Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to encourage our colleagues to support a new direction for America as outlined by both our President and the President of Russia, President Putin. Later on this month there will be a major energy summit in Houston, Texas, sponsored by the U.S. Energy Association. It will have the major energy players in our country and Russia come together to see ways we can cooperate. This follows on with recommendations that many in this body took in a document that we produced last fall entitled, ``A New Time, A New Beginning'' which one-third of the House and Senate joined together in supporting. One of our major tenets was that we should work together with Russia on their energy exploration and development. The reason this is so critically important is, obviously, America's dependence on Middle Eastern crude and the problem it causes us as evidenced by the current crisis in the Middle East. Russia has huge supplies of energy. We have a need; we have the technology. We should be working together. To that end, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of initiatives under way. I am circulating a memo in the House which I would encourage our colleagues to sign which is a joint statement that will be signed by both Members of the Congress, the House and the Senate, and members of the Duma and Federation Council. This document is followed through in a piece of legislation that I will introduce this week; and hopefully we can have that bill on the House floor before we adjourn at the end of September. In fact, my intent is to have the Duma ratify the document at the end of September. Eight hours later in Washington, the Congress will ratify the same document that calls for an expanded U.S.-Russian cooperation on energy. Mr. Speaker, that document and the joint statement are as follows: Joint Statement of the Members of the U.S. Congress and R.F. Federal Assembly on New Energy and Trade Cooperation Between Two Nations On behalf of the U.S. Congress and members of the Russian Federal Assembly we strongly support the recent decision by President Bush on June 6, 2002 to extend market status to the Russian economy. The granting of market status is one of many mutually beneficial measures our two governments should continue to pursue to promote long-term engagement and integration of Russia into the world economy. A key component of new engagement is mutual efforts to bring greater stability to world energy markets and to support sustained economic growth in Russia and the United States. Russia, with its vast oil and gas resources, a growing and diverse number of private sector companies, and a renewed commitment to investment by international energy companies, offers a unique opportunity to provide stability to an often volatile and insecure world energy market. We recognize that Russia and the U.S. can play a critical role in supporting energy development among the resource rich countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU). In the coming months we will revitalize the work of the Duma-Congress Study Group on energy policy and coordinate our efforts with our respective Parliaments as well as efforts now underway by the government agencies of the United States and Russia. Among the specific legislative and other measures we commit to pursue are: U.S. Congressional action to remove trade and economic barriers, including outdated laws no longer applicable to this New Time and New Beginning, such as the review provisions contained in the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of the 1974 Trade Act. Duma action to strengthen investment incentives in the Russian energy sector, such as full implementation of Production Sharing legislation, encouragement of regulatory reform, and other measures to attract international investment into the Russian energy sectors. Of specific concern are legislative and related policy measures to permit full implementation of projects on Sakhalin Island and in the Timan-Pechora region, all of which offer unique opportunities to increase world and U.S. supplies of petroleum. Regulatory and investment frameworks to expand Russia's oil and gas export capacities. Joint parliamentary support for Russia's ascension to the

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay special tribute to one of the finest public servants in the history of Pennsylvania politics. I was deeply saddened to learn that the Dean of the Pennsylvania Senate and my State's longest serving member, Senator Clarence Bell, passed away today at the age of 88. Senator Bell, a tireless advocate for his constituency and working families across Pennsylvania will be fondly remembered and sorely missed. Senator Bell served a total of 48 years in the Pennsylvania legislature. First serving in the Pennsylvania House Representatives in 1954, Clarence Bell was elected to serve as a Senator in 1961. Serving under 11 Governors, Senator Bell served as a member of the Appropriations, Rules, Transportation, State Government Committee, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee and most recently Chairman of the Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee and the chairman of the Joint Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. Senator Bell led the effort to construct the Commodore Barry Bridge spanning the Delaware river and connecting Pennsylvania and New Jersey. However, the Senator took the most pride in his unyielding desire to remain in touch with each of his constituents--he always referred to them as his ``neighbors''. The Senator personally signed each piece of mail answering his ``neighbors'' questions or addressing their concerns, congratulating them on their graduations or additions to their families. Throughout his career he also personally wrote a weekly newsletter. A man of incredible energy and determination, Senator Bell chaired a committee hearing as recent as this past Tuesday. Before his career as a politician in Harrisburg, Clarence Bell served for five-and-a-half years in active duty in World War II and was also a Major General in the Pennsylvania National Guard. Senator Bell served a total of 38 years in the military. Born in Upland, Pennsylvania in 1914, Senator Bell attended and graduated from Swarthmore College and Harvard Law School, Senator Bell's constituency in the 9th Senatorial District encompassed portions of Delaware and Chester Counties. Throughout his career Clarence Bell was a visible and accessible legislator that was responsive and approachable to those he served. A member of numerous professional and service organizations, Senator Bell was regularly recognized by these organizations and countless others that valued his input and leadership during his life as a public citizen. A dedicated husband, father of two children, grandfather and great- grandparent three times over, I call upon my colleagues to recognize the unselfish commitment to public service that Clarence Bell possessed. I would also like to extend my deepest sympathies to the Bell family, especially his wife Mary James, his friends, staff and the residents of the 9th Senatorial District. We have lost a true champion in Harrisburg, however, Pennsylvania is a better place thanks to the extraordinary life and wisdom of Clarence Bell.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in a difficult position, but very supportive of the Shays amendment, and let me explain why. First of all, as most of my colleagues certainly on this side know, I am a strong supporter of the labor movement in this country and I make no bones about it. I coauthored family medical leave with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) as a compromise many sessions ago and still support that legislation. I opposed NAFTA. I was one of the few Republicans that opposed my President on trade promotion authority. I supported Davis-Bacon so that our building trades have the kind of support that they need. Pension reform, minimum wage, I have been there and that is because I come from a blue collar background. Mr. Chairman, I am the youngest of nine kids. My father worked in a factory and was a member of the Textile Workers Union. My job is to try to strike a balance between what is best for business and what is best for the worker. In this case I have to come down not just on the side of the worker and the right to organize, but in support of our President to deal with the difficult issue of homeland security. I have looked at this amendment. I have the highest regard for the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), I might add, and she is an absolutely tireless worker for the rights of workers and I have the highest respect for her. But in this case the Shays amendment changes the Morella amendment by one particular issue. It calls for three levels of the process of a President before he can take adverse action, but he must certify that the effect on homeland security must be substantial and adverse. This just cannot be by whim that is put forth by someone in the White House or agency who was opposed to labor rights or the union representation of the workers. It must require our President to take decisive action, go beyond the fact that it is merely incompatible with national security, and must actually determine that the effect is substantial and adverse. So for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think the Shays amendment is a good amendment because it does in fact continue to protect workers, but it also gives the President that important capability that I think he deserves in the new Office of Homeland Security.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I think it is going to be very, very important as we move through the process of consolidating all these agencies together into one unified Homeland Security Department that the President of the United States has the ability to deal with the conflicting union agreements that he is going to have to try to bring together. I know the President of the United States is going to do everything he can to protect the rights of the workers. This amendment I think is extremely strange, because it basically is saying that we are going to take the right that the President of the United States has to suspend collective bargaining agreements for national security purposes and deny it to the President of the United States within the Department of Homeland Security. If this amendment passes, the President of the United States for national security reasons, and this is an authority that Democratic and Republican presidents have exercised authority rarely, and, when they have, they have done it appropriately. To deny it within the Department of Homeland Security to me does not make any sense.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Why do I rise in support of the amendment? Well, first of all, before coming to Congress, I worked for the insurance industry at the home office of the INA Cigna Corporation. I spent 18 years working on issues involving reinsurance and liability concerns for the American people. I understand where we do not have enough market capability where the government has to come in, and we in fact are doing that. This legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) offers is modeled after indemnification laws for the nuclear power industry and the commercial space launch industry, and they have operated successfully for decades. This is modeled after that. The second reason I come to the floor on this issue, and by the way the letter we sent out was signed by 23 Republican colleagues on this very issue not more than several weeks ago, was I worked very closely with this group. This is the NBC Working Group. This group is made up of all the companies in America that produce cutting-edge chemical, nuclear and biological technologies. In fact, I have hosted them twice on Capitol Hill in the Rayburn Building, where Members have had a chance to see technology associated with detection systems, with systems that are being designed on the cutting edge to assist us in the war on terrorism. They have a major concern, Mr. Chairman. They have a major concern relative to the ability of these kinds of companies to still continue to do the cutting-edge research necessary to give us the products that we need to have. This legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) offers, I think, is a fair compromise. It gives us an ability to protect them while still protecting the taxpayer. In fact, I think there is in fact a cap in here that can be set by the administration. So the administration has the final determination. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement for defense, my job is to work with our defense industrial base to make sure we are being given the cutting-edge technology to fight the war on terrorism. Working closely with these industry groups, working closely with the NBC Working Group, I am convinced that we need to have this kind of a modern approach. And so I rise in support of this legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Turner amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. I rise and will not oppose this motion to instruct as I did not in the committees, but I rise to basically let our colleagues understand what is at play here. Please do not feel assured because Members vote for this motion to instruct. It is not going to do what you are being led to think it will do. Now, I say that because I would not be in this body were it not for the first responders of this country. I grew up in a fire service family, became chief of my own department, went back and got a degree in fire protection and ran training programs for fire companies. In my home town, where I eventually became mayor and was the fire chief, had two of the largest refineries on the east coast and also had chemical plants and had the largest fire in America in 1975. I have traveled across the country as the founder and chairman of the Fire Caucus. I have been to the gentleman's State three times. I have been in all 50 States on every disaster and spoken to all major national fire groups. There is no fire department in America that gets its training from the National Guard. National Guardsmen, by their nature, are part-time soldiers. They are there to respond when requested. Do my colleagues know what the time is for a RAID team to be called to active duty in a disaster? Is it 10 minutes? Is it 1 hour? Twelve hours. You will not have a RAID team on a scene until twelve hours. Now, the Marine Corps Seabird team which was specifically stood up by the Congress for chemical, biological and nuclear incidents, has a mandate to be on the scene in four hours. We only have one of those, and they are specially trained full-time people. Please do not think that the National Guard is going to be your first responder. It will never be your first responder. Now, do we need to have the fire service trained by a group of National Guardsmen? No way. In the last 100 years every fire at an oil refinery, at a chemical plant, we do not call the National Guard in. The local fire and emergency responders are there. They understand what it takes to deal with weapons of mass destruction. I do not know one soldier that has ever been in a real life chemical incident. I do not know of any. But I can tell you there are hundreds of fire companies that respond to chemical fires every day in this country. How do we expect the National Guard to train the fire fighters when they have been doing this for 100 years? Mr. Speaker, I talk to all the fire service groups. There are 32,000 departments in the country. They are America's first responder. When an incident occurs, whether it is a chemical, biological or nuclear incident, the first responder on the scene will be a fire truck, a paramedic, a local police car or it will be some other type of emergency response. It will not be a National Guard team. They need to have the equipment and the preparation to deal with that incident in the first hour. This amendment does not do that. This amendment does not give them equipment. There is no fire department in America asking for a State RAID team. None. Or a civil response team. None. There is no national fire organization, not the IAFF, not the National Volunteer Council, not the NFPA, not the Arson Investigators, not the Fire Instructors, the seven major groups, none of them are asking for this. I am not saying it does not serve a purpose. Having a State National Guard civil response team can help. It can provide resources, it can provide access to Federal assets, but it is not going to be the end- all, cure-all; and if we think that, then we are only lying to ourselves, and more importantly, we are frustrating the first responders across the country. So I say to my colleagues when they vote for this measure, which I will vote for, understand that we are not solving the problem of local emergency responders. What they are asking for is more equipment. They know how to deal with chemical plant fires. They go in there every day. A National Guardsman who is a part-time person or even full-time does not fight chemical plant fires, does not know what it is like to go into an environment involving petro chemical situations. Firefighters do. Our focus in this country in the debate on homeland security needs to be reinforced by the domestic defender of this country, the first responder, and that is not the National Guard. It is the 1 million men and women in 32,000 organizations who every day respond to our disasters. The National Guard can back them up and support them. That is an important role, and I supported that role; but these teams are not going to be able to instantly respond to a terrorist incident. Twelve hours minimum for them to get activated. The first responder is the group that our focus should be on when we get to conference, just like this Congress allocated $100 million and then $400 million for the first responder; that is where the focus should be. So I say to my colleagues I will support this resolution. I applaud my colleague for his leadership. He is a great American and a great member of the committee; but I want my colleagues to understand, please do not think that this amendment and this motion to instruct is going to solve the problem of homeland security. Go talk to the local fire companies when we are done with this vote, go call them on the vote and say is it really a priority in southern Mississippi that they want a civil response team, and they will say what in the heck is a civil response team. I cannot even have a fire truck response because they do not have enough money; we do not have enough volunteers. That is where their focus needs to be, and they are the kind of things we should be doing to support them.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. I just want to clarify the point that somehow we do not care about the small rural towns in America. I was the fire chief of a town of 5,000 people, then the mayor, all volunteer, no pay; and in the gentleman's State of Mississippi, the bulk of his firefighters are volunteer, not paid anything. Eighty-five percent of the 32,000 departments in America are volunteer. The fact is they have been trained. We trained 125 of the largest cities, and we now have an active program to train as many departments as possible. In 1975, I had a chemical-carrying tanker make a U-turn at the Delaware River and ram an oil tanker at the dock in my town of 5,000 people. It burned out of control for 3 days and killed 29 people. It was the largest fire in America that year. The entire incident was handled with volunteers. It was not handled by the National Guard. That was a chemical incident. My colleague might call it not a weapon of mass destruction. Well, when we have a chemical-carrying tanker filled with vinyl acetate and polymers and it explodes with an oil tanker, that is a chemical incident. It may not be a terrorist incident, but we handled it. The point that I am trying to make is we should not be looking to the military to do what has been done every day by our fire service. They are the first responders. Give them the equipment. So that in Texas, where my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), is, we do not just have one team, we have teams all over the State who are properly prepared and equipped. Every department needs to have a capability. That is what they are asking for. They are asking for the tools and the resources in all 32,000 departments. That is what we should be advocating, not some artificial response, one in a State that can come in 12 hours later. We need to have this capability in every department, and this is why the program that we have established for grants with bipartisan support is the right way to go.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for putting together this piece of legislation. I fully support it and support the rule which is before us. I will have some comments about some of the amendments, but I wanted to stand up and set the stage as far as I am concerned for the legislation. I have been in this body for eight terms, Mr. Speaker, and during those eight terms, my number one priority has been to focus on emergency response locally. I have been to every disaster the country has had in the last 16 years: Loma Prieta, Northridge, Hurricane Andrew, Hugo, the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City, the World Trade Center in 1993, and I was at Ground Zero on September 13. I went there to try to get lessons that we could learn from the needs that we have to respond to both natural and manmade incidents of disaster. Those needs are, in fact, addressed by this bill, except perhaps in one case. The number one overriding need is coordination of intelligence. Five years ago we proposed in our defense bill the creation of a national data fusion center. Unfortunately, while this agency calls for one focus on coordinated intelligence, it does not give the teeth necessary to force the FBI and the CIA to become totally involved, and it is going to require additional work. But intelligence is in fact an overriding priority for us to detect emerging threats. The second, and perhaps most important, priority for our first responders is communication. We have no integrated system of communication for our first responders nationwide. Local fire and police cannot talk to each other. That is unacceptable. This legislation deals with that issue in a real way. The third major priority is support for the first responder. Mr. Speaker, the first responder on every disaster in this country, be it natural or manmade, will not be the National Guard, will not be the FEMA bureaucrat, will not be the Marine Corps Seabird team. The first responder in every case will be someone from the 32,000 fire, EMS, and law enforcement departments who will be there when that terrorism act occurs or when that disaster occurs. And as we develop this legislation, I would ask our colleagues to keep in mind that that should be our underlying principle; that we empower the first responder. They know what to do. They have been handling chemical plant fires and other disasters for years. Our job must be to empower them with the support they need. I thank our colleagues and urge support for this rule and for this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 342, 343 and 344, I was inadvertently detained. I would have voted ``nay'' on No. 342, and ``yea'' on Nos. 343 and 344.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I wore this bracelet for 9 months, since September 11. This bracelet was given me by the widow of Ray Downing, one of my best friends. Ray Downing took me through the World Trade Center in 1991 to give me lessons that I should learn to take back to this body regarding our ability to respond to terrorist incidents. Ray Downing was the Chief Rescue Officer for New York City on September 11. All of those 343 firefighters that were killed worked for Ray Downing. As people were rushing out of the building, Ray was going in with his friends. In fact, two of his sons are firefighters today with the New York City Fire Department. Ray Downing became a good friend of mine after 1991. And, in fact, he encourage me to introduce legislation in our defense bill, which I did in 1999, creating the Gilmore Commission. The Gilmore Commission published three documents long before 9-11 occurred. And so when my colleagues today talk about a rush to do something, I do not know where they have been. The Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Deutsch Commission, the Bremer Commission, all of this work was done over the past 8 years. Where have my colleagues been? When were they engaged with us? Ray Downing was engaged. Ray Downing made recommendations for one single Federal agency, and he made it over and over again in the Gilmore Commission document. It was Ray Downing who led us to understand that FEMA had to play a lead role and be a part of that agency, not some outside entity. It was Ray Downing who told us that communication was terrible in 1991, and we did not listen. We did not do anything up until now. It was Ray Downing who told us in these reports that our intelligence system was inadequate and it was Ray Downing who told us that cybersecurity and asymmetric sets required a new impetus, a new direction. Not once, not twice, but three times in three separate volumes that each of us in this body should have read. Mr. Chairman, I am here today because of Ray Downing. Ray Downing is an American hero. I wore his bracelet until we found his remains 40 days ago, through DNA evidence, because we could not find his body. When I went to the Ground Zero on September 13, his two sons were on their knees looking for their dad. Ray Downing told us what we should have done and we did not pay attention. This is no rush. I say it is about time we pay attention to the real heroes of this country, the domestic defenders who are in our 32,000 departments who have been telling us for 10 years what recommendations we should enact.

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

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Every fire organization opposes this amendment. Every one.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, in spite of my high respect for the author of the amendment. I agree with the gentleman on the support for FEMA and on his support for James Lee Witt, who is a good friend of mine. In fact, I talk to James Lee on a regular basis. I was with James on a number of those disasters, at the Murrah Building bombing, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Hugo, the Wildlands fires in California and Colorado, Loma Prieta, Northridge, and I was with Joe Allbaugh up at the World Trade Center in 1993. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I want all of my colleagues to listen, because 360 have joined with me and with my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in joining the Fire Caucus; and when you signed up to join the Fire Caucus, you made a commitment to your firefighters that you would work with them, that you would listen to them, because each of you in your districts have hundreds of firefighters, both paid and volunteer, who are the backbone of FEMA. Eighty-five percent of them are volunteer. Mr. Chairman, what did those firefighters say about this amendment? What are the fire fighting organizations saying? Let me read it into the Record, Mr. Chairman. Your constituents, when you belong to the Fire Caucus, and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who belong better listen, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, the International Fire Service Training Association, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the North American Fire Training Directors, are all unanimous. 1.2 million men and women in this country from 32,000 departments have said on the record, their first recommendation on their position paper for the Office of Homeland Security is the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be at the core of the Department of Homeland Security. So if you are a Member of the Fire Caucus and you support this amendment, you are slapping your firefighters across the face like they do not matter. I am going to remind them. So I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and support the firefighters, including the memory of my good friend Ray Downing.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are here tonight, I hope, to help the people who are our first responders. We were not here to help Brookings Institution. We are not here to help The Washington Post. We are not here to help the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. They are not out fighting fires. They are not out there dealing with disasters. They were not at the World Trade Center. The first responders of this country have spoken. All of their national associations met, and the date of this document, which I will insert in the record, this document is their combined position paper on the creation of the Office of Homeland Security. It is not me. It is every firearm service organization. Do we not respect them? Do you belong to the fire caucus? Are you listening to your firefighters? Your paid firefighters, your volunteers, your chiefs, because they thought this through. And what is their first recommendation? The Federal Emergency Management Agency which is tasked with emergency preparedness and response missions must be at the core of the Department of Homeland Security. Now, I do not care what the Committee on the Judiciary says. My friend from Texas (Mr. Smith) the Committee on the Judiciary, says this should be separate. Well, he ought to go back and talk to the firefighters in Texas because they do not want that. The fire service of this country, including all of those firefighters from Texas want the Office of Homeland Security to control FEMA and as a part of FEMA they want the U.S. fire administration. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe we are having this debate because this is not about a bunch of bureaucrats or politicians in Washington who are going to leave here and go respond to disasters. This is about the people who we are going to call upon and they have told us what they want in black and white. I will say it again, if we ignore what they want, I do not know what else we call it if it is not a slap across the face. It is a punch in the mouth because it is clearly stated what they want, and what we are saying is we do not care what you want. We do not care what you say. We do not care what you ask for. We do not care that you are the fire chief. We do not care that you are the firefighters. We are going to tell you from Washington inside the Beltway that we know better than you do because Brookings Institution told us how to organize this Department. Vote for the firefighters. Vote for this amendment, and vote down the Oberstar amendment. Fire Service Position Paper on the Proposed Department of Homeland Security Overview The American fire and emergency service was very encouraged when the President proposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, especially since it has long advocated the need for a central point-of-contact for terrorism preparedness. Much has changed in the post-September 11th world, but one thing has remained constant: America's fire service must have the adequate personnel, training, and equipment to respond to future emergency incidents, including terrorist attacks, hazardous materials and emergency medical services incidents, technical rescues and fires. These, plus many other challenges, are what makes the fire service America's all-hazards first responders. In developing a new department, Congress and the administration must consider a number of crucial issues or the department will fall short of meeting its desired intent: 1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is tasked with emergency preparedness and response missions, must be at the core of the Department of Homeland Security. This guiding principle must manifest itself during the planning and development of a new department. To achieve this end, it is imperative that the fire and emergency service has significant representation at the table throughout the entire planning process. 2. The definition of a ``first responder'' must be clearly articulated from the onset, placing heavy emphasis on response times and exposure to risks. First responders are fire and rescue, emergency medical services and law enforcement personnel. This definition will determine to a large extent the distribution of federal funds to local, state and federal response agencies. To this end, it is imperative that funding for training and equipment reach the local level where it is needed most. Moreover, existing federal programs benefiting local first responders must be preserved. Of particular importance to the fire service is the Assistance to Firefighters grant program, authorized at $900 million for fiscal year 2003. Congress needs to fully fund this program to bring all fire departments up to a baseline level of readiness and keep them there. Furthermore, fire departments should be able to apply these funds to all uses contained in the enabling legislation, including initiatives to hire career firefighters and to recruit and retain volunteer firefighters. Any new grant programs addressing terrorism must be inclusive of all first responders and authorized to deliver at least 90 percent of all funds to local public safety agencies. 3. Local first responders are this nation's primary defense against terrorism. Without sufficient staffing and training, the risk of injury or death increases dramatically. This is why fire departments--both volunteer and career--must have adequate staffing levels and continuous training. Training must consist of existing national programs that utilize first responders to train first responders, and take full advantage of state and regional training centers. Moreover, training and equipment must conform to nationally-recognized voluntary consensus standards where such standards exist. 4. The tragic events of September 11th have again demonstrated the importance of communications to public safety. This issue, itself, is not limited to on-scene communications, but encompasses a wide variety of needs including: access to intelligence data on possible terrorist threats/attacks, additional spectrum for interoperability of radio systems, and new technologies that can track the positions of firefighters inside buildings. These are some important components of the blueprint for a Department of Homeland Security. We ask for both Congress and the administration to give these concerns their every consideration as they lay the groundwork for a new federal agency. Firefighters have long recognized their role in protecting our nation against threats of all magnitude and will continue to serve on the front lines against future attacks. No matter what the final configuration of the complete national response plan to terrorism, the fire service and other first responders will always be first to arrive at the scene. They must be properly staffed, trained, and equipped in order to make a positive difference at the ``moment of truth.'' It is imperative that they be given the recognition and support needed to enhance their level of readiness and decrease their exposure to risks. Priorities assistance to firefighters grant program The Assistance to Firefighters grant program, commonly referred to as the FIRE Act program, is a model of efficiency. This can be attributed to the fact that it is a competitive grant program that provides direct support to local fire departments for basic fire fighting needs. Another important element of this grant program is that applications are peer-reviewed by fire service experts and grants are made on the basis of needs. Full community participation is assured by the matching grant requirement. It is crucial that the Assistance to Firefighters grant program remains separate and distinct from any new funding programs for first responders and that it be fully funded to the amounts authorized by law. This is because local fire and emergency services departments are the only organizations deployed for the purpose of saving lives and mitigating property and environmental damage caused by natural or manmade disasters. They are strategically located throughout America and staffed, trained and equipped to arrive on the scene within 4 to 6 minutes of notification of an incident. It is only the local government level that Federal funds intended for first responders can be assured of being utilized for the purposes intended. Furthermore, fire departments should be able to apply these funds to all uses contained in the enabling legislation, including initiatives to hire career firefighters and to recruit and retain volunteer firefighters. Providing support for the basics of fire fighting enhances all fire department responsibilities, including terrorism response. The history of the program to date: Authorized at $900 million through fiscal year 2004, Funded at $100 million for fiscal year 2001 and $360 million for fiscal year 2002, Almost 20,000 departments (of a total of 26,350) sought funding in each of the first 2 years in amounts approaching $3 billion each year. first responder grant program America's fire and emergency service stands strongly in support of the proposed $3.5 billion first responder grant program. The program is uniquely positioned to promote desperately needed coordination between neighboring jurisdictions and various first response agencies. To ensure that the money is wisely spent, several principles should be included in the program. First, at least 90 percent of the money must reach the local level. The funding should go through the States, but it should not stop there. While terrorism is an attack upon our Nation, every terrorist attack is first an attack upon a local community. The ability of our Nation to effectively combat terrorism is therefore inextricably intertwined with the ability of our local communities to respond to such attacks. Thus, a paramount job of the Federal Government is to provide adequate resources to local emergency response operations. Secondly, the State agencies that distribute this funding must include all first responder interests in the decision making process. Too often the fire service is left out of discussions at the State level. This overnight must be corrected. Thirdly, the States must expedite the funding to local governments. States are already undertaking needs assessments for terrorism preparedness, so within a limited amount of time the funding should be distributed to local governments. Finally, if a match from State and local governments is part of the requirement for receiving Federal funds, then State and local in-kind contributions should meet, in full, that requirement. weapons of mass destruction (wmd) training The current WMD fire fighter training program operated by the Office of Domestic Preparedness in the U.S. Department of Justice must be retained and strengthened. The organizations that currently provide specialized WMD training under this program posses invaluable expertise and experience, which should be preserved under any plan to reorganize federal training programs. It is important to utilize existing and established programs to ensure the right training reaches the right people. standardization of equipment The InterAgency Board for Equipment Standardization and InterOperability (IAB) is designed to establish and coordinate local, state, and federal standardization, interoperability, and responder safety to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from any incident by identifying requirements for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosives incident response equipment. In addition to radio communication systems, interoperability applies to a firefighter's protective gear and rescue equipment. For instance, air cylinders of one manufacturer of self contained breathing apparatus cannot be interchanged with those from another. The purpose of the IAB is to ensure standardized and compatible equipment for use by emergency response personnel. The First Responder grant program should require that the Standardized Equipment List (SEL) prepared by the IAB be utilized for the purchase of equipment made possible by the federal grant. safecom SAFECOM was formed as an e-government initiative with its purpose to improve wireless radio communications among and between federal agencies. Recently, the scope of SAFECOM was expanded to include state and local government and the lead agency was changed to FEMA. Since this is the primary federal initiative to improve wireless radio communications and interoperability for local fire and emergency medical services departments it is essential for the fire service to have representation on advisory committees to SAFECOM. Local public safety first responders must have appropriate input to federal SAFECOM decision makers. Conclusion Future events will require continuous review and evaluation of all federal programs designed to mitigate the potential impact of terrorist attacks and other major disasters. In highlighting the primary theme of this report, it is imperative that those agencies at the local level-- specifically the fire and emergency services, emergency medical services and law enforcement--serve a primary role in the development of all federal initiatives dealing with national homeland security initiatives.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my good friend that it was not his committee that created the fire grant program. It was this gentleman who brokered the fire grant program as an addition to the defense authorization bill. It was not the gentleman, it was not James Lee White who requested money for the firefighters which the gentleman is now so desperately saying is going to be taken away.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the outstanding work the gentleman's done, and I would remind him, when I first came to Congress, and the gentleman was in the majority, he had dismantled the U.S. Fire Administration. He had put the fire academy under the National Emergency Management Training Center so the firefighters in this country were totally at a loss because he had taken away everything that had stood for them.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this issue, but as my colleagues know, I devote a great deal of time to our national security and issues in emerging threats, and I have done so for the past 16 years. I heard some accusations made earlier that the problem with 9/11 was basically a domestic problem of the FBI. That is just not true, Mr. Chairman, and therefore, I rise to support this amendment. We think we have all the answers. Let me tell my colleagues something. I think back to NIE 95-19 where the intelligence community told us that the emerging threat to our security was 15 years away. We challenged that. We challenged that through an independent commission. It was not challenged through our intelligence committee. It was challenged through the Rumsfeld Commission, five members appointed by the Republican side and four Members appointed by the Democrat side, and what did they prove? They proved the intelligence community was wrong, that NIE 95-19 was politicized, that the threat was going to be much sooner than 15 years. The Rumsfeld Commission shared by Donald Rumsfeld led to the passage of H.R. 4, my bill on missile defense, which passed with bipartisan support and a veto-proof margin. What does that have to do with the issue at hand? As far back as 1997, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Armed Services proposed that we merge together 33 Federal classified systems into one integrated national operations and analysis center or national collaborative capability. We proposed it in writing. Two successive defense bills had language in those bills, telling the Defense Department, the CIA and the FBI to lead the other agencies, the NRO, the NSA, Commerce State Justice, DIA to have a collaborative capability to do massive data mining, using new software tools like Starlight and Spires to do analysis, including unclassified information. What would that have given us? Let me give my colleagues an example. When the CIA does analysis, Mr. Chairman, the CIA does an analysis but do not include open source information. In September of 2000, there was an interview in an Italian newspaper of an al Qaeda leader who publicly said that they were training Kamikaze pilots. If we would have had a data mining capability, that open source information would have been fused with the raw data of the immigration service, of the Customs Department, of the CIA and the FBI, and we would have seen the picture of what was about to occur, and this Congress called for that for three years. Why did we not do it? Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre said to me, Curt, I agree with you; the problem is the CIA and the FBI will not go along with it. He said, So I have a suggestion for you, why do you not bring over the CIA and the FBI counterparts to me and let us have a meeting in your office. So I did in 1999. The deputy director of the CIA and the deputy director of the FBI and John Hamre, deputy director of Defense, and John Hamre said I will pay the bill, I will foot the bill for this new data fusion center but the agencies have to go along. The CIA's response was we are doing CI 21, that is all we need and that was not what we were talking about. We were talking about an integrated capability of all 33 Federal classified systems. When General Downing just stepped down at the White House, the top adviser to President Bush, what did General Downing say? He said that his top priority when he was there was to build a national data fusion center. What did he say when he left? The FBI and the CIA did not want it. So General Downing left his job and walked away. The CIA is not above this institution. I have held myself back for too long because I have seen on the inside the agencies manipulating the process, and as someone who cares desperately about emerging threats, I am not satisfied that we in this body can do service to an investigation of our intelligence, and therefore, I come to the conclusion that the gentleman from Indiana's (Mr. Roemer) idea is a good one because we need to send a signal to the CIA and the FBI. They are not the end all and the cure-all. They do not determine the end result of analysis and they can fuse data and they can do it and vet information so that we do not affect an individual's civil liberties of people whose names may surface. In fact, every major defense company, Lockheed Martin, Northup- Grumman, Boeing, the Army at their LIWA Center down at Fort Belvoir, the Air Force, Navy and SPAWAR, special forces command down in Florida all have data fusion capabilities. They are all doing it now, but do my colleagues know who does not do it? The CIA and the FBI because they do not want to share their data. They do not want raw intercepts being provided to other agencies, and that does not give us the best intelligence analysis for the war fighter or the policy-makers. So I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the Roemer amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I support the position of the distinguished chairman. He is absolutely correct. I would be happy to debate the merits of the President's decision in this body any day under an open process. But the gentlewoman from Texas just said that this House has the prerogative and that no one of our three branches is, in fact, greater than the other. I agree with her. In fact, let us look at our constitutional history. When a Senator, a Member of the other body, challenged the actions of President Carter in his abrogation of the treaty with Taiwan, a Senator, who was part of the ratification of that treaty, went to the Supreme Court. Now, the Supreme Court is the third branch of our government. As the gentlewoman said, none of the three branches are above the other. The Supreme Court would not even hear the case. The Supreme Court said that there is no standing of the Senator. The Supreme Court is that third branch of our government that interprets the Constitution, not some scholar from Harvard, not some independence analyst. The Supreme Court issued an order saying to a Member of the other body: You have no standing. You have no standing to bring an action against the President, even though he in fact abrogated a treaty, which was allowed within the terms of the treaty. So this debate has no basis. It has no substance. In fact, my colleagues on the other side have not even answered the question if they would in fact agree with what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said, that, therefore, the treaty of Taiwan is still in place, because this issue is about the substance of the ABM treaty. Let us have that debate. The gentleman can offer a bill, and we will debate it on the floor of the House as a sense of the Congress. But there is no standing, as determined by the Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this brief one-paragraph statement by the Supreme Court in their opinion that the Senator had no standing in objecting to what President Carter did.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this brief one-paragraph statement by the Supreme Court in their opinion that the Senator had no standing in objecting to what President Carter did. [Goldwater et al. v. Carter, President of the United States, et al.] [444 U.S. 996; 100 S. Ct. 533; 62 L. Ed. 2d 428; 1979 U.S. Lexis 4144] [**533] Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. Mr. Justice Marshall concurs in the result. Mr. Justice Powell concurs in the judgment [*997] and filed a statement. Mr. Justice Rehnquist concurs in the judgment and filed a statement in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Stevens join. Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Blackmun join in the grant of the petition for writ of certiorari but would set the case for argument and give it plenary consideration. Mr. Justice Blackmun filed a statement in which Mr. Justice White joins. Mr. Justice Brennan would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and filed a statement. Reported below.--U.S. App. D.C. , F.2d .

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my concern over this legislation that will double the National Science Foundation's (NSF) budget in five years. I feel that while we have taken the effort to double the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and now NSF, this committee has neglected NASA. I am supportive of our commitment to NSF and have a history of such support. At this time, however, given the lack of attention this committee has given NASA, I cannot support this particular piece of legislation. NASA's budget has been neglected for over a decade. When one considers inflation, the NASA budget is not keeping pace. This sends the wrong message. As a medical doctor and scientist, I very much appreciate the work that NIH and NSF do, but to keep NASA out in the cold I feel is the wrong approach. No other agency has such a daring, exciting and public mission. It is time we treated NASA as a valued Federal agency instead of letting it wither on the vine.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will perhaps not take the entire hour, but I want to take this opportunity to review a recent congressional delegation trip that I led over the Memorial Day recess. Mr. Speaker, this was a historic trip, and one that has laid the groundwork for, I think, some future historic activities for this Nation in a number of areas. The trip was to basically countries involving Russia, a visit to Moscow and then on to Tashkent, Uzbekistan; on to Beijing, China; Seoul, Korea; visiting military sites along the way. And the only disappointment of our trip was that we had planned to be the first large bipartisan delegation into Pyongyang, North Korea, to begin a dialogue with the leadership of that nation to lower the tension and the rhetoric and to see if we could not find some common ground in comparison to the recent negative feelings between the U.S. and the North Korean leadership. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts to try throughout the entire trip, we were not successful, and I will talk about that effort over the next several minutes. The bipartisan delegation consisted of 13 Members of the House. We had 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans. The delegation represented almost every one of our major committees in the Congress, but had a heavy emphasis of the Committee on Armed Services. The delegation was interested in a number of issues, but in particular cooperative threat reduction, ways that we could decrease the threat posed by nuclear weapons and stockpiles, ways that we could retrain, help retrain those individuals, especially in Russia, that were involved in nuclear and weapons activities, issues involving counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and ways that we could work with former Soviet states and other nations to continue our counterproliferation efforts, dealing with the issue of nuclear waste and contamination and other environmental issues, energy production and distribution, cooperative efforts in the war on terrorism, Sino-American relations, and North and South Korean relations. In addition to meetings that we had formally, we met with a number of our military troops and I will talk about some of the findings that we came away with as we visited troops throughout the region. Mr. Speaker, we left Washington a week ago this past Friday on May 24, and traveled initially to Moscow. In Moscow, we were met by both our embassy officials and other Russia leaders that had been advised of our visit. On the first day, despite a very long trip, we spent some time with our embassy officials and got a briefing on an American company that is based in the district of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). The gentlewoman of suggested that we visited with officials of the Atari Corporation, which we did, and got an overview of the kinds of activities that they are involved with, including the presence of that company here in America. We continued our visit over the weekend with a trip to the American University in Moscow, an institution that was started over 10 years ago. Their director assembled a group of academics and leaders in the educational area, and briefed us on a whole new series of initiatives relative to the training and education of young Russian leaders with American institutions, and in this case the American University in Moscow. We have a continuing dialogue with the American University, and in fact the exchange process has already started in terms of cooperation on academic programs with the American University. Also on Sunday we met with the leadership of the Kurchatov Institute. Dr. Evgheny Velikhov is the head of Kurchatov. Kurchatov is the largest and most prestigious nuclear institute in Russia, named after its founder, who was the developer of the atomic weapon for the Soviet Union. Today Kurchatov, which is smaller than it was in the Soviet era, has a number of nuclear scientists that are in need of work. Part of the efforts of our government through the Department of Energy and the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has been to find ways to have those nuclear scientists and weapons scientists work in a productive way for both Russian and American corporations, and take them away from the former work that they did, which was all military-related. Our discussions with Kurchatov centered around a number of very specific projects and programs, programs that involve American corporations, American NGOs, and American governmental entities. They were very positive meetings, and we discussed everything from fusion energy, disposition of fissile materials, nuclear sites, clean fuel cycles, magnetic fusion, low-yield nuclear warheads, ballistic missile defense interceptors, and a number of other issues. We came away with a number of ideas of how we can further engage the folks at Kurchatov in a cooperative way to benefit both the United States and Russian people peacefully. In addition to that meeting, we met with leaders of the petroleum industry and the oil and gas industry in Russia, and talked about the efforts of many of us to steer America away from our reliance on Middle Eastern crude, and to work with the Russians, who have huge deposits of energy, to allow us to help them develop that energy, thereby giving us a new source of fossil fuels and gas, reducing our dependency on Middle Eastern crude, and at the same time helping Russia grow its economy. Those meetings were very positive, and I think will be fruitful in the future. In addition, at that meeting, I invited the North Korean commercial attache in Moscow, Mr. Ku Song Bok, to attend an evening event with us. I did that as a gesture of good faith toward the North Korean government, the DPRK government, to show them that this delegation was interested in starting a positive initiative to work to establish a framework for discussion between the leaders in DPRK and those of us in the Congress that want to pursue this new avenue of dialogue with North Korea's leaders, both their president or chairman, as well as the members of their high parliament. Mr. Speaker, we also had meetings with the Moscow and the Russian Duma. The Duma is the lower body of the Russian parliament, the Federation Council the other body. In our meetings, we had probably some 40 Duma deputies and Federation Council members interact with us. We had a number of discussions relating to a variety of issues. But the key issue was a document that many of us in this body produced last fall, a document that I have addressed on this floor in the past. This document, 45 pages long with 108 specific recommendations, was prepared to provide President Bush and President Putin a new format for relations between our two nations, with 11 key areas involving energy, the environment, health care, local government, culture and education, science and technology, agriculture, and defense and security, among others; recommendations that we could undertake to bring the Russian people and the American people, Russian institutions and American institutions, closer together. This document, as I have explained to my colleagues in the past, was given to both President Bush and President Putin over the signatures of over one-third of the House and the Senate, members of both political parties equally divided, signed on to say to our President before the most recent summit that we want to change the nature of our relationship with Russia. Perhaps one of the highlights of our trip, Mr. Speaker, was during a lunch that we had on Monday afternoon, two of the top leaders of the Russian Duma both said publicly that the Russian approach to the most recent Bush-Putin summit was largely based on this document. This was significant because this was the first time that Russia publicly acknowledged that the work of our Congress and our Senate in producing this document actually was the basis for the Russian lead-up to the summit between President Bush and President Putin. We knew that they had taken this document seriously because they had produced a document in Russian in response to what we had produced. This document is the Russian Academy of Sciences' response to our proposal for these new initiatives. My understanding is that the Academy of Sciences is setting up 11 task forces to work on the specific areas that we identified as key areas for America and Russia to work together. So our meetings in Moscow were extremely fruitful. They were positive. They were building on the success of President Bush and President Putin for a new relationship that in fact is much broader and much more engaging than our past relationship, which was largely based on agreements of strategic weapons. The contention here by many in this body is for us to have even greater success in strategic and defense issues, we have to work aggressively to build more confidence. One other interesting offer made by the Russians at our final luncheon meeting in Moscow, Mr. Speaker, I bring forward to this body and ask for our consideration and help, and it shows the state and the change of our relationship. Ten years ago a meeting between Russian officials and American officials would probably have had some screaming and shouting and accusations against each other. Our meetings today are totally changed. Over the past 10 years we have established a major new positive dialogue so that the last discussion we had before we left Moscow and in the spirit of the goodwill games currently being held in Japan and South Korea was a challenge by our Russian Duma colleagues to have a series of athletic events between members of the Duma and Members of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, I challenge our colleagues to work with me, having played in a number of congressional baseball games where our Democrat teams play our Republican teams and we raise money for charity, and being aware of our congressional basketball games and our golf matches where Republicans play Democrats and other events, we now have a new challenge. Members of the Russian Duma have challenged this body to a series of athletic contests in the spirit of goodwill both in Moscow and Washington, where we can get together and have some friendly fun and also agree to a series of what hopefully will become annual events between the leaders of two parliaments. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to establishing a task force on the American side, hopefully comprised equally of Democrats and Republicans. We will look at what types of competition we want to have because some that we would do would be favorable to America, some the Russians might want to do would be favorable to them. We want to find the middle ground. We will start a whole new era of cooperation in the same spirit that we have in this city in basketball and baseball and other competitions between our two parties. In the spirit of friendship and goodwill, we will now take the same atmosphere to our colleagues in the Russian Duma. Mr. Speaker, we left Moscow on Monday afternoon and flew again on military transport to Tashkent, Uzbekistan. We wanted to visit Uzbekistan because it is a prominent former Soviet state, a Central Asian nation that has stepped up and played a critical role in our battle against terrorism. In that country, after having met with the officials of the Uzbeki embassy here in Washington, we were greeted with a meeting with President Karimov. It was an extremely positive, 2- hour meeting as we discussed a new level of cooperation with Uzbekistan, efforts to bring more focus on the Central Asian nations, and to thank the people of Uzbekistan for allowing America to use a base in their country with the cooperation of their military to fight the war on terrorism. In fact, when we met with President Karimov, as we did in our meeting with the foreign minister, Mr. Kamilov, our U.S. embassy country team, we also extended an invitation through members of their parliament to establish a bilateral parliamentary exchange, much like we started with the Russian Duma. We now challenged the Uzbekistan parliament to establish a formal relationship between the House and the parliament, the lower body, actually the only body in Uzbekistan. They accepted overwhelmingly, and very eagerly anticipate the first meetings of the delegation that will start an annual series of meetings both in Tashkent and Moscow to find ways to work closer together with the people of Uzbekistan. Our ultimate goal is to produce a document similar to this document, outlining ways that we can bring the people and the institutions of Uzbekistan closer to the people and institutions of America. In addition to our visit with the President and the foreign minister, which were separate meetings, we traveled to one of our primary military bases in Uzbekistan at Karshi-Khanabad, more commonly known as K-2. This military base is down fairly close to the Afghan border. We have right now approximately 3,000 troops at that site. They are doing a variety of work, and represented most of the services. The purpose of our visit was to assess the spirit and morale of our troops, and to let them know how proud we are of their work. In fact, we carried with us almost 7,000 cards and letters from school children across America who are writing to individual members of our military to thank them for the services that they are providing to our country. We also took from my home State of Pennsylvania cases of TastyKakes and Hershey bars, and boxes of homemade cookies made by individuals and families and the spouses of Members of Congress to give to the troops to thank them from the people back home for the job that they are doing. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the morale of our troops at the K-2 base was unbelievably positive. The morale was so evident in everyone that we met with. Their needs are being met. They obviously would like to be home with their families, but they are there to do a mission, they understand that mission, and they are committed to follow through and complete the task assigned to them by our President and by our military command officers. We did have a problem with one of the engines on our cargo plane that took us into the K-2 base. While I bring up this not to embarrass our military, I bring it up to show that we are having success because the starter would not work on one of our engines as we prepared to leave. But because we have taken great efforts in this body to provide additional funds for spare parts and training, and that has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, within 2 hours a spare part was made available and the men and women of the unit in K-2 were able to replace that so that we could take off in time to make our meeting with President Karimov back in Tashkent. So our military, in fact, is doing a fantastic job. We are proud of them, and we were there to say thank you on behalf of not only Congress and the House but all America. Following our 1-day trip to Tashkent, having achieved our objectives to work with the President and a commitment to follow on with the parliament of that nation, we traveled and arrived late at night in Beijing, China, starting on May 29. In the People's Republic of China, in Beijing, we met with President Jiang Zemin, a very historic opportunity for us to meet with the top leader of the People's Republic. The meeting was extremely interesting because President Jiang spoke to us not just in Chinese but also in English, which showed the level of comfort that he had with our delegation. He was very much interested in hearing our views. He put forth his commitment to work with America in trying to provide some stability in the current conflict between India and Pakistan, and he reiterated his commitment to work with us to provide peace for the world. We discussed the issue of Taiwan. We heard his strong feelings toward that independent entity, and we again reaffirmed to President Jiang that we are committed to a one-China policy, and we are committed to the peaceful process of bringing China and Taiwan together. We also reiterated the fact that the Congress would not tolerate any armed hostilities in an attempt to bring Taiwan back in, and he assured us that that was not China's intent, that they were certainly totally committed to a peaceful resolution of the independent status of the two nations so they in fact could become one China again. In addition to those meetings, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) had been in China for approximately 4 days. They were a part of the delegation but did not formally join us until we arrived and they had been there in advance. They were there for a very historic purpose and opportunity. Mr. Speaker, they went to a suburban city outside of Beijing. The purpose of their visit with a group of UPS officials was to help build a new school for a small Chinese community to bring the Internet and computers to that village and to that institution. As we all know, China's income level for their average person in that country is about $300 per year. So when you get outside of Beijing and Shanghai, there is not much in the way of modern technology. UPS, United Parcel Service, with 40 of their employees and two Members of Congress, set up a process to build a new school, which they did, and to equip that school with computers for the children that live in this community. It was an outstanding success and, in fact, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) on the day after that we met with President Jiang Zemin, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the three of them were given an audience with Premier Zhu Rongji. President Zhu expressed his thanks to the people of America, to UPS and to our three Members of Congress for their outstanding work in helping to provide this new resource for the children of the community in China known as Zunhua. Mr. Speaker, also in China we met with the Deputy Foreign Minister Zhou. It was a very positive meeting regarding economic reforms in China. He gave us an overview of the economic program that is in place. We talked about how America and China must work together to open new markets for American companies to allow that balance of trade to become more equal. He talked to us specifically about Taiwan, and we discussed again as we did with President Jiang Zemin the need for us to have a peaceful dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan-China situation. We were hosted on our visit to China by the Chinese People's Institute for Foreign Affairs. President Mei was our host. He had a luncheon arranged for us. In fact, the discussion there was broad ranging and discussed everything from economic cooperation to advancements in science and technology. It was very positive, and again they were the host that allowed us to arrange the meetings that took place in China. Mr. Speaker, one of the highlights for me of our trip to China was the opportunity for me to speak for the second time at the National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army. It was a real eye opener. I had spoken at this university back 5 years ago. I believe I was the first elected official invited to speak at what is the premier military training institution for their mid- and senior-level officers. This invitation came before I went to Beijing to again address senior military officers in the PLA. What was interesting about this trip was that it was not just me going to the National Defense University. In fact, eight of our colleagues who were with the delegation went with me. We drove for about 1 hour out of downtown Beijing until we arrived at the compound that is the major training site for China's mid- and senior-level officers. On the way, we talked to our defense attache who briefed us on what to expect. He told us to expect the Chinese officers to have canned questions, not to have any ability to go off the party line, and to be very stern and strict in terms of the way that they asked questions of me once I had finished my presentation. Mr. Speaker, I told our defense attache on the way in that I was going to do something different this time, that I was going to break this large group of officers into subgroups and have Members of Congress directly interact with them. Our defense attache said, ``That will never happen. The Chinese will never go for that. They are not used to doing things in an ad hoc way.'' Mr. Speaker, what a great surprise we had in store for us. When our bus arrived at the front door of the main building of the National Defense University, after having driven through the entranceway, there was a full Chinese PLA military band and orchestra. In fact, it was all female, all dressed up in their military uniforms, which were white in color; and there they were playing for us a series of military musical selections, welcoming us to the premier training center for the Chinese military. As we departed the bus and walked up the stairway, a number of generals and top leaders greeted us to welcome us to the National Defense University. It certainly was a good start to our meeting. Inside, I was taken aside and allowed to meet with the general in charge of the National Defense University, where I explained to him that following my presentation, which would last about 40 minutes, instead of me answering questions, I wanted to divide the group up and allow Members of Congress to directly interact with the soldiers and leaders of the Chinese military. He looked at me in some bewilderment, but did not object. So we went into the room, and there in the auditorium were some 300 senior military leaders of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. As they sat in the room and were extremely attentive, I was introduced, and I made my presentation which I did not have in writing but basically gave from my own feelings about the need to improve our relations with China, and I went through the entire context of why we were there. I discussed the meeting we had had with President Jiang Zemin, and I challenged them to help us find new areas of common concern where we could bring our military together with the Chinese military to reduce the potential for conflict and misunderstanding. Mr. Speaker, following my presentation, I told the assembled group that I wanted to divide them up into four groups and have two Members of Congress each set aside with those individual groups and have a dialogue. Within 5 minutes, the group divided itself into four, the Members of Congress broke up into groups of two, we had interpreters at each group, and for the next 45 minutes, something happened that I would never have thought could occur. American Members of Congress were interacting not in a formal way but informally in answering questions and asking questions of the next generation of Chinese military leaders. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, the comments were all positive. The tone was positive. And there were no canned questions or canned responses. It was an absolutely unbelievable opportunity to see American Members of Congress, our colleagues, interacting in an informal, sit-down way with Chinese military leaders around them in kind of a small-group setting asking questions and responding about American-China relations. Mr. Speaker, this gave me a great deal of encouragement and leads me to believe that we must do more of this. We must continue to reach out, to tear down the barriers of misunderstanding and find ways to engage and be candid in the process where we have disagreements but also let these people know that we want to be friendly with them. We are not looking to have animosity or tension, but rather find ways that we can address common concerns together. Mr. Speaker, leaving China, we had planned to go into North Korea. Unfortunately, all along the way, despite numerous attempts, we were getting nowhere with the DPRK leadership. In fact, I even at one point in time, one morning in Beijing had a call from Kofi Annan at the U.N., whom I had asked to assist us. Kofi Annan from the U.N., the Secretary- General, and five other groups were working aggressively with us to convince the DPRK leadership that it was in their best interest that this delegation be allowed in, not to criticize the North Korean leaders but to begin a dialogue, to talk, to try to break down the barriers and discuss common areas of concern and opportunity. Unfortunately, that was not to be. But throughout our trip in Moscow, again in Uzbekistan and throughout our stay in China, we sent faxes, e-mails, telephone calls, had meetings with representatives of groups that were working in North Korea but were not having success, so finally we decided to leave Beijing and travel directly to South Korea. In Seoul, South Korea, our first stop was at the Yongsan U.S. Army air base. There we spent time with the troops. They were having a picnic on Saturday afternoon. We visited with the family members. We thanked them for the work they are doing, and we spent time letting them know that we wanted to hear about the concerns that they had being stationed in that country. Mr. Speaker, this is something that we heard throughout our stop in South Korea with all of our military: this body and the other body and the Pentagon has got to do more to increase the pay level, to provide more incentives and decrease the amount of time that our troops have to spend when they are assigned to South Korea. We learned from our military leaders, from our top generals, and from our CINC in that region that South Korea is the least desirable stay that any member of the military has when they are given an assignment. In fact, in many cases, a young soldier would rather go to a theater where there is active hostility than they would to South Korea because the tour of duty is longer, usually a year, and the pay rates are significantly lower because of added incentives in going to Japan or other theaters. They are significantly lower when our military is assigned to South Korea. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, we have 37,000 troops in South Korea. It is a major location for our troops overseas. This Congress has got to respond by changing the way that we are currently operating so that young people who are serving in Korea can bring their families with them, because today the bulk of them cannot get the pay level they should get when they serve in other parts of the world, and find ways to reduce the level of commitment in terms of the time they have to serve there. The commanding officers in that theater understand what steps they have to take. And so our delegation came back to America convinced that we are going to work to commit to that military to change those requirements, to change those support mechanisms, so that our military when it is assigned to South Korea does so with pride, wants to go there, and does not feel that being assigned to South Korea is the least possible priority that they would have as a part of their military career and tenure. Mr. Speaker, we spent time with Ambassador Hubbard. He gave us an overview of Korea. We had an in-team briefing with our leaders, both on South Korea, and they also gave us a briefing on the North. We talked about the upcoming elections. We were scheduled to meet with the candidates for the presidency, but because they were off campaigning with elections coming up next week, we were not able to have those meetings. We did meet with Foreign Minister Choi. We met him at his home. We talked for over 1 hour about our relations between the South and America, and we talked about our interests in going to the DPRK, or North Korea. He, along with the Japanese, along with the Chinese, along with the Russians and the Uzbekistanis, all said that our intent to go to North Korea is extremely important. President Jiang Zemin encouraged us to pursue entrance to North Korea, the leadership in Moscow encouraged us to pursue our entry into North Korea, and so did the South Koreans. That was articulated by the foreign minister of South Korea. We talked about programs that we have together between our two nations, and we talked about ways that we could work even closer together, assuming we can break down the barrier by gaining entrance into North Korea. Mr. Speaker, we met with Members of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. We talked about the importance of our forces there. They are unequivocal in saying that they want America to maintain a presence. It is extremely important to deter conflict on the peninsula. We talked about cooperation in the war on terrorism, political and military stability in the Korean peninsula, the strong desire for unification of the two Koreas, and we talked about e-government and the need to bring our government and their governments into the new digital divide and the way we can in fact bring information technology to all the people in South Korea. We also met with the Senior Combatant Commander for United Nations Command Forces, General Leon LaPorte, to get a detailed assessment of the current operations of the United Nations' efforts in South Korea. We had meetings with the American Chamber of Commerce in Seoul. They also told us that they had tried to take a delegation into North Korea. Mr. Speaker, they had had a group of American companies that are prepared to go to Pyong Yang and announced they were going to invest significant new dollars in North Korea. Despite being assured by the North Korean leadership that they would be given entrance, as they went to get their visas, they were told they were denied and they should come back later. It is extremely frustrating, Mr. Speaker, to try to open doors in a positive way with a regime so closeted and isolated from the rest of the world. So I appeal today, Mr. Speaker, that those leaders in the Democratic Republic of Korea, the DPRK, that they understand that we want to go to their country not to cause problems, not to blame, not to cast negative statements against them, but, rather, to simply open a dialogue, because having a dialogue is a way to eventually ease tensions and find ways to deal with common concerns and common opportunities. While also in South Korea, Mr. Speaker, the delegation was given an opportunity to travel to the DMZ, or Demilitarized Zone. Traveling up to Panmunjom, members were able to meet with our military once again, engage with the various military officials, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) took on a personal crusade to engage our military on the issue of the remains of Corporal Edward Gibson who has been missing in action since November 26, 1950. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) raised the issue that so many Americans continue to be concerned about, the lack of a full accounting of those who are missing in action from the Korean conflict, the Korean War. As an indication of the support of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the honor that Corporal Gibson gave to his Nation by paying the ultimate price, he had an American flag flown over the DMZ in honor of Corporal Gibson. In fact, every member of Congress had the same flown. Corporal Gibson's family will be given that flag by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) back in Ohio. We discussed the issue with the leadership along the DMZ about that very hostile environment, perhaps the most tense environment today in the world, where American and North Korean forces and allied and North Korean forces stare each other down across this boundary line of barbed wire and concrete, that differentiates the North from the South. It really gives one a full perspective of the need, the absolute need, for us to find a way to begin a dialogue with the leadership of North Korea. Mr. Speaker, the delegation's trip was exciting. It was almost without flaw. Unfortunately, the final part of our mission, the trip into North Korea and Pyong Yang, did not occur. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not giving up. We are renewing our efforts. We have already started work on another visit. This visit will go into Pyong Yang, we will meet with their leaders and we will begin a positive dialogue, so we reduce the tensions and find ways that we can find common ground. Hopefully President Bush's envoy, Ambassador Pritchart, will travel to Pyong Yang very shortly to open the door that the administration has in fact offered, and following that visit, I am extremely optimistic that a congressional delegation that I will be a part of will travel to Pyong Yang in an historic way so we can begin a process, much like we began 15 years ago in the Soviet Union. Look at where we are today with Russia's leaders. Today, we have just completed a major thrust of new initiatives. We are challenging each other to athletic contests and we are now considered good friends. Hopefully that same process can occur and grow in China as we saw in our meetings at the National Defense University, and will also begin to grow in North Korea as we reach out to the people, as we reach out to show them that America wishes no harm, America only wants to find ways to understand, to have a dialogue, and to reduce the threats that come from the kind of actions that the North Korean leadership have taken over the past 20 years in building up a vast military complex, while denying many of their citizens the most basic human needs. Mr. Speaker, I will insert the entire CODEL report in the Congressional Record at this point, to make it available for the public to see all of the various actions I have described, the delegation members, the various contacts, the people that we interacted with, because I think it is important that we take these kinds of trips, and that we have total transparency in terms of our purpose, our actions, and the results that we achieved. I want to thank all of my colleagues who went with me. It was an outstanding trip. We truly have an unbelievable institution. Thirteen members of Congress, seven Democrats and six Republicans, working together with a common agenda, working together to achieve peace and harmony, in those nations that in the past have been our adversaries, or in the future might become our adversaries. So I thank my colleagues for their cooperation, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the staff for sticking around long enough for me to make this report to our colleagues and the American people on the congressional delegation trip that took place from May 24 to June 3, 2002. U.S. Congressional Delegation (Codel Weldon) to Russia, Uzbekistan, Peoples Republic of China and Republic of Korea, May 24-June 3, 2002 overview A bipartisan congressional delegation of 13 Members of the House of Representatives, led by Representative Curt Weldon, ``CODEL WELDON,'' visited Moscow, Russia; Tashkent and Karshi-Khanabad, Uzbekistan; Beijing, China; Seoul, Yongsan (U.S. Army) Base, and the Demilitarized Zone, Republic of Korea, May 24 through June 3, 2002. The delegation also made considerable efforts prior to departure from Washington, D.C., to arrange meetings with the leadership of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). These efforts continued throughout the delegation's travel, to no avail. Given the major issues of mutual concern, the delegation was disappointed that the DPRK leadership did not accept the opportunity to open a dialogue and engage such a large delegation of the Congress. Delegation members included Representatives Curt Weldon (R- PA), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Jim Turner (D-TX), Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Steve Horn (R-CA), Eni Faleomavaega (Del-American Samoa), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Carrie Meek (D-FL), Steve Chabot (R-OH), and Brian Kerns (R-IN). In each of the countries visited, the delegation met with the senior executive branch and legislative branch officials; political leaders and organizations, educational groups and technical institute officials; U.S. and foreign military officers; and U.S. and foreign business leaders for the purpose of furthering greater communication; expanding inter- parliamentary exchanges and information sharing; and addressing common concerns on issues vital to international economic growth, human rights, peace and stability. Issues addressed included: Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR): --Securing nuclear stockpiles and materials in Russia. --Retraining human resources. Counterproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: --Protecting, reducing and/or Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear Waste and other environmental issues. Energy Production and Distribution. Cooperative Efforts in the War On Terrorism: --Furtherance of trade through better inspection methods at ports of debarkation and embarkation. Sino-American Relations. North and South Korean Relations. The Members also took the opportunity to visit with U.S. military personnel based in Karshi-Khanabad (``K-2''), Uzbekistan serving in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan; military personnel in Seoul and the DMZ; and their families in the Republic of Korea supporting peace and stability in Southeast Asia. Representatives Bartlett, Ortiz, Turner, Reyes, and Wilson visited Morale, Welfare, and Recreations sites and facilities in the Seoul area. The delegation visits coincided with a number of international events and crises that reinforced the critical nature and timeliness of the purpose of its meetings and discussions. The delegation arrived in Moscow the day following the historic signing of the strategic arms reduction treaty and declaration of strategic partnership by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir V. Putin. Shortly thereafter the NATO nations met in Rome and agreed to Russian limited membership in NATO. India and Pakistan experienced increased tension and cross-border firings resulting in casualties on both sides. Pakistan completed several medium range ballistic missile tests. The war on terrorism continued in Afghanistan. And suicide bombings and reprisals continued the cycle of violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. Moscow, Russia (May 25-27) State Duma In Moscow, the delegation had several opportunities to meet with their legislative counterparts, Members of the State Duma, in furtherance of the objectives of the Duma-Congress Study Group--the official interparliamentary exchange that engages U.S. and Russian lawmakers in meetings and discussions. The delegation also met with Russian business leaders, many of whom are involved in gas and oil exploration and energy production; Kurchatov Institute officials, to discuss energy and counterproliferation issues; and American University in Moscow officials. Discussions with Members of the State Duma were in furtherance of the issues address in ``U.S.-Russia Partnership,'' (see attachment 1), coauthored by Representative Weldon, supported by a bipartisan group of one-third of the U.S. Congress, and presented to the Duma in September of 2001, that provides over 100 recommendations in 11 subject areas for U.S.-Russian engagement. The delegation was advised by State Duma representatives that the recommendations made in this document had been used as the foundation for the Russian initiatives to President Bush during his visit. The State Duma Members indicated that the Speaker of the Duma had prepared a response to ``U.S.-Russia Partnership.'' Representative Weldon stated his desire to establish U.S.-Russia co-chairs at the earliest opportunity in each of 11 subject areas addressed in the study. International Republican & National Democratic Institutes A meeting sponsored by the International Republican Institute, with National Democratic Institute participation, allowed Member-to-Member/House-Duma dialogue on a number of subjects, including the status of the repeal of Jackson-Vanik (Cold War legislation that conditions U.S. trade relations on Russian Jewish emigration); combating international terrorism; using academic research and science to address political problems; joint environmental efforts; WTO; steel and poultry imports/exports; the Bush-Putin statement on the U.S.-Russian strategic partnership; and engaging the youth of both countries in issues of mutual interest, including cultural and sports events. Members on both sides demonstrated their belief that there is a new basis for working together on issues of common interest and concern because for the first time there is mutual agreement on goals and values and a sharing of vision on the security threats of the 21st Century. Kurchatov Institute The delegation also visited the Russian Research Center, the Kurchatov Institute. The Institute was established to design the Soviet Union's first nuclear weapons. Its current mission is research on safe and environmentally friendly nuclear fission and fusion power generation and fundamental physical research and development. The staff of the Institute is down to approximately 5,000 people from a Cold War high of 11,000. A goal of the Institute's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) and counterproliferation programs has been to provide productive training and employment training and employment for many of the Institute's personnel. The Institute's President, Evgheny Velikhov, and his staff engaged the Members in briefings and discussions of counterproliferation; CTR; nuclear site physical security; disposition of fissile materials, fusion energy, nuclear medicine; safe, clean fuel cycles; magnetic fusion; electromagnetic pulse effects; low yield nuclear warhead, Russian-like, ballistic missile defense interceptors; a thorium-based nuclear fuel cycle (the Institute claims that the Department of Energy won't agree to consider programs that provide an alternative to Yucca Mountain); joint NAS- Institute programs for nuclear energy based space programs; software technologies for counter-terrorism; information technology training programs for former nuclear weapons scientists and engineers; and a visit to a nuclear power reactor being used for testing of thorium-based fuel. American University in Moscow The delegation also met with the staff and supporters of the American University in Moscow to demonstrate support for their program. Representative Weldon and the delegation were presented a copy of the ``Russian response'' to ``U.S.-Russia Partnership.'' Other discussion topics included the transportation of nuclear waste and initiation of U.S.-Russia Exchange Centers (information exchange using the internet) between cities in the U.S. and Russia. Moscow Petroleum Club The delegation met with senior Russian government officials, Members of the Federation Assembly, and business leaders from the oil and gas industry. Victor Chernomerdrin, the former Prime Minister, led the Russian delegation. Also included, at the request of the U.S. delegation, were KU Song Bok, commercial attache of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, and his assistant, KIM Jong-Do. Tashkent & Karshi-Khanabad, Uzbekistan (May 27-28) In Tashkent, the delegation met with President Karimov; Foreign Minister Kamilov; the U.S. Embassy country team; and visited U.S. military personnel at Karshi-Khanabad. The delegation expressed to the President, U.S. appreciation for Uzbekistan's support for the war on terrorism. For his part, the President acknowledged his nation's shortcomings in human rights and economic reforms, but indicated he is taking actions in these areas in making reforms. The President provided an assessment of the regional geo-political environment and his views on the campaign in Afghanistan. He emphasized a desire for a long-term U.S. presence in Central Asia and Afghanistan and expressed a concern over the long- term intentions of Russia, Iran and particularly China. He was supportive of Representative Weldon's proposal to establish a joint U.S. Congress-Uzbek parliamentary working group. President Karimov sees the U.S. as a political, legal, and economic model he would like to replicate. American Embassy officials noted their concerns about the long term economic health of the country, citing the 50 percent inflation rate over the past year and the unwillingness of most foreign companies to invest in Uzbekistan because of the lack of convertability of the currency. The delegation was transported via an Air Force C-130 cargo aircraft to Karshi-Khanabad in southeastern Uzbekistan, near the Afghanistan border, to visit with U.S. forces personnel deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. All Members had an opportunity to meet with constituents and took the opportunity to make the military members fully aware of the total support of the American people for the job that they are all doing. The President, acknowledging fully ``what wars can cause on the main continent, briefly digressed, citing China's experience with a number of wars--``Japan against China''-- and mentioned his personal participation in Japan's war against China. ``China and the U.S. were on the same side against Japan in Japan's War of Aggression.'' He further mentioned his visit to Hawaii and the Arizona War Memorial-- ``I shared the same feeling as your Commander of the Pacific Fleet. If you look at history and major events, you see history evolves in cycles. People unify then fall apart. Now Japan and the U.S. get along well . . . Maintenance of the imperial system in Japan had a lot to do with General MacArthur.'' ``My advice to the U.S. is that not every place in the world can follow the U.S. model. In the world, each place has its own model, but that should not stop contacts and communication . . . The first principle should be to seek common ground while putting aside differences . . . Do not let differences interfere with communication . . . We have more in common than divergences.'' Premier Zhu Rongii Representative Turner, accompanied by Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Arnie Welman, Vice President of Commercial Affairs for the UPS Corporation, met with Premier Zhu at the Purple Light Pavilion for over an hour. Representatives Turner and Bachus, along with Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) had participated in the construction of a computer laboratory with 40 UPS government affairs employees in the City of Zunhua, located northeast of Beijing in Hebei Provice. Premier Zhu expressed his appreciation to the representatives' and the UPS employees' for their tangible contribution to the children of Zunhua and was pleased that the group had experienced rural China. Premier Zhu stated the importance of the ``one China'' policy and stated that the PRC does not desire to use force against Taiwan to achieve reunification. He cited Hong Kong as a successful example of reunification and said reunification with Taiwan would not require a change in Taiwan's economic system. Representative Turner expressed his support for the ``one China'' policy and indicated that his support for permanent normal trade relations and the PRC's admission to the WTO was based on his belief that the ability of the U.S. and the PRC to build a strong bond of friendship and cooperation is critical to world peace and prosperity over the next 25 years. Assistant Foreign minister Zhou In a later meeting, Assistant Foreign minister Zhou outlined China's plan to ``intensify'' its economic reform program. ``With 25 million people entering the work force each year, if we are to avoid problems, we need to speed up reform.'' He stated Beijing, China (May 29-June 1) In the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), the delegation met with President Jiang and senior foreign ministry officials; met officials of the Chinese Peoples Institute of Foreign Affairs; engaged the U.S. Country team in discussions; and visited the National Defense University, where Representative Weldon addressed the student body and delegation members met in breakout sessions with the PLA students attending the University. There was also a side-group meeting by Representatives Turner and Bachus with Premier Ju. President Jiang In the delegation meeting with President Jiang, Representative Weldon expressed the desire of the majority of the American people for a productive long-term relationship with the PRC. President Jiang indicated that China and the U.S. have more interests in common than differences and encouraged mutual respect and moderation. He urged that the U.S. should accept that there are other acceptable models than that of the U.S. for political and economic development. President Jiang stated that the most important and sensitive issue in Sino- American relations is Taiwan. He cited the importance of continuing the ``one China'' policy. ``The Chinese relationship boils down to one question: Taiwan . . . The question is a very simple one . . . We have already agreed (citing normalization, the three joint communiques, and ``three no's'') . . . we don't understand why the U.S. is sending weapons to Taiwan . . . We place much hope in you as representatives that we can get much done.'' Representative Weldon indicated he supported the ``one China'' policy. ``Arms sales take place when there is a perception, right or wrong, that a threat exists to the people of Taiwan . . . I am the Chairman responsible for authorizing the procurement of all our military systems. But I am a teacher by profession. I would like to spend money on education, not weapons . . . We do not want conflict with China in any form.'' Representative Hastings, citing the importance to both China and the U.S. of engaging the DPRK, asked President Jiang if he would consider having his officials contact the DPRK on the delegation's behalf to arrange a visit. He also asked the President what China is doing to ease tensions between India and Pakistan. The President encouraged the delegation visit to the DPRK, but ``whether they allow the visit must be totally up to them . . . We cannot take decisions in their place. North Korea will have to decide. China is China. North Korea is North Korea.'' On India and Pakistan, the President indicated that both countries are ``China's neighbors'' and said he hoped the Kashmir problem can be solved peacefully. ``Although people are of a view that we are closer to Pakistan, we are trying to get each side to work together. Our relationship with India has fluctuated, but more recently we have had a constantly improving relationship with India.'' He also said that because of the U.S. need to fight terrorism, he believed that ``the U.S. attitude toward Pakistan has changed.'' the purpose of their foreign policy is world peace and common development. ``China is not a threat to anyone and should not be perceived as a threat . . . perception is important . . . China is an important force in the region for peace . . . In our relationship, we have accomplished a lot . . . the only problem is Taiwan . . . The issue of Taiwan should be left to the Chinese to work out. The U.S. should not become involved . . . Our policy goal of peaceful reunification remains. If they (Taiwanese) accept one China, we can be very patient. I hope you will not send signals that can be misinterpreted.'' Representatives Bartlett suggested that Taiwan is a ``tiny island'' with relatively small population and that China and the U.S. should focus on the 90 percent of what we have in common. Representative Horn indicated that ``it would be the biggest mistake ever made for China to invade Taiwan.'' Mr. Horn also expressed his concern over a quote attributed to a Chinese admiral citing ``missiles over LA'' as a Chinese option. Minister Zhou indicated that such a quote was incorrect. In response to Representative Brown, Minister Zhou agreed there are both obligations and benefits to entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). ``We will honor our words.'' He indicated there would be challenges for China as a WTO member, but also opportunities. In acknowledging the $100 billion annual trade imbalance between the U.S. and China, Minister Zhou said that ``China wishes to buy more, but that there are too many restrictions.'' Also in response to Representative Brown, he cited the need for the Three Gorges Dam project as primarily for flood control, acknowledged the importance of environmental protection, and said that electricity production is secondary. In response to a question from Representative Hastings on India and Pakistan, Minister Zhou indicated that the Foreign Ministers involved had talked and cited the need ``to be cautious and avoid escalation . . . The President of Pakistan said he would not use force. We have encouraged them to talk together.'' Minister Zhou concluded that ``China will not commit to not use force in the case of Taiwan because we don't want to use force . . . If we make such a commitment (Taiwan) separatists will push for a proclamation of independence, which would be a disaster for everyone.'' Representative Hastings indicated that the issue of Taiwan would likely take care of itself over time because of the large and increasing investment by Taiwan interests in mainland China. Chinese Peoples Institute for Foreign Affairs (CPIFA) President Mei indicated that the CPIFA had worked for 50 years doing exchanges, sponsoring research on international affairs, and hosting high level delegations to promote mutual understanding and bilateral relationships. He cited the importance of economic development and discussed the wide variance within China of economic well-being, with per capita GDP in cities like Shanghai being $4,000, while in many regions it is $300/person. He stated that last year began a policy of developing China's west (12 provinces, two-thirds of China's land area) and cited the need for a stable international environment for economic development. He also discussed the Taiwan issue, citing all of the same factors mentioned by President Jiang and Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou. In response to a question from Representative Horn, President Mei said China had three domestic goals: develop the west economically, achieve sustained growth throughout the country, and advance education in science and technology. ``The quality of human resources is key to China's development.'' National Defense University Representative Weldon addressed the military students at the National Defense University for the Peoples Liberation Army on Sino-American relations; America's policy toward Taiwan; the need for increased dialogue and cooperative programs between the PLA and U.S. military; the common threat to China and the U.S. posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking; and the role the Congress plays in the U.S. system of government. After Representative Weldon's address, Members of the delegation had the opportunity to participate in small group discussions with the military students. Taiwan was again a topic of discussion. Also of interest to the students, was the Members' views on international terrorism and the Falun Gong. Seoul, Yongsan U.A. Army Base, and the DMZ, Korea (June 1-3) In Korea the delegation met with the foreign minister; the U.S. Ambassador, Thomas C. Hubbard; Members of the National Assembly; senior U.S. and Korean military officials; Korean business leaders; and family members of U.S. military personnel. Ambassador Hubbard Ambassador Hubbard provided the delegation an overview of the Republic of Korea (ROK) political and economic situation, indicating that the South Korean economy continues its recovery from the 1997 economic crisis, currently growing at five-to-six percent a year, making its growth second only in the region, to China. He also advised the delegation of the significant and prompt support provided by the ROK to the events of 9/11. The ROK ``stepped up quickly to our war against the Taliban and al-Queda in Afghanistan, and provided shipping, aircraft, and a field hospital to support U.S. operations . . . In addition they have provided $40 million in aid to Afghanistan.'' The Ambassador further highlighted the critical importance of local and provincial elections taking place in June and the national election in December 2002. He indicated that the South Koreans continue to make major strides in political and democratic reforms. Foreign Minister Choi In the delegation meeting with Foreign Minister Choi, Representative Weldon expressed his appreciation for all that the ROK had done and continues to do in support of the international war on terrorism. He also reaffirmed our total commitment to the defense of the ROK. Foreign Minister Choi indicated that his country's prompt support for the U.S. led war on terrorism was an expression of the importance of the effort as well as its appreciation for all the U.S. has done on the Korean Peninsula. Foreign Minister Choi highlighted the rather significant contribution to ROK-Japanese relations made by the joint sponsorship of the on-going World Cup. He commented that the opening ceremonies were the first time that the Japanese national anthem had been played at an official event in the ROK. He also noted that at the opening ceremonies, in a spontaneous sign of friendship, the two Presidents stood and raised clasped hands, signaling the friendship between their two countries. Foreign Minister Choi described the event as a ``spectacular moment'' for the two countries--the ``first time this has happened in a thousand years.'' Representative Weldon also expressed to the Foreign Minister, the delegation's consternation with the North Korean, DPRK, failure to approve the delegation's visit request. The delegation had hoped to visit the DPRK to open a dialogue with the North, to express the interest of the legislative branch of the U.S. Government in addressing food aid, agriculture, health, education and other humanitarian assistance. The delegation had hoped to deliver a ``totally positive'' message to the North--that as a coequal branch of the U.S. government, Congress could work with the DPRK to further peace and stability on the Peninsula and help the people of North Korea. Foreign Minister Choi indicated that the ROK continues its efforts to maintain the dialogue with the North, but the pace of discussions is much slower than what had been hoped for. He expressed considerable concern over the state of the DPRK economy and the well-being of its people. ``Our interest is to try and engage, help them improve their situation, to try and increase cooperation.'' The foreign minister indicated the North is in desperate need of food, health care, and electrical power. He also indicated that the next year will be a critical period because of ROK elections, potential instability in the North due to its dysfunctional economic system, the issue of the DPRK nuclear power reactor and related required inspections by the international community. National Assembly The delegation later met with Members of the ROK National Assembly. Discussions related to trade; the importance to the ROK of U.S. Forces in Korea for deterrence purposes; the war on terrorism; political and military stability on the Korean Peninsula; the strong desire for eventual reunification of the DPRK and ROK; internet voting in the ROK; ``e'' government; and the ``digital divide.'' United Nations/Combined Forces Command The Members of the delegation also met with the senior combatant commander, General Leon LaPorte, and his staff to get a detailed assessment of the military balance, force readiness, personnel morale, and classified issues. American Chamber of Commerce Regarding the difficulty and frustration the Delegation experienced in attempting to arrange a visit with DPRK leadership, American Chamber of Commerce officials the delegation met with indicated a similar frustration with the ``on again, off again'' nature of visits they had attempted to arrange. Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) Delegation Members were provided the opportunity to visit the DMZ. Representative Chabot was able to engage military officials on behalf of the relatives of Corporal Edward Gibson, who has been missing in action since November 26, 1950. Representative Chabot acquired an American flag which had been flown at the DMZ in honor of Corporal Gibson and will present the flag to the Gibson family. During the course of the CODEL, Representative Chabot also stressed to Foreign Minister Choi, Ambassador Hubbard, and other U.S. Embassy personnel the importance of making every effort to recover the remains of Corporal Gibson and other U.S. servicemen missing in action.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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