nation's history with a heavy heart. Today, we as Members of the House of Representatives face a decision that I, in all of my twelve years of serving this body, never thought that I would have to face--inarguably the most important decision of our political lives. We must decide whether or not we are going to impeach the President of the United States. Like my colleagues, I have not come to my decision lightly. After much thought, deliberation, review of testimony and evidence, and conference with my colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that I must represent my constituency by voting to impeach our President, William Jefferson Clinton. I am joining my colleagues of the House in what I think will be, and hope will be, a bipartisan vote, as we make our public statement of rebuke. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my intention to vote for the first two articles of impeachment because like 80% of the people of our nation, I believe that the President lied under oath. These facts are not in dispute, and yet the President refuses to admit this. He must admit to what the American people already know. The fact of the matter is that the President lied. He took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and he broke that promise. But more importantly, he broke a promise that he made to the American people to uphold the laws that are the strength and the backbone of our democracy. In order for democracy to succeed, our judicial system must be vigilant--people cannot lie under oath, regardless of their motivations. We cannot allow anyone to be above the law, and our laws cannot, and must not, be trivialized. The President's own Administration takes lying to a grand jury seriously, as one hundred and fifteen people are currently serving sentences for perjury in a federal court. Two of these very people are serving sentences of lying about adultery in a court proceeding. The basic tenet of our democracy is that we are a nation of laws, not of individuals. To allow the President to break the laws, which the American people have elected him to uphold, would weaken our system of government. We must send a strong message today--no one has the right, for any reason, to lie under oath. Our system of law is fair and just for everyone. The President has admitted that he misled the American people, and he is remorseful. But remorseful or not, he must accept the consequences of his actions. The Constitution provides us with our framework for dealing with this very unfortunate situation, and I am concerned about the Constitutional questions surrounding censure. I have come to the conclusion that the best course of action to rebuke the President is to vote in favor of impeachment. An article of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives is the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal process--not a final judgement of guilt, but a formal accusation of wrongdoing. There is no doubt in my mind that any other case where evidence existed that an American citizen had committed perjury would be indicted. The evidence exists, and I am voting to indict President Clinton. I am not convinced that the proper punishment for President Clinton's actions is removal from office, but that decision is not mine to make. Mr. Speaker, we have serious problems in the world, and it's extremely important that we end this process soon. In conclusion, it is time to vote today, and to move on. We must move on to working on the other important issues which face our nation, and to do that without distraction. And so it is with a heavy heart that I come to the floor today, but it is with a heart full of pride, and with hope for our future--because we are Representatives of the greatest country in the world. It is a country so great that the laws of our nation supersede individual circumstances. Our system can withstand political upheaval, and move on. Our system is bigger than you, and it is bigger than me. And it is bigger than our President, William Jefferson Clinton. He is not above the law.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman for allowing me this opportunity to speak, and I thank our ranking member for his leadership on defense issues. I rise in full and strong support of this measure. But I want to remind our colleagues that while we are here to state our support for the troops in words, we need much more than words in the current environment in this city. We are going through massive problems right now, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) have said over and over again. This is in fact our 27th deployment of our troops in 6 years. Each of these deployments has not been planned for, has not been budgeted for; and, therefore, we have had to take money out of modernization and quality of life to pay to put the troops in harm's way. And when our colleagues vote in favor of this amendment today, this measure, I would ask our colleagues to understand, this is not just a cheerleading session where we stand up and go, rah-rah, yeah for the troops. We need the funding to support these troops. We need to put the dollars on the table. Because when we send these bombers into Iraq, when we send these troops overseas, there are added costs that we do not have the money for. And while I stand here fully unequivocally supporting the deployment that is taking place today, I ask my colleagues to understand that they need to provide the support for the funding shortfalls that will continue in the next year. I also rise to say that, Mr. Speaker, this action I support today but it should have taken place a year ago. In fact, I would like to insert into the Record an article from the Washington Times where it was cited that at least on 6 occasions, beginning in November of 1997, the Secretary of State or other top administration officials sought to stop the U.N. inspector from moving on surprise inspections in Iraq. We actually over the past year have stopped the inspection teams. And now we are saying we must proceed forward very quickly. Mr. Speaker, I include the following articles: The interventions included at least six occasions, beginning in November 1997, in which Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright or other top administration officials sought--with success in each case but one--to persuade chief U.N. inspector Richard Butler to rescind orders for surprise searches for weapons of mass destruction or to remove a controversial inspector from Iraq. [From the Washington Times, Aug. 31, 1998] Ritter Gives Reason for Unscom's Plight--Says U.S. Has No Support vs. Saddam (By Joyce Howard Price) U.S. officials are afraid of a confrontation, with Saddam Hussein because they don't have international support to enforce access to suspected sites of weapons of mass destruction, says former U.N. weapons inspector William Scott Ritter. ``Since April . . . the United States has placed considerable pressure'' on the U.N. inspection team ``to hold off from carrying out inspections that could cause a confrontation with Iraq,'' he said yesterday on ABC's ``This Week.'' ``They are afraid of confrontation because of the ramifications,'' said the 37-year-old former Marine, who resigned last week as a weapons inspector. ``Confrontation with Iraq over inspections requires the United States and the Security Council to live up to their promise of enforcement . . . in [U.N.] Resolution 1154,'' he said, which calls for the ``severest consequences'' if Iraq does not allow access to suspected sites of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. ``Right now I believe that the United States does not want such confrontation because it believes it cannot muster the support for such confrontation,'' Mr. Ritter said. Saddam broke off cooperation Aug. 5 with weapons inspectors of the U.N. Special Commission, or Unscom. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, interviewed on TV talk shows yesterday, rejected Mr. Ritter's charges that Washington has gone soft. ``There's been no change of policy. . . . The record shows that the Clinton administration support for Unscom, the weapons inspectors, has been unparalleled,'' Mr. Richardson said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``There have been times where timing and tactics had to be discussed with [chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard] Butler. But the record shows . . . that because of U.S. action, inspectors like Scott Ritter were able to conduct their inspections,'' he said. On CNN's ``Late Edition,'' Mr. Richardson said ``timing and tactics'' were discussed as part of efforts to build international support in the Security Council for the U.S. position toward Iraq. ``At no time did we go to Butler and say, `Don't inspect, don't do this,' '' said Mr. Richardson. ``This is a U.N. decision. This is Butler's decision. He is very independent.'' Mr. Ritter said U.S. threats of military force earlier this year, when Iraq denied entrance to some sites and sent weapons inspectors packing, were not convincing--certainly not to Saddam. ``There are indications that this saber-rattling was nothing but a bluff to begin with, an effort to force Saddam to back down in the face of force,'' Mr. Ritter said on ABC. ``One of the problems is it has to be credible force in order for Saddam to flinch, and I think the Iraqis just called the bluff. I don't think there was ever the credible use of force or threat of use of force.'' Mr. Ritter said last week that at least six intrusive inspections had been stopped since November under pressure from Washington. Yesterday, he detailed two instances. ``There was a case in July when we actually deployed a team of 45 inspectors in the country to carry out inspections . . . to uncover how Iraq hides these weapons from the Special Commission, and the United States together with the United Kingdom intervened and conferred with Richard Butler to put pressure on him to cancel this inspection, despite the fact that we had a team in country, ready to go,'' Mr. Ritter said. ``In August, we had another team deployed, ready to go. We had very, very good sites, based upon sound intelligence, and once again . . . the United States, through intervention from both [Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright and [National Security Adviser] Sandy Berger, had the inspection first postponed for a matter of days and then canceled outright.'' Mr. Speaker, we must have a clear and consistent policy with Iraq and that policy means when Saddam does not comply we move in military, and I support this. But this action should have taken place months ago and this action requires our financial support as well as our verbal support.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full hour but I do want to take some time to discuss what I think is the real scandal in this city that we had better start to focus on a little more aggressively and coherently than we have done in the past. It seems as though all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the national media and the administration, has focused on the process currently unfolding in the Committee on the Judiciary. While I am not going to diminish the seriousness of that issue and the challenges it presents to us, I want to focus on a lesser publicized issue that I think presents for us a scandal that is going to last well into the next century. That scandal involves the underfunding of our national military and our national security apparatus. Today, Speaker Gingrich, along with the leadership of the defense committees in the House, held a press conference and signed the legislation that we are now sending up to the President to both authorize and appropriate our defense funds for the next fiscal year. We have completed our part of the process in laying out our defense funding strategy for the year 1999. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation was very tightly controlled by the budget numbers that we were given and does not really reflect the threats that we see emerging around the world and the commitments that we are involving our troops in around the world. In fact, Mr. Speaker, both bills, while the best that we could develop, were woefully inadequate in terms of funding our national security needs. This year, Mr. Speaker, we are into our 14th consecutive year of real defense cuts. Now when our colleagues talk about cutting the size of the Federal Government, they talk to their constituents and they talk to each other about what a great job we have done; we really have controlled spending. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the only real cuts that have occurred in a significant way in terms of workforce and in terms of budget size is in the area of national defense. In fact, if one compares what we are spending today versus what we spent, say, in the time of John Kennedy, it gives one a realistic view of where we are today. In the 1960s, when John Kennedy was president, it was a time of relative peace. It was after Korea and before Vietnam. We were spending 52 cents of every Federal tax dollar on the military, 9 percent of our country's gross national product. In this fiscal year, we are spending 2.8 percent of our country's gross national product and just 15 cents of the Federal tax dollar on the military. So we have gone, in this short period of time, from 52 cents of every dollar sent to Washington to 15 cents of every dollar sent to Washington to pay for national security. We have to understand the context in which that cut has occurred, because back when John Kennedy was the President, there was the draft. We took young people out of high school, we paid them next to nothing, they served their country for 2 years, some stayed on for a longer tenure but the pay and the quality of life costs for our troops were much different than they are today. Today we have an all-volunteer force. Our young people are well educated. Many are married. We have housing costs, health care costs. We have the cost of travel and transportation to move people around. So a much larger portion of that smaller defense spending goes for the quality of life of our troops, and we in the Congress are always going to meet their needs. In fact, in today's bill, we increased the pay raise for the military personnel by a half a percent above what the President requested in his budget. Even beyond the quality of life differential between the sixties and today, some other things have changed. While we have cut our defense budget for the 14th consecutive year and while we are now at an all time low, very close to what we were pre-World War II, some other things have happened. In the last 6 years, Mr. Speaker, our commander in chief, the President, has deployed our troops 26 times around the world. Currently, he is talking about another deployment over in the Balkans and in the region that is so unsettled today. Twenty-six deployments and none of these deployments were budgeted for or paid for. If one compares that to the previous 40 years, Mr. Speaker, our troops were only committed to 10 deployments. So 10 deployments in a 40-year time period; 26 in the last 6 years, since this President has been in office. None of those 26 deployments were paid for. Now, some might criticize my statement and say what about George Bush? He committed our troops to a very large operation in Desert Storm, which he did, to remove Saddam Hussein from the illegal occupation of Kuwait. But they must also remember that George Bush went out and convinced the allied nations of the world to help offset the costs of that deployment. In fact, we generated $53 billion in revenue to this country for an operation that cost us $52 billion. So Operation Desert Storm, in terms of dollars, did not cost the taxpayers any additional money. The 26 deployments in the last 6 years have cost us in excess of $15 billion. None of that was budgeted for prior to that deployment, and except for the actions of the Republican Congress the costs associated with those deployments were not paid for. So all of that money to pay for those deployments had to come out of an already decreasing defense budget. So to pay for those 26 deployments we in the Congress had to take money out of modernization, out of research, out of quality of life, so that our defense budget and our priorities were that much further hurt by the actions that this Congress was forced to take. On top of all of that, we have to look at what has been the most rapidly increasing part of our defense funding. Back in the 1960s when John Kennedy was president we did not spend any significant amount of money on what we today call environmental mitigation. In this year's defense budget, we will spend $11 billion on environmental mitigation. Mr. Speaker, when one takes the changes that have occurred over the past 30 years, the deployment rate that has escalated dramatically, we see that we are forced into an impossible situation of trying to meet additional threats with decreased and continuing diminishment of our resources available for national security. The President has made the case that there are no longer the same threats that we faced when we were in the Cold War. I would argue that is not totally correct, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I would make the case that Russia is more destabilized today than at any point in time under Communism, when there was the tight control of a central government, when there was the rule of law, where there was a Soviet Army that was well paid and well cared for. Today we have economic chaos in Russia. We have generals and admirals being forced out of the military without being given their back pay, without being given housing, without being given the pensions that they have earned for all of these years; and in some cases, as General Alexander Lebed testified before my committee, are now involved in clandestine operations, selling off technology, chemical, biological, and perhaps even nuclear technology, to those rogue nations and states that will pay the right fee to get those secrets that Russia has within its control. So I would make the case, Mr. Speaker, that while the threat may be different today, it is actually in some cases much worse than what it was during the Cold War, because we all to realize, Mr. Speaker, that while we have seen some reduction in Russia's strategic offensive nuclear forces, Russia still has tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. They still have thousands of long-range ICBMs that can be launched from submarines or from mobile launchers inside of Russia. Those long-term, long range ICBMs may, in fact, be subjected to the concerns relative to the instability in the Russian military. It was just 3 years ago, in January of 1995, because of the degradation of Russia's internal intelligence monitoring capability, that even though Russia had been forewarned of a rocket launch by the Norwegians right next door to Russia, when that rocket launch occurred Russia mistook that for an attack by a U.S. submarine against Russia itself. As has been documented time and again, in the public media, in this country and around the world, Russia then for the first time ever, that we know of, activated its nuclear response which was aimed against the U.S., which meant that they had approximately 20 to 25 minutes to respond to a weather rocket being launched by Norway that they had been warned of earlier. With a matter of minutes left, Boris Yeltsin overruled the two commanding officers who, along with him, control the system that controls the response of the ICBMs from Russia, at that time Defense Minister Grachev of Russia and General Klesnikov. He called off that nuclear response, which would have been an attack on our country, of a multistage rocket that was launched by Norway for weather sampling purposes. These are the kinds of risks that we now face, Mr. Speaker, that were not a concern back in the days of the Cold War. We face the concerns brought to us by General Alexander Lebed last year when he told me in a face-to-face meeting that as Yeltsin's chief defense advisor several years prior, when he was asked to account for 132 suitcase-sized nuclear weapons, small atomic demolition munitions, he could only account for 48. He had no idea where the other 70 or 80 devices were, whether they were safe, whether they were secure, or, in fact, whether or not these devices had been sold or maybe, in fact, were on the world market available to be sold internationally. The point is that the instability in Russia today is cause for us in this country to be alarmed. Look at some of the evidence of what has occurred over this past year. We said last year that we thought the Russians, some of the Russian institutes that were so desperate for hard cash may, in fact, be cooperating with nations like Iran and Iraq to build next generation weapons systems. We were told by the Intelligence Community not to worry, that is not happening. That Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea would not have these kinds of technologies that threaten this country for decades, for years, so for us not to worry. We have time to prepare. It was last August when the leader of Israel Mr. Netanyahu challenged the U.S. by saying publicly that Israel had evidence that Russia had entered into secret arrangements and deals with their space agency and the Iranians to help Iran build a medium-range missile. We in the Congress responded to that. In fact, I introduced legislation which eventually passed, in spite of the administration's opposition, to give us short-term capability to protect our troops in the Middle East, to protect our allies like Israel and Kuwait, Bahrain, and the other Gulf countries, Egypt and Jordan and so forth. As late as February of this year, the Assistant Secretary of Defense wrote me a three-page letter and said, Congressman Weldon, your fears are unfounded. We will not see the Iranians deploy a medium-range missile for at least 2 years, and probably even longer. July 22 came, Mr. Speaker, and the world saw Iran launch a medium- range missile, the Shahab-3. This missile, which appeared years earlier than what we were told by this administration, this capability would, in fact, be within the range and capability of Iran, was tested. We now assume it is deployed, which means that today, tomorrow, and for the next 12 to 18 months, the 25,000 troops that we have stationed in the Middle East, all of Israel, and all of our allies in the Middle East are at risk because we do not have the capability to defend those individuals against that system that Iran now has which they acquired with the help of Russian agencies and entities. That is why this Congress voted overwhelmingly in the House with 400 votes, in the Senate with 96 votes, to force the administration to impose sanctions on the Russians for cooperating with the Iranians in terms of that technology. This was a threat that we did not see, that we did not feel, and did not realize just 1 and 2, 3 short years ago. Today it is reality. Then we saw North Korea, Mr. Speaker, at the end of August, on August 31, take a step that none of us thought would occur, certainly not in this decade, in this century. And that action was to fire a three-stage rocket, which we were not even sure that North Korea had the technical capability to deploy, to fire a three-stage rocket across the mainland of Japan. Now, the trouble with that three-stage rocket, known as a Taepodong 1 system, is that this capability, when one does the mathematical calculations to show the potential range of that system, now shows that North Korea has a system that can hit the outer fringes of Alaska and Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, this is unheard of. We always knew that Russia had long- range ICBMs. We even knew that China had long-range ICBMs. Now we face the very difficult prospect that North Korea has tested a system which begins to touch the outer reaches of the 50 United States. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have no systems or capability today to defend this Nation against that threat. We heard the statements by General Lebed about small atomic demolition munitions. We know the increasing threat being posed by weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons. We have seen, as I reported 2 months ago on the floor of this House, 37 violations of international arms control agreements by Russia and China in the last 6 years alone. Now, this administration claims that we can cut the Fed spending because they can rely on our arms control agreements to control proliferation. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this administration has the most abysmal record on arms control of any administration in this century. Of those 37 violations that I put in the record 2 months ago, this administration only imposed sanctions three times. In each of those three cases, they waived the sanctions. We saw the Chinese sending M-11 missiles to Pakistan. We saw the Chinese sending ring magnets for Pakistan's nuclear program. We saw the Chinese sending special furnaces for Pakistan's nuclear program, and we did not take the appropriate steps to stop it. We saw the Russians transferring accelerometers and gyroscopes to Iraq. In fact, we saw it happen three times. We saw the Russians transferring technology to Iran for their medium- range missile. In fact, we saw it numerous times. And we have seen evidence, Mr. Speaker, of the transfer of chemical and biological technology to rogue nations and rogue states that now threatens our security and the security of our allies around the world. So the problem we have, Mr. Speaker, is that while this administration has cut defense spending dramatically to the point now where we are facing a situation much like the 1970s, they have also not enforced the very arms control agreements that they maintain are the heart of their ability to guarantee stability around the world. So we have been hit, in effect, by a double whammy. We have been hit by a lack of arms control enforcement, by a policy of proliferation that we have not controlled, that this Congress has acknowledged with its votes, coupled with a dramatic series of cuts in our defense spending. Now, how serious are these cuts, Mr. Speaker? Well, we have some wings of our Air Force capability where we have up to one-third of our fighter aircraft that cannot fly. We have to use one-third of the airplanes to cannibalize the parts to keep the other two-thirds flying. A few short months ago we had to ground our nationwide fleet of Huey helicopters because of lack of resources. We are asking our marines and our Navy personnel to fly the CH-46 helicopter until it is 55 years old. This helicopter was built during the Vietnam war, but because we had to pay for all of these deployments that this President got us into, we had to shift the money away from buying new helicopters to pay for those deployments, and more and more of our soldiers and sailors and marines are being subjected to increased threats because of the age of these aircraft, because of the age of these systems. The Joint Chiefs now, after 4 years of telling the Republican Congress we do not need this extra funding, have finally awakened, and just last week in the Senate the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the service chiefs each came in and said, we were wrong, we need more money. Our backs are against the wall. The troops are hurting. Morale is down. We have got the lowest retention rate in the last 20 years in terms of Navy pilots and Air Force pilots. We cannot pay them enough money to stay in to man these missions that this President wants to put our troops into harm's way with. Mr. Speaker, this is the real scandal in Washington, and this is where the American people need to focus their attention. The world is not all that safe. There are attempts to move weapons of mass destruction around the world. There are nations building medium- and long-range missile systems today. In fact, we have intelligence evidence not just showing North Korea, not just Iran and Iraq, but Syria and Libya and other nations that are desperately trying to get a capability to ultimately harm the U.S. and our allies. How could we be surprised in May of this year when India and Pakistan started to sabre rattle? One set off a nuclear detonation, and the other did. We saw that technology flowing there, and we did not stop it. But when it occurred, we raised our voices and said, how can these two nations be threatening each other in such a civilized world? Because of the insecurity that is now occurring around the world by the continual decline in our defense capability, coupled with the lack of enforcement of arms control regimes. Now, Mr. Speaker, most of my colleagues know that I am not advocating massive increases in defense spending. In fact, I was one of the only Members on my side that continuously opposed the B-2 bomber, not because I do not like the stealth technology, but because I felt we could not afford it. I have opposed weapons systems. I have criticized this administration for trying to do too much. But, Mr. Speaker, we are now between a rock and a hard place. As we approach the end of this century, we are facing a colossal train wreck. We have a ton of new weapons systems that need to be built to replace older systems that we cannot fund. The Navy wants a new aircraft carrier. That is a $6 billion price tag. They want new attack submarines. They want new surface ships. The Marine Corps wants the V-22 Osprey to replace the CH-46 helicopter. The Army wants the Comanche helicopter. The Army wants to digitize its battlefield. They want the Crusader, and all four services want new tactical aviation, want new fighter planes, the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter and the FA-18E/F. If we take that one area alone of tactical aviation, and if we proceed, as this administration wants us to do, to buy all three systems, the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated in congressional hearings to us that it would cost us between $14 billion and $16 billion a year to fund those three programs. Mr. Speaker, this year we are spending about $2.5 to $3 billion on tactical aviation. How in the world are we going to fund $14 billion to $16 billion 5 years down the road? The answer is we cannot. Mr. Speaker, my prediction is that in the next century, in the first decade, we will look back on this 8-year period as the worst period of time in undermining our national security. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a strong military to necessarily fight wars, but rather to deter aggression. No Nation in the world has ever fallen because it was too strong. When a Nation is strong, despots and tyrants do not think about challenging them. People like Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini, Muammar Gadhafi think twice when they know a Nation is strong and there is a price to pay for actions they take. When a nation begins to weaken itself militarily, when we cannot handle the level of our commitments around the world, when we do not enforce arms control regimes that control proliferation, that is when security becomes a major problem. That is what we are approaching today, Mr. Speaker. We are approaching a situation today where we cannot meet the demands that are being placed on our troops. When I traveled to Somalia a few years ago and talked to our troops, the one thing that those young Marines said to us was, you know, Congressman, we will go any place any time we are asked by our country, but we cannot keep having these back-to-back deployments. You send us from Haiti to Somalia, from Somalia to Bosnia. When do we get home to see our families? When do we get home to see our loved ones? Mr. Speaker, morale in our services is taking a nose-dive. That is not a front page story in the Washington Post. It is not the lead editorial in The New York Times. It is not even the lead story in the L.A. Times. But, Mr. Speaker, it is real. We are facing a situation today that we are going to pay the price for. Increasing deployments, decreasing dollars, increasing costs for quality of life, lack of commitment for the resources necessary, and a world that is increasingly more troublesome in terms of threats. Now, we do not just need to restrengthen our military, but that is, in fact, a top priority. We need to reinforce our commitment to enforce arms control regimes; to make sure that nations do not send their technology to rogue operatives. Now, I am not saying we have to embarrass the Russians or embarrass the Chinese. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have been to Russia 16 times, and last year I led two delegations to China. I formed and chair the interparliamentary relationship with the Russian Duma. I do not want to recreate the Cold War. But in dealing with Russia and China, it is not just the engagement espoused by this administration, rather it is what I call the need for us to have disciplined engagement. When we deal with the Russians, they must understand we want to help stabilize their country economically, socially and politically, but we also want them to understand that, as a civilized nation in the 21st Century, they cannot allow technology to be sold to rogue nations, to rogue operatives. When we deal with China and engage them economically, they must understand that we are going to call into question their lack of control of sensitive technologies that they sell abroad. That is what this administration has not been doing well. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this administration when they come and ask this body, as they have, to replenish the IMF with money to help Russia stabilize itself. But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to make some clear differences between what this administration wants to do and what I think is necessary. Many of my colleagues in this body oppose helping Russia during this time of economic turmoil. I would say we have no choice. Because if we do not help Russia stabilize itself, I can tell my colleagues where they are going to turn, they are going to turn to those middle eastern countries, those Islamic nations who have the dollars, who have the hard currency to buy the kinds of technology that Russia has to offer, whether it is chemical, biological or nuclear; to buy the weapon systems that Russia has to sell. We need to have Russia understand that we want to constructively engage in a disciplined way our Russian friends. In fact, that is why, Mr. Speaker, I went to Moscow the first week of September. I met with the factions in the State Duma. In fact, I negotiated, with some of my friends, a series of eight principles that I think should be the conditions upon which we approve additional funding for Russia through the IMF. Those principles deal with simple facts, Mr. Speaker, and the irony is I came back to Washington with agreement on the part of the Russian Duma. Now, Mr. Speaker, this administration has complained that the Duma in Russia has been the reason why the economic reforms have not gone forward, and that is because this administration has totally relied on a one-on-one relationship between our President and President Yeltsin. In fact, we have not established the kind of outreach to those other power centers in Russia that need to be addressed and need to be consulted. Well, that is what I did, working with my colleagues in the interparliamentary dialogue. We negotiated a series of principles that I think lay the foundation for a new relationship with Russia. The interesting point, Mr. Speaker, is that today, while many of my colleagues in the Congress oppose IMF funding, interestingly enough, so does the Russian Duma oppose IMF funding. Now, why does the Russian Duma oppose additional American money and western money going into Russia? Because their perception is that we are reinforcing corrupt institutions, that are basically Boris Yeltsin's institutions in Moscow, that have wasted hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, as has been documented by both the IMF, by our own auditing entities in this country, and even by the internal Russian auditing agencies. So the Duma says, why should we support more money coming into our country in the form of loans when we are going to be stuck with the bill, and when those loans are going to simply bail out corrupt institutions that have not helped create a middle class in Russia. So the Duma is not stupid. They do not want more money coming into Russia, because they have seen where the money has gone up until now. It has gone down a hole. In fact, much of it has ended up in Swiss bank accounts, in U.S. real estate investments, by corrupt Moscow-based institutions that have not been thinking about the welfare and the needs of the Russian people and the Russian middle class. Now, there are some things the Duma has to do. They need to implement reforms. But they will not do it with Boris Yeltsin and they will not do it for President Clinton, because they see their policies as having failed. What, then, did we agree to? Mr. Speaker, first of all, we agree, this was on the part of the Russian Duma and the U.S. Congress representatives, that any additional IMF funding, any additional World Bank funding, any additional funds from the U.S. Government must first of all be preceded by the reforms necessary and called for by the IMF and by President Clinton. That means stable tax systems, that means aggressive tax collection, that means privatization of land, that means structural reform of Russia's economy. And the Duma agrees with that principle. The second principle, Mr. Speaker, was that the regions that have taken steps to implement reforms should be given proper recognition by the Moscow-based institutions where they, in fact, are taking steps to privatize the land, to stabilize the economy, and to make programs available for middle income people in Russia. In fact, this is one of the top priorities in Russia. And coupled with this is their initiative to begin the first housing mortgage financing system in Russia, a program I have been working on for the last 14 months, set up by my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Charles Taylor), one of our successful bankers in the Congress. The third principle is that there should be a new commission established, made up of Members of the U.S. Congress and the Russian Duma. This commission would monitor every dollar of money going into Russia to make sure the money is going for the intended purpose for which the money was allocated. There currently does not exist that kind of oversight, where we can have access to see where these dollars are ending up. And if we had had that, perhaps we would not have seen the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars from the IMF go into corrupt hands in Russia. Another principle, Mr. Speaker, is to force the IMF to reform itself; to suggest to the IMF board that it should convene an international blue ribbon task force to make specific recommendations to the IMF board about structural reforms that are necessary to deal with world economic problems like Russia is experiencing today, something that everyone agrees with. The IMF needs to reform itself and the way it doles out its dollars and its credits. Another principle agreed to by the Duma, Mr. Speaker, was to have a full accounting of the IMF and World Bank dollars and U.S. dollars that have already gone into Russia; to establish an appropriate auditing mechanism to see where those dollars went. And once that auditing was done, to make sure that no additional dollars from the IMF, the World Bank, or the U.S. Government went back to those corrupt institutions that took that money previously and wasted it. Now, that seems like it is common sense, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the Russian Duma felt this was so significant and such a high priority; that no additional dollars would go into corrupt institutions, in Moscow or anyplace else in Russia. Another initiative, Mr. Speaker, would have American business leaders making themselves available voluntarily to work with large corporate industries in Russia to assist them with their own corporate problems, whether they be management, fiscal discipline, marketing, whatever the problems would be, as a kind of mentoring relationship between American corporate leaders and Russian corporate leaders; to give them the kind of experiences that our corporate leaders have had such success with in this country and to be able to apply them in Russia. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, we agreed that we should establish the parameters for a new one-shot initiative to bring up to 15,000 college Russian students, undergraduate and graduate, into America to attend American business economic and finance schools; to get undergraduate and graduate degrees in the principles of our free market system so they can become the next generation of business leaders in Russia's free markets. The stipulation that would be required of each of these students is that they would come to America, but, when completing their degree, must go back to Russia to live and to work and not be able to stay in this country; to create a new generation of business leaders to help Russia move into the 21st Century in terms of a free capitalist system. So, Mr. Speaker, our point is a simple one. We want to stabilize Russia, just as we want to help China stabilize itself, but we must do it with no blinders on our eyes. When Russia violates agreements, we must call them on those violations. And when China does the same, we must call them. But in the end, Mr. Speaker, we must also be prepared. We must have a military capable of handling any situation. Listening to the chiefs testify before the Senate last week troubled me greatly, because the chairman of the joint chiefs and the service chiefs, who are now beginning to write to us about their shortfalls, are saying they are desperately close to not being able to meet the needs that they may be asked to respond to by the Commander-in-Chief of this country, whoever it might be. Mr. Speaker, that is the real scandal in America, a scandal that needs to be addressed, a scandal that needs to be looked at. It is not screaming from the front pages of our newspapers, but when we talk to those military personnel serving our country, they tell us of the seriousness of this issue. I encourage, I implore my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to focus on the real scandal in America, not just today but as we approach the end of this session and into a new election cycle, and as we move into the next new session of Congress; that we look at national security in the context of what is occurring today around the world. The threats in the 21st Century are going to be different from the Cold War. Missile proliferation and missiles are the weapons of choice, followed closely by weapons of mass destruction, be they chemical, biological or nuclear, that could be brought into our homeland or into our allies' territories and set off as we saw in the World Trade Center, the Murrah bombing in Oklahoma City, or the Atlanta bombing at the Olympics. And the threats of the 21st Century are going to involve asymmetric warfare, the use of computers, and capabilities beyond our imagination to compromise our smart systems. If I am an adversary and want to take out America in the 21st Century, I am not just going to think about missiles and weapons of mass destruction, I am going to try to find ways to compromise our smart systems. Not just our missiles, that are all controlled by computers; not just our battlefield, which will be digitized in the 21st Century; but our quality of life systems, our electric grid system for our cities, our air traffic control system for our airplanes, our subway systems for our large metro transit authorities. These are the areas that we expect to be challenged in the 21st Century. And without the resources and the commitment, Mr. Speaker, this becomes the vulnerability of America in the 21st Century. I encourage and, again, I implore our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because this is a bipartisan issue. And in the past our successes in plussing up defense spending have all been bipartisan. It has been Democrats and Republicans working together in fighting a White House that has decimated our military's capability. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished leader from Pennsylvania for yielding, and I rise to pay my personal respects to my leader and my mentor for the past 14 years. I say 14 years, even though I am only in my 6th term, because if it were not for the gentleman that we are honoring tonight, I probably would not be here. Back in the mid 1980s when my colleagues in Delaware County suggested I consider running for Congress, I said, what does this entail? They said, we want you to go down to Washington and meet with this fellow named Joe McDade. Now, I had heard of Joe's name and his reputation, but I had not had the honor to meet him. I came to Washington and met with him. He gave me some very wise advice about campaigning and what it would take to win the seat, and while I did not win the seat that year I lost by 400 votes out of 249,000, I did come back the following year and, winning by 60,000, Joe took me under his wings. It was Joe McDade who got me a seat on the Committee on National Security because Joe was our point person on the committee on committees. And it was over the first few years in that committee that I saw Joe McDade as a leader, not just on behalf of Pennsylvania, and not just on behalf of national security, but a leader on behalf of this country. Without a doubt, Joe McDade has had on the Republican side as much impact on the security of our Nation and the ability of our troops to respond around the world as any other single Member, certainly in my lifetime. That reputation continues today, and it will be very difficult for anyone in the Republican Party to top. Working together with our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), Joe McDade and Jack Murtha formed a team that has been unbeatable in this institution. But, Mr. Speaker, as one looks to a person like Joe McDade, who not only was the key leader for our commonwealth in so many different areas, and not just his role on the Committee on National Security where he was a key leader for Members on both sides of the aisle, but as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said earlier, a leader for us in the Congress to make sure the integrity of this institution would be forever retained. I think the greatest legacy of Joe McDade is something we all strive for when we come here, and that is when we leave, what will people say about us? Now, we are all considered politicians, because that is our business. But I think we all seek to attain the moniker of statesman, and Joe, without a doubt, has achieved that title. He is truly a statesman, because in the 12 years I have been in Congress I have never heard Joe McDade utter one bad word about any other Member of this Congress, Republican or Democrat, irregardless of what that Member might have done. But likewise, in my 12 years in Congress, I have never heard any Member of this institution, in either party, utter any disparaging comments about the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). In fact, every time Joe McDade's name is discussed, it is always in the context of a gentleman, a leader, a friend, a true statesman; someone who has set the tone, and a role model for every future official who will serve in this great institution. I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), for being such a friend and role model for all of us.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I tend to agree with my colleague, that if talk in fact were the answer, we would have had every missile in the entire world, because of the rhetoric and the hot air that has come out of this administration on its commitment to missile defense. But the point is that as they did with the Israelis and the supporters of Israel, understand this very well, when President Clinton went before AIPAC's national convention in Washington 2 years ago, he pounded his fist on the podium and he said, we will never allow the people of Israel to be vulnerable to Russian Katushka rockets. He said to them, we will help you build the Nautilus program. What he did not tell the friends of Israel was that for the three previous years he had tried to zero out all the funding for the theater high energy laser program, which is what Nautilus is. And what he did not tell the friends of Israel was that in that fiscal year, the administration made no funding request to fund the Nautilus program. To this date, we have not received a funding request. As my friend knows, I had to go to AIPAC, and I had to say to them, how much money does Israel need to move this program forward? The dollar amount that we put in our defense bill 2 years ago was not requested by this administration, in spite of the President's rhetoric. It was provided by the folks at AIPAC who gave us the number to put in the bill to provide the dollar support for Israel. Now we have a request, a situation where they are saying we are going to help Japan. What about the $11 billion necessary to fund the Meads program which we have committed to with the Italians and Germans? What about the money necessary to fund Navy Upper Tier, Navy Area Wide? What about the funding necessary to deploy PAC 3, THAAD? What about the funding necessary to help Israel continue the Arrow program? Where is all that funding coming from when this administration has said they are going to take our current missile defense budget from $3.6 billion to $2.6 billion. You cannot do it. We need to take this message to the American people. The friends of Israel are aware of this rhetoric and they are on our side. But something is happening across America. I wanted to come over and I wanted to enter into the Record, if my colleague in fact will allow me, to put in the changing mood of the American people. Over the past 2 months there have been over 20 national newspapers who have put into the Record endorsements of the need for this country to very quickly deploy national and regional missile defense systems. I would like to, at this point in time, put into the Record comments from those 20 some odd newspapers, from all the major cities, from the Washington Times, the Savannah Morning News, the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Oklahoman, the Kansas City Star, the Boston Herald, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Detroit News, the Wisconsin State Journal, the New Republic, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Florida Times union, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Las Vegas Review Journal, the San Diego Union Tribune, the Indianapolis Star, the Arizona Republic, Providence Journal, the New York Post, the same arguments that we have been making that America is now beginning to listen to. It is time this administration stopped the rhetoric and started putting the muscle where it is needed, and that is to deploy very quickly the most highly effective theater and national missile defense systems that our money can buy. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the editorial comments to which I referred: America's Editorial Boards Support National Missile Defense The irony in all of this is that Israel could have a missile defense years before similar protection is afforded Americans . . . Good for the Israelis that they have a government determined to protect from a real and growing danger from abroad. But could someone please explain why Americans do not deserve as much? ``to hit a bullet with an arrow,'' the washington times, september 23, 1998 Unfortunately, it seems some lawmakers would prefer to put their faith--and America's safety--in arms-control agreements. They trust Baghdad and Pyongyang to keep their words more than they trust the ability of American scientists to devise a last-resort shield against hostile attacks. ``invitation to missiles,'' savannah morning news, september 12, 1998 So it's good to see Japanese officials wiping the mud from their eyes to say that while the object that whizzed over Japan was probably a missile, launching a satellite with similar sophisticated rocketry would have sent the same wake- up call: that no country is safe today from the very real threat of attack by missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction. ``the missile plot thickens,'' the wall street journal, september 10, 1998 Bold action is needed to counter Clinton's idle approach to defending the U.S. against a grave and growing threat. ``vulnerable and at risk,'' the daily oklahoman, september 8, 1998 Defenses against missiles for threatened American allies and our troops and installations overseas--and soon perhaps the nation itself--is the most important national security problem today. Everything that Congress can do to prod a head-in-the-sand administration must do so. ``missile defenses needed even more,'' boston herald, september 6, 1998 In fact, changing the policy goal from research to deployment--as soon as possible--will change the fundamental dynamics of the research. The threat is closing in faster than the response, and that's what must change. ``missile threat closing in fast,'' Kansas city star, september 5, 1998 Lawmakers should get the process rolling toward development of this very necessary defensive system. We certainly hope no bin laden type ever gets his hands on a ballistic missile, but it would be grievously wrong to relay on hope alone. ``in defense of defense,'' chicago sun-times, september 3, 1998 But the alternative is to leave America without any defense against enemy missile attack. In view of the Constitution's requirement that the government ``provide for the common defense,'' that wouldn't seem to be an option. ``north korea's wake up call,'' detroit news, september 2, 1998 In these days of suicidal attackers, holding American hostages to attack is even less defensible than before. Holding them hostage is, in fact, an invitation to attack. ``no defense allowed,'' washington times, september 2, 1998 The North Korean missile launch shows how quickly the world can grow more dangerous. The United States can't protect itself or its friends from threats posed by rogues like North Korea or international terrorists. How many wake-up calls will America's leaders get? ``missile defense needed,'' daily oklahoman, september 1, 1998 America, meanwhile, is defenseless against missile attack-- whether launched by Iraq, North Korea or another rogue state, or an independent operator like bin Laden. Either way the threat is real. ``missile madness,'' daily oklahoman, august 31, 1998 If the United States waits until a terrorist state has blackmail capability, it's too late. Congress should update the nation's intelligence system and protect its shore from unexpected attack. The United States won't win ``the war of the future'' by relying on weapons and strategies of the past. ``old strategy won't win new war,'' wisconsin state journal, august 27, 1998 Mr. Clinton's Administration has repeatedly recommended cuts in missile defense programs both in forward theaters and here at home. One way to clearly signal terrorists of America's new resolve would be to reverse this policy and restore missile defense funding to the level that existed before Mr. Clinton took office. ``a new terrorism policy?'' detroit news, august 25, 1998 As for the religion of deterrence: Who would like to bet the peace of the world and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on the rationality of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong II? So far their behavior has not seemed overly influenced by the theories of Thomas Schelling. The point is not that deterrence will not work. The point is that deterrence may not work. and there are now many more places, and inflamed places, where it may fail. . . So, then, are there land-based systems that belong in the security posture of the United States, as one of its many elements of defense and deterrence? In a madly proliferating world, the question must be asked. ``shields up,'' the new republic, august 17 and 24, 1998 It surely hasn't escaped the notice of this country's enemies that the U.S. has absolutely no defense against ballistic missile attack. The fact that the U.S. cannot shoot down a missile heading for an American city is a powerful and dangerous incentive for the bin Ladens of the world to acquire one. ``the next terrorism,'' the wall street journal, august 21, 1998 We may always have terrorists gunning for us. Congress needs to move ahead with a strategic missile defense and hardening U.S. defenses against biochemical weapons of mass destruction. ``embassy bombings,'' the cincinnati enquirer, august 13, 1998 Does anybody doubt that the terrorists in Tanzania and Kenya would have bombed a U.S. city, rather than obscure embassies, if they had the weaponry? In time, they may get the weapons. Americans need protection. ``Revive Star Wars,'' The Florida Times-Union, August 13, 1998 Missile technology is spreading more rapidly than predicted while the United States still has no missile defense whatever . . . The Iranian missile launch is another sobering warning: It's time to move faster on missile defense. ``Don't wait on defense system until it's too late,'' Kansas City Star, August 9, 1998 The fact that the United States has absolutely no defenses against ballistic missile attack is an unacceptably large negative incentive to this country's enemies. The way to deter them is not by signing more archaic arms-control agreements but by researching and deploying a national missile defense system as quickly as possible after the next president takes office. ``Early Warning,'' The Wall Street Journal, July 29, 1998 To be sure, a workable missile defense is better than nothing; it is one more protection, even if it is not total. And in developing such a system, scientists stand to make important technological breakthroughs with spin-offs in other fields. ``A New Argument for Missile Defense Deserves Serious Study,'' Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 29, 1998 The Iranian missile test has energized calls from the congressional leadership for immediate attention to building and deploying an anti-missile defense system to protect the United States from incoming warheads . . . President Clinton should heed the calls to develop an ABM system. ``Missile Threat Looms,'' Las Vegas Review-Journal, July 28, 1998 Recent events are challenging the Clinton Administration's relaxed assumptions about the need for a defense against ballistic missiles. And none too soon we think. ``Missile Defenses Deserve Urgent Priority,'' San Diego Union-Tribune, July 27, 1998 It's easier for some to worry about global warming that may or may not be resulting from human activity than it is to recognize the real threat of a missile crisis that could be prevented with a defense system along the lines Ronald Reagan urged on the nation so many years ago. ``Reagan Was Right,'' Daily Oklahoman, July 23, 1998 There are indications that the administration will dismiss the Rumsfeld report as politically motivated and continue with its go slow approach. Clinton's 1999 budget request calls for just under $1 billion for national missile defense . . . But Americans should take this report [from the Rumsfeld Commission] seriously and demand action from Congress. ``A Very Real Threat,'' The Indianapolis Star, July 23, 1998 The Clinton Administration has used the three-year-old [NIE] assessment by the CIA as an excuse to take its time developing a national missile defense. The new [Rumsfeld] report issued last week indicates that policy is foolhardy. Ronald Reagan was right about the need for this sort of pro- active defense, so that never again would America have to rely on nuclear attack weapons to deter a possible foe. ``Forcing the Issue,'' The Daily Oklahoman, July 22, 1998 The Clinton Administration has for too long thwarted research and development and delayed deployments of effective defenses against missile attack. The message of the Rumsfeld commission is that there will be consequences to pay continuing the status quo. Dangerous consequences for all of us. ``Unprotected Americans, Time for a Change,'' The Arizona Republic, July 20, 1998 The Rumsfeld panel's report is the latest sign that the United States will have to engage in more serious research, and make heavier investments, in anti-missile defenses that can help protect the public against menacing threats--and possibly even outright attacks--by rogue nations headed by irrational leaders. ``We still Need a Shield,'' Providence (Rhode Island) Journal, July 20, 1998 Enough is enough. We have in the Rumsfeld Commission report evidence aplenty that we are facing a serious national security threat. To continue to leave Americans vulnerable is unconscionable. ``Every Rogue His Missile,'' The Washington Times, July 20, 1998 The commission's report should revive debate over development of an anti-ballistic missile system. Perhaps some of the money that Congress now spends on pork-barrel projects the Pentagon neither wants nor requests could be used to enhance the nation's defense against the newest, and most unpredictable, members of the world's nuclear club. ``Renew Anti-Missile Debate,'' Wisconsin State Journal, July 20, 1998 The emerging threat from countries like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea makes it irresponsible for America not to do whatever it can as soon as it can to develop a shield against these terrifying weapons. ``The Final Frontier,'' New York Post, July 19, 1998 In this new age of emerging, virulently hostile nuclear powers, the United States must expeditiously negotiate with Russia an end to the ABM Treaty and deploy an anti-missile defense system. ``Naked America,'' Las Vegas Review Journal, July 17, 1998 Until this odd Administration, we thought a President's first duty was to the common defense. At least Congress is a co-equal branch of government. And armed with the substance of this [Rumsfeld] report, it has a stronger political case for the more urgent development of missile defenses. ``Zero Warning,'' Wall Street Journal, July 16, 1998 North Korea soon will have a missile that can reach Alaska and Hawaii; does anyone think this mad regime will show the military prudence of the Soviet Union? Saddam Hussein would have fired nuclear weapons at the anti-Iraq coalition if he had had them and some of his Scud missiles did get through; does anyone think the world has seen the last of Saddam's ilk? . . . Republicans must lead the nation to act against real danger and abandon the foolish consolation of treaties with nonexistent adversaries. ``It's Time for Missile Defense,'' The Boston Herald, July 12, 1998.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman raises a very interesting point. In fact, two hours ago I met with the senior leaders of the Israeli company building the Arrow program in my office as well as Israeli officials. They have had the success the gentleman refers to. In fact, this past week they had another success with the Arrow program. But it gets down to a basic philosophical debate in this city where the liberals want to tell us that arms control agreements and arms control regimes will provide the security protection we need. And many on our side, like myself and my colleague are saying, you need systems because you cannot always trust those other signatories to the arms control regimes. But this administration has failed in three different ways. First of all, they have not committed themselves to force the deployment of missile defense systems, partly because they want arms control agreements. This administration has the worst record in enforcement of arms control agreements in this century. Two months ago I did a floor speech where I documented 37 instances of arms control violations by Russia and China, where Russia and China sent technology to India, to Pakistan, to Iraq, to Iran, to Syria, Libya and North Korea. In those 37 instances, the administration imposed sanctions three times and then waived the sanctions in each of those cases. So it should be no surprise to us when India and Pakistan saber rattled each other. We saw China sending 11 missiles to Pakistan. We saw the ring magnets going to Pakistan for their nuclear program. We saw the Russians sending technology to India. Why should we then be surprised when these two countries are going at each other? We did nothing to stop that proliferation because this administration did not enforce the very arms control agreements that they maintain are the cornerstone of their security arrangements worldwide. So not only have they not funded missile defense, they have not even enforced the arms control agreements that they maintain are the basis of stability in the world, and they have created the false impression through their rhetoric that they really are concerned about having systems in place to provide protection. For all of those reasons, I think we are more vulnerable today, our allies are more vulnerable today than at any point in time in my lifetime.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will continue to yield, obviously, I am not authorized to divulge information from the select committee's investigation, but I can relate one piece of information that is in the public domain that I think points up exactly what the gentleman is referring to very clearly. Before 1996, China had no high-speed supercomputers. None. The only two countries that manufacture high-speed supercomputers are the U.S. and Japan. Japan's export policy has been very rigid and very tight. Up until 1996, so was ours. In 1996, things began to change. Export waivers began to be issued. Presidential waivers began to be issued. For whatever reason. The bottom line. Today, there is public information, on the record, that China has over 100 high-speed supercomputers, all of which were obtained from the U.S., which gives China, listen to this fact, more high-speed supercomputing capability than our entire Department of Defense, within 2 years. That is on the record, in public documents provided by this administration, in terms of what capability China has. Now, I am not against engaging China. In fact, I led two delegations there last year. I am for an engagement that is based on candor and strength, much like the engagement I think we should have with Russia. But facts are facts. They do not need over 100 high-speed supercomputers to do computational research. They need that kind of supercomputer research to design nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons, and to be able to do testing of nuclear systems, like we are doing with our ASCII Blue project. The 100 supercomputers that China has, I would maintain many of them are being used in developing new generations of weapons that China is, in fact, today working on. Prior to 1996, they had none. From 1996 until today they have in excess of 100. Again, more than the entire supercomputing capability of our Defense Department. If that is not an outrage, I do not know what is. And I thank my colleague for yielding.