Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the chairman believe that this bill in any way conditions deployment of a national missile defense system on further arms reductions with the Russians?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. As the original author of this legislation, I fully agree. The administration has now recognized the threat, as evidenced by the CIA, and when the President signs this bill, he will be committing the Nation to the deployment of a national missile defense to meet that threat. I would also state that in signing this bill the President is indicating a commitment to use the funds he has budgeted for national missile defense only for the execution of the policy he enacts and endorses by signing this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would talk to Bob Walpole, who is our CIA expert on strategic threats, the test itself shows that North Korea now, in the minds of our intelligence community, can, in fact fire a three-stage Taepo Dong 1 missile with a light payload that would hit a city in the U.S. Now, what they say is it will not be accurate. They may aim for St. Louis and hit Dallas, but if one lives in Dallas, does it really matter that it is not accurate? The point is that the gentleman's CIA agents and his own administration have now said publicly that North Korea has the capability today. Second point, he mentioned that we are not dealing with other threats. Again, I would ask the gentleman, although since he has left the floor I cannot ask him personally, if he would comment on our past five defense authorization bills, because in each of those bills with the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), along with the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and Members on both sides of the aisle, we have plussed up funding in the area of weapons of mass destruction and cyber terrorism to a higher amount than the administration has ever requested. We did not do that one year, we did it all five years. We have given this administration money that they did not ask for to deal with the threats of a terrorist device, the threats of coming through our ports. We take that threat very seriously, and we are dealing with it. So when the gentleman says that we do not care or we are not concerned about other threats, he is totally misinformed or just has not gotten the latest brief. Let me say at this point I want to acknowledge the intellectual honesty of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). He came down to the well and in a very intellectually honest way opposed what we are doing. I respect him for that. I respect the other 105 Members of this body, 104 Members, 102 Democrats and two Republicans, who voted against what we are doing, because intellectually they are being pure. What I really have a problem with are those Members in the other body who want to have cover; who have consistently opposed missile defense but then came up with nonsensical amendments to now say they are for missile defense. The gentlewoman from California, one of the Senators from California who has consistently opposed missile defense, with these amendments now says she can support this bill. That is outrageously simplistic and it is not being intellectually honest. I would rather have those Members do like the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and oppose the bill because they oppose the policy. We just disagree. Let me say this, Madam Speaker. We passed this bill overwhelmingly in the House. The Senate passed a bill that we are considering today overwhelmingly in the Senate. The President then came out and issued this letter that is now a part of the Record where he said we will make the decision in a year. Now, what is he saying? In a year we will decide whether or not the threat has changed. Well, Madam Speaker, his own CIA is saying the threat is here today. It is not going to change a year from now. It is already here. He is saying that we will have to evaluate the cost. He has already requested $10.5 billion in his five-year budget. So why would the President then want to wait a year after we are making a policy decision today? I hate to say this because this has been a totally bipartisan effort, and I applaud my colleagues on the other side for their leadership, because without that we probably would not be here today. But I can tell my colleagues why I think the President is saying postpone it for a year. He wants to give Vice President Gore a major campaign appearance where, in the middle of the spring of next year, he will hold a press conference and with all the gravity he can bring as the Vice President, he will say that we now have to deploy a national missile defense system. Well, I want to let the President know, if the President is listening, and I would say to my colleagues I want to let the President know through them that we see through that facade. We are not going to stand here today and pass this bill and make this change, and have the President or the Vice President plan some kind of a political event a year from now so that they can enhance their standing in the polls. This bill means that when this President signs it, the policy to deploy on behalf of this country is today. I thank my colleagues and the leadership in both parties for supporting this momentous piece of legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. I just want to again clarify for the record that the gentleman who spoke earlier made the point that North Korea has not yet built a missile. Well, if the gentleman would go talk to George Tenet or Bob Walpole at the CIA, he could receive a classified briefing where they are now publicly saying that North Korea on August the 31st fired the Taepo Dong 1 missile. Maybe he does not believe the CIA, and that is something that I cannot comment on.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record both the White House letter as well as the State Department cable so that everyone can see what type of spin the administration is trying to place on this bill. The White House, Washington, May 7, 1999. Hon. Curt Weldon, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Weldon: Thank you for your letter on National Missile Defense (NMD). We are committed to meeting the growing danger that outlaw nations may develop and field long-range missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies. Next year, we will determine whether to deploy for the first time a limited national missile defense against these threats. This decision will be made when we review the results of flight tests and other developmental efforts, consider cost estimates, and evaluate the threat. In making our determination, we will also review progress in achieving our arms control objectives, including negotiating any amendments to the ABM Treaty that may be required to accommodate a possible NMD deployment. I am pleased that the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, included in its NMD legislation two amendments that significantly changed the original bill, which I strongly opposed. By specifying that any NMD deployment must be subject to the authorization and appropriations process, the legislation makes clear that no decision on deployment has been made. By putting the Senate on record as continuing to support negotiated reductions in strategic nuclear arms, the bill also reaffirms that our missile defense policy must take into account our arms control objectives. We want to move ahead on the START III framework, which I negotiated with President Yeltsin in 1997, to cut Russian and U.S. arsenals 90 percent from Cold War levels, while maintaining the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability. The changes made in the NMD bill during Senate debate ensure these crucial objectives will be taken into account fully as we pursue our NMD program. Thank you again for writing on this important matter. Sincerely, Bill Clinton.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying Senate amendments, but I am not happy with the legislation. I am not happy because, when we brought this bill up in the House, we had a clear and distinct debate. As the original author of H.R. 4, I made the point known to every Member of this body that this would be a vote for the President's policy or against the President's policy. If my colleagues are supportive of holding this decision off for a year so it could be made during the middle of a Presidential election, then they should have opposed the House bill. And 102 brave Democrats and two brave Republicans did that. They opposed the bill. But I said, if in spite of the President's letter of opposition on the morning of the vote, if my colleagues were for moving forward now to make that decision, then they should vote for the bill. And 214 Republicans did, joined by 103 Democrats, for a veto-proof margin. It was a clear and distinct point of opposition against this administration's policy. No mistake about it. Then we saw the White House and Bob Bell try to suspend what we had just done, try to tell us that it really did not mean what we said it was. In fact, the Senate on the floor of debates agreed to two amendments. These amendments mean nothing. They mean nothing. They are simply cover for liberal Democrats who do not support missile defense to have a way to cover their you know whats. One of them says that any missile defense program should be subject to the authorization and appropriation process. Well, duh. Everything we do in this Congress is subject to the authorization and appropriation process. Are we so naive as to think that somehow we pull manna from heaven and we bring dollars to the table and that is what funds programs? That amendment means nothing. It has no bearing on this bill or what we are doing here. The second amendment says that we should continue to negotiate reductions in arms. Who disagrees with that? The irony is that the Senate put an amendment on that only refers to reductions in Russian arms. What happens, Mr. Speaker, if the Russians regard this as only being an attempt to get them to reduce their arms while the U.S. is not paralleling that process? The amendments unfortunately passed, and we could do nothing about that. The Senate having the rules, they had forced us to take a bill that I am not happy with. But it does move the process forward, and I would say to my colleagues, in the full debate, we will have a colloquy that will be joined by the chairman of the full committee that will be joined by the majority leader and the Speaker who will clarify on the Record what this bill means by this body. If the White House chooses to run for Congress, than they can interpret our bills. If Bob Bell chooses to step down and run for a House seat, he can change or he can then interpret our bills. But, short of that, nobody can interpret our legislation except for us. We are the ones who drafted the bill. We are the ones who passed the bill. We are the ones who passed the clean bill of this House, only to be amended by extraneous and irrelevant amendments on the Senate side. I will be asking my colleagues today to vote ``yes.'' But clearly, during our debate and discussion we will clarify the record time and again to show that there is a clear and distinct difference between the position of this administration and the position that 317 Members of Congress supported. I am outraged that right after we passed this bill President Clinton would send me a letter that says this: ``Next year we will determine whether or not to deploy for the first time a limited national missile defense against these threats.'' That is the letter. That is not what this bill says. It does not say, Mr. President, next year. It says today we will pass this conference report, we will move forward, and we will do it in direct contradiction to what this administration is trying to spin. And when the White House has its signing ceremony, I do not know whether I will be invited or not, but if I am, I will clearly make the case that it is a clear policy difference between this White House and their attempt to spin what we did that they could not defeat in this body. We could have overridden the veto because we had 103 Democrats agree with this, along with 214 Republicans, and this was at a time when the White House issued a statement in opposition to our bill. These amendments mean nothing. All of us agree that an authorization and appropriation processes must be followed. All of us want to see reductions in arms by both Russia and America. Unfortunately, the Senate amendment only says Russia, which could be read as destabilizing. The point is, the crux and the actual content of this bill is simple. Today we are saying in the Congress of the United States that it is time to deploy a national missile defense capability.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let us focus the debate on the facts. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague just spoke and made some points. First of all, he said the THAAD program has had five failures. What he did not properly explain is that of the five failures that occurred, none of them, none of them involved hit-to-kill. The five failures that occurred were caused by quality control problems of the Lockheed Martin contractor, and we in the Congress took the lead to force them to begin to pay for those failures. We have never had a test yet to actually get to hit-to-kill, but in fact the THAAD program has accomplished 28 of 30 milestones. That is a tremendous success. So to characterize the THAAD program as a failure does a terrible disservice to those people who are working on that program because the facts do not bear that. Second, the gentleman made the point that this is a terrible technology challenge. Well, it is. And he pointed out that a company in his area, Boeing, is a lead system integrator. What the gentleman did not mention is that the head of this program, Dr. Peller, in congressional testimony said the challenge to build the Space Station was more difficult than to build a national missile defense. Now, that is the top official of the company that comes from the district of the gentleman. The third is deterrence, that we somehow can rely on the deterrence of the 1980s. That may have been true. I do not want to trust North Korea not to fire that Taepo-Dong 1 at one of our cities. And I would say to my good friend and colleague, 28 young Americans, half of them from my State, came back from Desert Storm in body bags because we could not defend against a low-complexity missile that wiped them out. I agree with the gentleman, theater missile defense is our top priority; and I use my votes and my voice to help accomplish that. But we cannot ignore the threat to our country by saying North Korea will avoid attacking us because of deterrence. And finally, this is what offends me. I will make a prediction on the floor today. The reason why the White House is spinning this the way they are is because next year, in the middle of the presidential campaign, Vice President Gore will announce that we are going to deploy NMD. That is an absolute travesty and an outrage for this country.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I agree with the chairman. Russia, or any other country, does not now have nor will it ever have a veto over our Nation's deployment of a national missile defense to protect our citizens.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for their support, and let me again clarify some points here. First of all, none of us are mandating that something be deployed before it is ready, none of us. We are not that naive to put a date certain on requiring that something be done by a certain time, and no one should misinterpret this legislation as requiring that. What we are saying is that we are making a clear and distinct policy change here as a Nation. For the first time we are saying publicly that it is the policy of this country to deploy a limited national missile defense system against those rogue threats that we see emerging. We took great efforts in this process to bring the Russians in, to show them that this was not aimed against them. In fact, a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle traveled with us to Moscow the week before the vote with the former CIA Director of the Clinton administration, Jim Woolsey, with the former Secretary of Defense and White House Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld, and with the former Deputy Secretary of State, Bill Schneider, and we took the time to give the Russian leadership the briefing as to the emerging threats and convinced them that this was not being done to score some type of strategic advantage over Russia. This was being done because in today's world North Korea is not a stable nation that deterrents will work with. In today's world the Chinese now have at least 18 long-range ICBMs. We know that Iran and Iraq both have medium-range missiles and are developing long-range capabilities. So, Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons we are making a clear and distinct policy change that will occur when the President signs this bill. And the key thing that I want to keep stressing is, one, that when the President signs this bill, that is the change in policy of this government, that we are deploying a national missile defense system as soon as that technology is available, not before it is available, not prematurely, but as soon as it is available. We do not recommend the technology. We do not say land-based over sea-based. We do not say one site over three sites. We say as soon as available and as soon as it is ready, we deploy it. That is a clear and marked difference over the policy that exists today, and for the White House to try to spin what we are doing is totally wrong. And I want the record to clearly show that this Congress and the other body are on record as interpreting our own bill, and there should be no one in the White House in future years who will try to spin what it is we are trying to accomplish today. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with our distinguished chairman for the record. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman. There has been some misconception concerning this national missile defense bill. The purpose of this bill is very simply to establish a U.S. policy, the deployment of a national missile defense, as soon as technologically possible. In the chairman's view, does this bill commit the United States to deploy a national missile defense?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, during recent votes on H.R. 1141, the FY 99 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference report, I was unavoidably detained in an extended meeting. As a result, I am not recorded as voting on rollcall 131, 132, and 133. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall No. 131, the vote on the rule for the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, no on rollcall No. 132, the motion to recommit the conference report, and yes on rollcall No. 133, the vote on adoption of the conference report.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my constituent, Dr. Otto F. Muller, a talented cardiologist who is retiring after forty years of service in the medical field. Highlights of Dr. Muller's career include ten years of service as the Chief of the Cardiovascular Clinic at Philadelphia General Hospital; and thirty five years as the Director of Research and Education, Medicine, and Cardiology at Mercy Catholic Medical Center. Most recently, Dr. Muller practiced with the Kelly Cardiovascular Group. Early in his career, Dr. Muller received fellowship and investigator grants from the American Heart Association, and served as its President from 1980-1982. Heart disease is America's number one killer, and stroke is the number three killer. The state of Pennsylvania, in which Dr. Muller practices, ranks fifteenth in the United States for heart disease deaths. More than one in five Americans suffer from cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of disability, at an estimated cost of $287 billion in medical expenses and lost productivity. Moreover, the World Health Organization predicts that within twenty five years, heart disease will surpass pneumonia as the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. I personally understand the dedication of doctors who are committed to battling cardiovascular disease. Three years ago, I underwent a successful coronary artery bypass graft after blockage of a coronary artery was detected during a routine screening. I was able to return to my full schedule of activities following the surgery, and my cardiologist placed me on a regimen of proper diet and exercise which has helped me to avoid further surgery. I applaud Dr. Muller for his dedication to his practice. For forty years, he has been a leader in the fight to eradicate this deadly disease. My own experience has taught me the need for increased awareness of this disease, and I have become one of the strongest advocates for increased research dollars. I wish Dr. Muller the best of luck in his future endeavors, and thank him for his years of service in battling heart disease and stroke.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to describe a plan that we have been working on for the past 5 weeks in cooperation with the various parts of the administration to provide a framework for a negotiated settlement of the Kosovo crisis. Today, for approximately 1 hour, 11 members of this body who traveled with me to Vienna, Austria, 2 weekends ago to meet with our Russian counterparts in the Duma met with the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in her office. She was accompanied by the Under Secretary of State, Tom Pickering. It was a very constructive discussion with Members on both sides of the aisle engaged in a constructive way to let the Secretary know that our ultimate objectives and purpose are identical to what the President and what she wants to achieve, and that is an honorable settlement that is done in line with the five principles that the NATO countries have agreed to. We spent a great deal of time outlining the process that we have used, and we cited the fact that we were asked to get involved by our Russian Duma counterparts approximately 5 weeks ago. We explained to the Secretary that tomorrow, in the Committee on International Relations, there will be a public hearing where all 11 Members of Congress from the far right to the far left will present an overview of why this particular framework should move forward and why this Congress and this House should go on record in sync with the work of the Russian Duma to provide a process whereby the U.S. and Russia can assist in getting the objectives that NATO wants, and that is to bring Milosovic to understand that the world community is coming together in an effort to solve this crisis quickly. Timing is of the essence, Mr. Speaker. Russia is going through turmoil right now. I just got off the phone with my second conversation with the Duma leadership today. As you know, they have sacked Primakov. On Saturday of this week, the Duma will vote on whether or not to impeach Yeltsin as the President of Russia. We need to understand that we have a significant opportunity here, an opportunity to work constructively with the Russians, using their leverage to bring Milosovic to terms that our government, that our President, that our Secretary of State want to see achieve. I encourage all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bipartisan work of the 11 Members of Congress who are reaching out to provide a framework that will allow this conflict to be ended. I am more optimistic than ever. The Russians are faxing us a letter at this very hour expressing their desire to pass the same document in the Russian Duma. Let us not lose this opportunity to show Milosovic that Russian leaders across the spectrum, American leaders across the political spectrum are coming together with a common agenda which says Milosovic must in the end agree to the conditions that NATO has established to end this conflict. Together I think we can finally end this crisis.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. His colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Don Sherwood) was there also, a good friend of my colleague's.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Let me thank my colleague and add to what he has said and congratulate him, because he is the one that worked with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and also worked with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to develop this legislation which is to be the subject of a hearing next week. Unfortunately, the minority leadership, bowing to the White House again, would not let us hold the hearing on Wednesday, because that would require their unanimous consent, so we have to hold the hearing on Thursday. Another obstacle, another day of bombing. We could do this hearing on Wednesday and move the legislation, but, no, because we do not want to have the Congress discuss this issue, we cannot do it until Thursday because the administration has convinced the minority side, in spite of the support of their own Members, that we should not have this hearing until the full 7 days. But I want to say we will have that hearing. I talked to our Russian counterparts this morning, and they are planning on bringing up the exact same resolution in the State Duma. Our hope is to have this Congress pass it, the Russian Duma pass it; and I am even hoping that members of the Ukrainian Rada will pass this. In fact, I had a call today from a member of the German Bundestag. He received our document and he wants to pursue this with members of the European parliaments. So momentum is building. I do want to take this time to acknowledge our other Members, as I know my colleague would. On the minority side we had an outstanding delegation. They would be here tonight, but since we ended the session, Members are on their way back to their districts. We do have a long weekend. We are staying here because we have events in town. But our Members did do special orders earlier this week. We could not get a full hour because all the time was booked. But they would have been here tonight, and I want to acknowledge them all personally. The ranking Democrat on our trip was the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Neil Abercrombie), an outstanding Member, a tireless advocate for trying to find a peaceful resolution to this conflict; The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), a Member who has become a dynamic leader on Russian issues. She has traveled to Russia with me twice. She now chairs an effort with female members of the Russian Duma to build better relations between our two bodies; The gentleman from New York (Maurice Hinchey), a strong supporter of President Clinton who supported the bombing efforts, support the President's policies, and was a very key part of our delegation. In fact, he is the one who talked to Podesta at the White House from Vienna; The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Dennis Kucinich), former Mayor of Cleveland, who is an active Member who has a background from the Balkans ethnically, understands the problems. Probably no one is as well versed in this Congress on issues involving the Balkans than the Democrat from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich); And the fifth Democrat, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Bernie Sanders), who is the only Independent, the only socialist in Congress, a self-admitted liberal. He was an outstanding contributor to our effort. In fact, it was interesting, I was in a press conference with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Roscoe Bartlett) today and he is as far to the right as the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is to the left. And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) said, you know something, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I sat together during all the discussions and there was not one issue that he and I disagreed on. We were in sync on every issue in every statement. My colleague and I were in complete agreement. That is the kind of relationship we have. Perhaps my colleague would like to go over some of the other Republican Members that were with us on the delegation. I have covered the Democrats.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I agree. The gentleman's suggestion was a valid one, that we go through the G- 8 document and compare it side by side to what we did just so that the American people know that what we agreed on with the Russians has now, in fact, become the basis of a G-8 set of principles to negotiate an end to this conflict.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And our position on that same issue, and I will read it word for word, the stopping of NATO bombing, cessation of KLA activities, withdrawal of Serb forces from Kosovo, calls for termination of violence and atrocities. If that is not identical, I do not know what is.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. This one sounds close here. The voluntary repatriation of refugees in Yugoslavia and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organizations.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And ours says, recognizes the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, including wide autonomy for Kosovo, a multi- ethnic population, and treatment of all Yugoslavia peoples in accordance with international norms.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And our document says, the composition of armed forces should be decided by a consensus agreement of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in consultation with Macedonia, Albania, Yugoslavia and the recognized leadership of Kosovo. And the above group would be monitored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which both Russia and the U.S. are member nations. And we had dinner at the ambassador's home for the U.S. with the Russian ambassador alongside of us.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I would just like to say, before we do that, that for those who say that parliamentarians should not be involved in meeting with other parliamentarians, and I think the gentleman did a good job earlier today when he gave a 1-minute on this issue, that this administration is constantly encouraging Members of Congress to engage their counterparts around the world. In fact, we have programs that do that. I got involved with Russia long before I was in Congress when a U.S. funded program, called the American Council of Young Political Leaders, encouraged me as a county commissioner to travel to Russia because my party thought that one day I might serve in Congress. Now, little did I realize that a couple of decades ago those early trips to Russia would result in me traveling to Russia some 19 times where I would host literally hundreds if not thousands of Russian leaders when they come to America and where I would have the opportunity, working with our friend and colleague, who is, by the way, watching these proceedings tonight, a former Member, Greg Laughlin, and starting 8 years ago a Russian-American Energy Caucus to try to find ways to bring hard currency into Russia so they would not have to sell off their nuclear technology or their conventional weapons. The administration back then was supportive of our efforts. They were supportive of our efforts to help solve environmental problems, the nuclear waste problem up in the Arctic Ocean, out in the Sea of Japan. So it is interesting that the media in this city and the administration that has encouraged us so much to interact so much with these other leaders all of a sudden, when we do something constructive that maybe embarrasses them, all of a sudden says, well, we do not need 435 armchair diplomats. We are not armchair diplomats, Mr. Speaker. We are doing what this administration asked us to do, which Vice President Gore and Viktor Chernomyrdin, when we started this effort 5 years ago, right down the hallway on the Senate side, stood up at a luncheon and said, it is fantastic, but now Gore-Chernomyrdin is going to be supplemented by a Duma-Congress study group, and applauded our foresight as parliamentarians coming together to try to build trust and understanding. So it is okay to do it when they think it is important, but when we disagree or think that things are not going the way perhaps they could be going, and we try to use that influence that we have, all of a sudden we are not doing the right thing. Is that not amazing that that could happen?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. We just did not use that fancy Rambouillet word, but the content of what we said is identical to what is in number six.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And ours says, agreement on the composition of armed international forces which would administer Kosovo after the Serb withdrawal, to be determined by the U.N. five-member Security Council.