Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my friend and colleague, in offering this amendment and rise to express my concerns about the status of some of America's workers. I agree with the gentlewoman that we should have a great deal of concern about jobs going away from America. In fact, that is why I opposed NAFTA. I think if we look at the results of the implications of NAFTA, we would find that many of America's manufacturing jobs have, in fact, gone to Mexico and Canada and have left the U.S. But I want to talk about this issue in particular, and I do not rise in a vacuum. Mr. Chairman, before coming to Congress, I was an educator, and one of the assignments that I had as an educator was to run the corporate training department for a very large insurance company, the Insurance Company of North America, which later became known as the Cigna Corporation. My job at that corporation was to train their workers' comp specialists, and we had some 700 of them that worked with companies across the country. Mr. Chairman, during that experience, what I saw time and time again among our insureds were examples of workers suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome and suffering from problems associated with workplaces that were not properly considering the atmosphere of the worker, the conditions of the worker, the ergonomics of the workplace environment. Now, the rightful response by industry should have been, and in some cases has been, an effort to redesign the workplace, to make the job more conducive to the human body. Unfortunately, that has not always occurred. What OSHA has proposed to do is to set up some standards that, in fact, would allow that to happen. We can argue for and against the fairness, but I think the bottom line in my opinion is we have to very strongly say as a Congress that this issue of ergonomics must be addressed, and I think it is appropriate that it be addressed and supported by Members of both sides of the aisle. If we look at the history of this issue in both the House and Senate, there have been a number of hearings on ergonomics and on the issues associated with it. In fact, it is interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that in the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, OSHA was prohibited from funding the implementation of the ergonomics rule during that fiscal year. In the accompanying report, however, the committee specifically stated, ``The committee will refrain from any further restrictions with regard to the development, promulgation of issuance, or issuance of an ergonomics standard following fiscal year 1998.'' So here we had in the 1998 bill language that basically said we would not move to restrict these kinds of guidelines in the future. There is a feeling there have been enough studies on the subject, Mr. Chairman, including a 1998 study by the Academy of Sciences, a critical review by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and over 2,000 scientific articles on ergonomics. It is a major problem and is causing severe problems for our constituents across the country. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in August of 1999, the full House passed H.R. 987, which would deny funding for the ergonomics rule until the National Academy of Sciences completed its study on the proposal. This bill basically precludes the need to take the action that is included in this appropriation measure. In fact, the most interesting part of this whole debate, Mr. Chairman, is where this idea first originated for an ergonomics standard. It did not originate under Bill Clinton. An ergonomics standard within OSHA was first proposed by Labor Secretary Libby Dole under the Bush administration. Granted, it may not be the standard we are looking at today, but the idea of moving toward an ergonomic standard is one based in the tradition of both parties. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I stand in favor of this amendment. I ask my colleagues to look at it and support it in an effort to find support on this legislation, to show the workers of America that we are going to do more than give lip service to the concerns related to carpal tunnel syndrome and other similar workplace problems associated with the problem of ergonomics.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, has the gentleman ever come to one of our 145 briefings on the issue? I have not seen him at one.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Personal briefings. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Is the gentleman aware that we had a test occur October 2, 1999, where we launched an interceptor from Kwajalein that carried a 120-pound EXOatmospheric kill vehicle that intercepted a reentry vehicle and distinguished it from a decoy, distinguished it from a decoy successfully at 16,000 miles per hour 140 miles above the Pacific Ocean? Is the gentleman aware of the test?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am not going to take the full 5 minutes, but this is another amendment that is in my opinion a mischievous amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have had 145, 150 classified hearings, open hearings, and briefings. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned that there were some secrets. I have never seen the gentleman, my good friend and colleague, at any briefing in 150 of them over 6 years. Not one on missile defense. I have chaired them all. I have not seen him at one. Now, that does not mean he is not a good Member, because he is a friend of mine. But if he wants to have access to classified information, he can have all the classified information he wants. If he wants a letter that is classified, we will get it for him. If he wants to have a classified briefing, as we did on the House floor last year, he can get it. All of that information is available. Mr. Chairman, in the committee, Members of both parties have attended. All of those briefings were attended by Members of both parties. It was not like the Republicans only did a briefing without the minority. The minority has been in the lead on some of these investigations. To say that somehow that we are trying to keep something secret, or that one scientist out of perhaps a couple hundred thousand has the answer, I think is a little shortsighted and naive. In terms of what this amendment would do, the gentleman takes the money out of the research accounts. We have already cut the research accounts in the military budget by 25 percent over the past 8 years. There has been a 25 percent reduction. I want to remind my colleague, the bulk of the money that we have cut in terms of R&D goes to universities. The 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 account lines of the Defense budget are all R&D in the science and technology account lines. They go to all of our universities. They go to Harvard, and they go for basic research in basic technology areas, in the composites area, in physics. The other thing I would say to the gentleman from Ohio, my colleague and my friend, is that he mentioned the research on missile defense. I would cite at least six examples that I have in front of me that I jotted down off the top of my head of technology that is used for medical purposes that would not have been developed except it was spun off from technology being used to develop missile defense capabilities. One of those technologies developed through an SBIR program allows us now to understand the problems of nearsightedness. Using technology that was developed for our missile defense system now helps people be treated that have nearsightedness problems. There are many breakthroughs that have occurred from the spin-offs of these technologies that would be cut by this, besides the original intent of this, which is to allow us to fully fund a robust R&D program. I agree with the gentleman. We do not want to waste money. I do not want to waste money. He understands, and he and I both know that. I do not want to do anything to create a provocation with the Russians. My friend and colleague knows that. We went to Vienna together. We sat across the table from the Russian leadership for 2 days.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, when we had a problem with the THAAD program, the Members of Congress in both committees, the Committee on Appropriations and the authorization committee, from both sides came together and they said, we do not want to fund programs that do not work; we do not want companies making big bucks and not being held accountable. So what did we do? My friend and my leader up there, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), working with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), told the Lockheed Martin Company, if you do not get your act together and straighten out the quality control issues in the THAAD program, we are going to punish you. We have put language in the defense bill that said, every unsuccessful intercept would cost them $10 million out of their corporate pockets, out of their profits, and that allowed then Lockheed to get their program together and their act together and the THAAD program has now had three successful intercepts in a row. So when my colleague points out that we all want successful tests, he is right. I would just urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to overwhelmingly reject this amendment, support the request of President Clinton, support the request of Secretary Cohen, and allow this program to move to the next step. If we do that together, in the end, we will have a viable program that will provide the protection for America that will prevent similar situations like we had 9 years ago when those Americans came home in body bags because we could not defend a low-class missile from hitting and killing them while they were asleep in their barracks.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, would this amendment apply to the allegations against the Loral Corporation and Bernard Schwartz and the technology transfer to China?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a point of clarification?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would just say in closing, I will invite the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to attend any session he wants. I will arrange for a full-scale briefing with every leader in this program in his office at a classified level to answer any question the gentleman has.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that Russia, which he has alluded to, has an operational ABM system, which he said is not necessary, and they have upgraded it three times? Is the gentleman aware of that?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am not talking about treaty, but an ABM system that protects 75 percent of the Russian people surrounding Moscow, upgraded three times. Is the gentleman aware of that?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The thing is, it successfully distinguished the decoy from the reentry vehicle, hit it, and knocked it out, which is exactly the challenge we are pursuing. The gentleman just said we cannot do that. We have done it. If the gentleman would contact his own administration, he would find the facts.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the distinguished chairman and ranking member for their leadership on this issue and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working in a bipartisan manner. Let us get some facts straight, first of all. The gentleman raised a point about the need to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Let us make the case and let us put the facts where they are, if the gentleman will listen to me. We are spending $11 billion this year, $11 billion on weapons of mass destruction and the consequence management to deal with those threats, $11 billion. To say that we are not doing anything is poppy cock. The second point the gentleman said is that there is no need to defend against missiles. Well, let us face the facts, I say to my colleagues. The weapon of choice today is a missile. When Saddam Hussein wanted to reign terror on the Jewish folks in Israel, he did not choose a truck bomb, he did not choose to put a ship up in the harbor, he fired the Scud missiles that he got from North Korea and Russia into Israel; and we could not defend against it. When those two dozen young Americans, half of them from my friend's district came back home in body bags 9 years ago because they were killed in the largest loss of life in the last 10 years, it was not because of a truck bomb, it was because Saddam Hussein chose to try to neutralize America by firing a Scud missile that we could not defend against, into a barracks, while young men and women from our friend's district, half of them, from Greensburg, Pennsylvania, were massacred. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a disastrous amendment. We cannot deploy a missile defense system next year. That is all rhetoric, and all of our colleagues who attended the 150 classified briefings and closed hearings know that over the past 6 years. We cannot deploy under the President's planning system until 2005. But, Mr. Chairman, there are certain things we have to do now to be ready to make that decision. The money that is in this bill for national missile defense is for radar, it is for preparing a site, it is for integration of systems. We cannot wait until the very end to do those things. So if we pass this amendment, we kill the program. Let us be honest about it. We all want successful intercepts. My colleague said we have not had some successful intercepts. Well, let me just again correct the Record and let me point out what, in fact, we have done since 1999 in March. We have had six successful intercepts. We had, using hit-to-kill technology, one with our NND program, two with THAAD, our Army program, and three with PAC 3. In fact, the Israelis have had similar successful intercepts with the ARROW program. Mr. Chairman, we are making progress. Have we solved all of the problems? No. But it is a challenge that the scientists who are dealing with these issues feel that we can meet. The gentleman says it is a pork barrel program. I do not have any missile defense contractors in my district. I do not have any. I do not have any favorite programs. I am willing to let the administration decide what is the best option. Some of my colleagues want sea based, some want land based, and some want space based. I am willing to let the administration make those decisions. This amendment ruins all of those options. We have worked hard in a bipartisan way to get to where we are today. Democrats and Republicans have joined together for what is best for this country. This Sunday, I will leave for Russia, for Moscow with Secretary Cohen at his invitation. I am going to go to Moscow and miss votes because I think it is important, as I did before our bill came up last March, to brief the Russians on why we are doing what we are doing. We are not trying to back Russia into a corner, and the gentleman knows that. We have a concerted effort to work with the Russians. And when I go to Moscow with Secretary Cohen on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday, I will sit there with the members of the Duma, with General Sergeyev, the Minister of Defense in Russia and we will sit there with the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Russia. And we will tell them that the threat is not Russia, but the threat is from the rogue states of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and North Korea. When the North Koreans test launched the Taepo Dong I 3-stage missile on August the 31st of 1998 over Japan's territory, the CIA acknowledged that that missile can now hit the U.S.; and we have no defense against that. If this amendment is passed, we will not be able to keep a time frame in place to move toward a 2005 deployment date. This is a wrecking amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my good Democrat friends like my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), all of those who have come together on this program; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), all of them; the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), all of my colleagues who have worked hard, to continue to support the program that my gentleman's President wants from his party, and I acknowledge that he is our leader, and that is a program to move forward to a deployment date in the year 2005. Passing this amendment stops that process. Passing this amendment does severe damage. My friend would say well, we want to make sure the program works. Well, we do too, and that is why in the last bill we punished the Lockheed Corporation because they were not successfully testing a THAAD program. We put in $10 million hits every time they were unsuccessful.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American family and a great American couple. Frank Fitzpatrick and his wife, Lucretia, prepare to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary on May 29. They were married in 1950. Frank and Lucretia moved into Delaware County, where their four daughters were born; and like Frank and Lucretia they have been heavily involved in improving our community. Kathleen Coulston serves the deputy director of Court Services and Chief Probation Officer. Maureen Fitzpatrick serves as a judge in our Court of Common Pleas. Mary Alice Gallagher served as a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and is currently the compliance officer for Christiana Care Health System. Their daughter Lucretia Fitzpatrick gives back to our community as a medical doctor. I have had the opportunity to work with Frank in a number of capacities, and his wife has been steadfast behind him in all of his endeavors, both in the private sector, the public sector and serving on behalf of nonprofits throughout Pennsylvania and throughout America. In fact, it was Frank Fitzpatrick's first position, where he worked right here on the Hill as the chief of staff for one of my predecessors. I ask my colleagues to join with me in this celebration of America and a great American couple. Frank and Lucretia, happy 50th.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the Cradle of Liberty Council Boy Scouts of America in saluting Mr. Manuel N. Stamatakis as the recipient of this year's Scout Mariner Award. Mr. Stamatakis--in addition to being a close, personal friend--is president and chief executive officer of Capital Management Enterprises, a financial service and communications conglomerate headquartered in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Mr. Stamatakis has made community service and partnerships a hallmark of his life's work. He has been and continues to be a shining example of a person of action and integrity. Manuel N. Stamatakis certainly fits the criteria of a ``Scout Mariner.'' The ``Scout Mariner Award'' is presented to one who exemplifies in his daily life the ideals of the Boy Scouts of America as expressed in the scout oath and law. The recipients are chosen by their peers for outstanding community service as evidenced by the interest and leadership given to many worthwhile organizations, as well as the respect and esteem in which they are held by their colleagues. Mr. Stamatakis is also the Chairman of the Delaware River Port Authority. It is interesting to note that the ``Scout Mariner Award'' is symbolized by a Norman Rockwell painting of a seaman talking to scouts, entitled ``Tales of Many Lands.'' Since 1998 Mr. Stamatakis chairs the Team Pennsylvania Ambassador Program--a network of business, cultural and academic leaders working to expand domestic and international business in Pennsylvania. As chairman, Mr. Stamatakis was particularly well suited to this role as he has traveled throughout the world to promote trade within the Commonwealth. In the past two years alone, he has visited Brazil, Germany, China, Finland, Russia and Japan. Mr. Speaker, I commend Manuel N. Stamatakis and those like him who take the time to give back to their communities more than they take for themselves. Scouting is a positive force in our area and thousands of youth benefit from the program and the involvement of distinguished business leaders such as Mr. Stamatakis who have gone above and beyond the Boy Scout protocol. I ask all of my colleagues in Congress to please join me in honoring Mr. Manuel N. Stamatakis for his commitment to community service and our youth.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, I have supported Most Favored Nation status for China. I have expressed my concerns about human rights in trips to China, in speeches before the National Defense University of the PLA, and at Fudan University in Shanghai. I have talked about my concerns about Taiwan. But I do believe that engagement is more productive than isolation. This year I have been undecided up until this very moment. I have been undecided, Mr. Speaker, because of our national security, and I want to talk to that issue for a few moments. I was a member of the Cox committee. For 7 months, I sat behind closed doors and looked at the evidence that the FBI and the CIA had relative to the acquiring of technology from America, some of our most sensitive technology. The fact that China acquired over 500 HPCs, high performance computers, when in 1995 they had none and in 3 years they had over 500. I have looked at the transfer of missile technology, which has not just helped the Chinese but also been transferred to North Korea. I looked at the fact that China was able to use our weapons design for our nuclear warheads, which has now benefited their nuclear warhead program. The access to telecommunications technology, satellite launching technology which can also be used from Irving nuclear missiles. And I looked at China acquiring encryption. But, Mr. Speaker, through it all, when all was said and done, I looked at the fact that China was a willing buyer, but up until 5 years ago we were not a willing seller. It was not China stealing America's technology; it was a wholesale auctioning of our most sensitive technology by this White House. In every single case, the evidence points to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where this President and this Vice President auctioned off America's national security. And we cannot use this debate to blame the Chinese people. We should not use this debate to say China stole our technology. In spite of President Clinton, I will vote for MFN, and hope that a new administration will take a different tact in terms of America's national security.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The House committee's report states that major ballistic missile defense programs such as Navy theater-wide are not adequately funded throughout the future years' defense program to achieve timely operational capability. The committee places a high priority on the ballistic missile defense program and urges the Department of Defense to commit the funds necessary to achieving timely deployment of systems that will defeat current and future ballistic missile defense threats. The committee also notes that the interim report on the surface Navy radar road map study recently submitted to the Congress states that a series of time-phased radar development decisions must be made to support varying surface ship acquisitions, including requirements for SPY-1 radar upgrades for the near-term Navy theater-wide Block I and investment in technologies for mid- and long-term needs for Navy theater-wide Block II. The committee report states that a clearly defined and funded radar road map is necessary to ensure the necessary upgrade to Legacy radar systems and the development of new radar systems and also states that the expectation of the Navy's approved radar program will be incorporated in the fiscal year 2002 budget requirement. Having said that, I will be happy to work with the gentleman during the defense authorization conference to ensure development of advanced technologies and specifically fight for $15 million in additional funding for Navy theater-wide missile defense programs.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is a friend of mine. He and I traveled to Vienna last year to try to write an end to the Kosovo conflict. I have respect for him. I also have respect for the members that sit on the Committee on Armed Services; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton); my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). We went through this bill after literally hundreds of hearings over the course of the last several months and came up with a solidly bipartisan bill that passed out of committee 51 to 1. The only member that opposed the bill was a Republican who objected to the bill because of the nuclear waste provisions and the impact on his own State. In this subcommittee there were no amendments raised of this type. In fact, our effort on missile defense has continually been bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I know Ted Postol. I do not know whether my colleague does. I know what his feelings are on missile defense. The article in today's paper is not new. He has been arguing against missile defense since I have been in Congress. I work with Ted Postol. I try to convince him and work with him. We should not vote on a motion to recommit and end years of research and technology development because of one article in one paper that no one else, my good friend, agrees with. There is no member of the committee that offered this amendment, and the gentleman has to respect the members of the committee that sit with us on a day-to-day basis. They are all solid members of the minority party. They are all talented people; the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). These are people who work these issues. We should not overturn all of the hard work of the committee because of an article in The New York Times based on a report by a scientist who has an axe to grind, who has his own initiative that he would like us to fund, by the way, in case the gentleman did not know that, called boost phase intercept. I would suggest to my colleagues, and I would hope they would believe this as well, that this is an easy vote for all of us. I would hope all of us would join together, my Democrat friends, like the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and all of us who work together, and rousingly oppose this motion to recommit.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina and my colleague, chairman and leader, for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate both he and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for an outstanding bill. It is certainly appropriate that we have named it after the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence). He is an outstanding patriot and American. I want to pay tribute to the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett). This is also his last bill, a distinguished patriot and a tireless advocate for the military, especially the Navy. He has been an outstanding co-director with me of our Subcommittee on Military Research and Development for 6 years. I am proud of the fact that in 6 years, Mr. Chairman, we have not had one split vote. In all of our deliberations, in everything that is said about how Congress cannot get along, I think our subcommittee has demonstrated that we can work together. Even when there are disagreements, we try to find common ground. Even where there are funding disputes, we try to resolve those issues. I extend my thanks to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) for his cooperation and leadership. The people of Virginia will surely miss his leadership on these issues and other issues. The chairman of the committee has done a great job in getting us some extra money. In the R&D area, we have been able to plus up the R&D portion of our bill by $1.4 billion over the President's request that has allowed us to fund things like cyberterrorism, information dominance, missile defense systems like THAAD, Navy area-wide, Navy upper tier. We have been able to increase funding for technologies dealing with weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological agents. Because of his leadership, we were able to increase funding for the basic research accounts, the 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 account lines. That would not have happened without the chairman's leadership. Mr. Chairman, we also have in this bill very important language that we worked out with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence asking that the CIA, the Defense Department, and the FBI come together in creating a national data fusion center so we can have an information intelligence capability in the 21st century that allows us to do data profiling, profiling of leaders, rogue groups, terrorist nations, to allow us to make the right decisions. I want to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). He has been one of our shining stars in the subcommittee in the area of cyberterrorism. I will be supporting him on legislation that he intends to offer on this bill later on in the process. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is not as far as we would like to have gone, because we have shortfalls of dollars, but the chairman has done a commendable job and given us our basic support to meet the basic needs, albeit not all needs, of the military. I applaud the chairman for the work he has done and the way he has done it, allowing Democrats and Republicans to work together without having significant dissension. In fact, our vote on the bill was the most bipartisan lopsided vote we have ever had, if I am not mistaken, in the history of the Committee on Armed Services. I think there was only one Member that actually voted against the bill when it came out of the committee. That is a tribute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I thank the chairman. Again I look forward to working with the chairman on the amendment process. All of our colleagues should support this bill without hesitation. It is a good bill. It provides for basic support for our troops. It does not solve all the dollar questions. The next administration is going to have a terrible problem trying to rectify those issues, but there is a good start. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in solid opposition to this amendment. We are in no way, shape or form able to meet the needs of our military. The irony here is that we had President Clinton's former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry come before us in January and tell us that the President's request, the $15 billion above last year, was inadequate and that in his mind it should be more like 10 to $20 billion above the President's request. That is after we put money in each year, bipartisan support, to make those increases occur. Yet Bill Perry still said we were 10 to $20 billion short in what the President requested. Now, I know some of my colleagues are not happy, but even the proponents of this amendment signed letters to us asking for tens of billions of dollars above what we were willing to give. I have the information here and I am not going to embarrass Members personally, but I can tell you that Members who are supportive of this amendment signed letters to us asking for us to put more money in the defense bill than what the President asked for.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I read an article in the Tel Aviv newspaper that documented that Russia was trying to sell Israel a brand new defense system called the Antei 2500. I had never heard of this system. I know most of Russia's systems. So I called the CIA. They were not quite sure of it either but they sent an expert over about a month later who was a missile expert for the CIA. He brought in some documents with him. I said, ``Have you ever heard of this new Russian system called the Antei 2500? It is supposed to be fantastic.'' He said, ``Congressman, I know the system.'' He said, ``In fact the Russians have printed documents, marketing brochures,'' and he gave me one. He said, ``This is what they were showing at the Abu Dhabi air show this year.'' I picked it up and looked at it. There were photographs of this new missile defense system that Russia was in fact trying to sell. I found out they were not just trying to sell it to Israel, they were also offering it to Greece. I read through the brochure. The agent and I, the CIA agent and I had a discussion about the capability. He said, ``It is a very capable system, almost as capable as our PAC-3.'' On the back page of that document, Mr. Speaker, was a summary sheet of all the capabilities of that system. To my amazement, the interceptor speed of that Antei 2500 was right below the threshold of the demarcation that our government got sucked into by the Russians in Geneva. So in effect, Mr. Speaker, that is where the demarcation number came from. In our haste to enter into an agreement with the Russians, we agreed to an artificial number between theater and national missile defense that would let the Russians a year later market a brand new system right below that threshold but would prohibit us from making our systems go beyond that capability. Mr. Speaker, that is why there is no confidence in this administration's ability to negotiate arms control agreements. It is because this administration has a terrible track record. In fact, Mr. Speaker, today the Iranians are developing the Shahab 4 system which they got help from the Russians on which has a defined capability of at least 2500 kilometers. If we were to accept the administration's demarcation protocol, we could not improve our systems to defeat the Iranian Shahab-4 system which Russia helped Iran build. That is why this Congress, Mr. Speaker, has no confidence, and that is why I have no confidence in this administration in arms control negotiations. Now, to add further insult to injury, when the administration finished their negotiations in Geneva and these two protocols were signed by the White House and by the Russian leadership, by law and by the Constitution, the President is required to submit those changes to the treaty to the Senate, because constitutionally the Senate has the role of advise and consent. Mr. Speaker, that was 3 years ago. For 3 years Senate leadership has been asking the administration to send those two protocols up so the Senate could debate them, and for 3 years the White House has refused to send those two items up. Why? Because they know they could not get them passed, because no Member of the Senate would have confidence in those two items that we negotiated based on the outline I have just provided to our colleagues, so for 3 years the Senate held those protocols back. Quietly, in getting the Russians to approve START II, the administration gave a wink and a nod to Russia and said, look, instead of us bringing those demarcation items up and those protocols up separately, attach those to START II. So when the Russian Duma ratified the START II treaty three weeks ago, they did not just pass the START II treaty that our Senate ratified in 1993, they added those two protocols on to the START II ratification. Now, Mr. Speaker, this President knows that this Senate will never approve START II with those two protocols included, so now we have a case where the START II treaty is in jeopardy, and it is in jeopardy again because of the underhanded and deceitful way in which the protocols were not brought before to the Senate or to the House, but rather, forced on the Russian side as a part of the START II final passage. The President also knows that we have a law on the books that says the President cannot go below a certain threshold of strategic weapons unless START II is fully ratified. START II is not fully ratified, Mr. Speaker, and this President cannot get START II fully ratified under the terms agreed to by the Russians. So if we cannot get START II ratified as agreed to by the Russian side, then how are we ever going to reach below that to a START III level? In fact, Mr. Speaker, in last year's defense bill, we also put a provision in that said, in Section 1201, that not later than September 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services in the Senate and the House, in consultation with the CIA, an assessment of the strategic balance between Russia and the U.S. based on decreasing numbers of strategic weapons. Mr. Speaker, we have been informed by the Pentagon they have not even completed the assessment for this report. They have not even completed the assessment for the further reductions that would come under START III, and here is President Clinton telling the Pentagon, ``Tell me how I can cut our strategic forces in one-half.'' Mr. Speaker, that is why there is no confidence. There is no confidence because last week when I heard the administration was proposing these changes, I went to see Majority Leader Trent Lott. I said, ``Mr. Majority Leader, have you had any consultation with the White House on what is going to be discussed in Moscow in June?'' He said ``none.'' I went to the Speaker, I went to the Majority Leader, I went to the Majority Whip. I went to the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I went to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations. I said to all of them, ``Have you been briefed by this administration on what they are going to offer and negotiate with Russia at the summit in June?'' They all said no. So here we have an administration that has lost the confidence of this Congress on arms control agreements for all the reasons I documented, plus many more, now proposing a major announcement of a reduction with the Russians in Moscow in June. It is not that we do not want to work with the Russians to reduce arms. I want that, Mr. Speaker, and I work at that every day. But, Mr. Speaker, I want those negotiations based on candor, I want them based on fact, I want them based on what the Pentagon feels is within our best security limitations. I do not want the President going off to Moscow to reverse the legacy of 7\1/2\ years of helping to cause Russia to become a failure, a basket case, where in 1992 young Russians were parading in Moscow streets waving American flags, and Boris Yeltsin's first speech was declaring a new strategic relationship between the U.S. and Russia, and, 7 years later, in 1999, having 5,000 Russians stand in front of the American embassy in Moscow throwing bricks and cans of paint at our embassy, and one of Boris Yeltsin's final speeches declaring a new strategic relationship between Russia and China with the U.S. as the enemy. Now, we cannot blame all of that turnaround on Bill Clinton, but, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we have not done well with Russia over the last 8 years, and the level of confidence from both Russia and China is at an all time low. Our concern is that this President, in his rush to repair his tainted foreign policy image, may try to come out with some grandiose scheme that does two things: It puts a new face on the foreign policy legacy of Bill Clinton; and, secondary, it gives Al Gore, who has been trailing in the polls by about 8 or 9 points to Governor Bush, a political issue to run on through the November election. Mr. Speaker, arms control negotiations with the Russians cannot be based on what is best for a presidential campaign, and they cannot be based on trying to recreate a legacy that does not exist when it comes to foreign policy issues. Here is my greatest fear, Mr. Speaker; that the President, in a rush to accept the advice of some of his political advisers to have some newly negotiated level of reduction in arms with the Russians, may end up reaching an agreement that the Senate will never ratify, and, therefore, again we will let Russia down, and again the Russians will lose confidence, and they will think that we did it deliberately, that the President went over to Moscow to negotiate something, announced something was potent in front of the entire Duma and the entire country, and then America did not follow through. Why? Not because of any disagreement necessarily with Russia, but because this Congress has no confidence in this administration's arms control track record. In fact, it was not until last year that the administration began to finally impose some limited sanctions on Russian entities that we, in fact, knew were in violation of arms control agreements. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want Russia to succeed, and I work at it every day. I want them to be a stable friend of ours. Calling violations of arms control agreements into question when Russian entities do things that are wrong is no different than when we accuse a company like Loral or Hughes or some other American firm of illegally selling technology in violation of those same agreements or our own laws. And what we did for 8 years was ignore the violations of Russian entities. We did it because I think we had a failed foreign policy of not wanting to embarrass Russia's leaders. Now we are paying the price for that. We cannot let in the matter of the last 6 months of this administration a President who, in my opinion, is desperately trying to reverse what will be his legacy of a failed foreign policy, to announce some grandiose plan that is not based on substance and does not have bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, one month ago, Secretary Cohen called six of us from the House over to the Pentagon for a luncheon meeting, three Democrats, three Republicans, and the Secretary had all of his senior staff there, and we talked about where we should go with Russia. I told the Secretary then our policy with Russia has got to be a bipartisan policy. This administration has lost the confidence of the Congress, and the only way this administration can have any hope of a successful new relationship is to bring in leaders of both parties. I suggested to Secretary Cohen that he lead a bipartisan delegation to Moscow to meet with Putin's people, with Republicans and Democrats sitting together, to discuss a new relationship. What do we have a month later? This President, without any consultation with the Speaker, without any consultation with the Majority Leader, without any consultation with any Member of Congress, secretly proposing a new deal, one that he could stand up before the cameras, before the Duma, bite his lip and talk about a new relationship in America's and Russia's relations, when he knows full well this Congress just does not trust his ability to negotiate successful treaties that are in America's best interests. If this President does not take those steps, then it is wrong for him to go to Moscow and lay out a scenario to the Russians that he knows full well this Congress will not support. He may try to give Al Gore a political campaign theme, but that is not going to work, Mr. Speaker, because we caught onto this act in advance. That is why last week the White House was in a skirmish, because the cat got out of the bag. Members of Congress were aware that there were secret discussions taking place that were leading up to a major announcement by the President in Moscow that would shake America and shake Russia. Now, Mr. Speaker, thank goodness our leadership has responded. Only Friday Majority Leader Trent Lott and Speaker Denny Hastert announced that they are forming a bipartisan coalition that will begin to assess our defense posture, but specifically what increased threats might come about by unilateral discussions in our strategic forces. I called former CIA director, Jim Woolsey, on the phone last Thursday and said, ``Director Woolsey, would you be willing to serve on such a panel?'' He said ``Absolutely.'' People of the caliber of Jim Woolsey and Don Rumsfeld are the kind of people that this Congress has confidence in. When Don Rumsfeld and Jim Woolsey and the other seven Members of the Rumsfeld Commission came back to this Congress two years ago with a report that said the CIA was wrong, the administration was wrong, the threat to our security from countries like Iran and Iraq and China were closer than what they were originally stated to be, the Congress responded with overwhelming bipartisan support. We now need those same bipartisan people, who are recognized experts on defense and strategic issues, to analyze what would happen if we, in fact, agreed in Moscow to lower the number of strategic weapons and what the onus would be on our side in terms of security risk, because there are many in this country who have argued that to go too low with strategic forces coequally be destabilizing. So, Mr. Speaker, tonight I am asking our colleagues to begin to ask the questions before President Clinton goes to Moscow. The first question is, Mr. President, why have you not involved the Congress? If you want to succeed, Mr. President, do what we suggested to Secretary Cohen 5 weeks ago; bring a bipartisan delegation together, a delegation that you have called upon when you want support for your initiatives. I can recall in each of the past 5 years, former administration official Howard Smith calling me each year to deliver Republican votes for the administration's cooperative threat reduction program, and each year we did that. The administration has had a policy of calling us when they want our support for their priorities, but ignoring us when they tread on such delicate issues as arms control treaties and relations. Nothing could be more devastating to our relationship with Russia than to have a President of the United States go to Moscow, make a grand appearance before the Duma and announce some grand strategy, only to have the Senate say, ``We don't agree, Mr. President. You went too far.'' Right now, that is the way the Senate feels about START II, Mr. Speaker. In the words of senators like Jon Kyl and Jim Inhofe, Senators on both sides of the aisle have questioned the two protocols that were added to the START II treaty by the Russian side. This administration needs to clear up those two protocols before it attempts to negotiate further reductions in the START III process. Mr. Speaker, in the end I want us to reach historic new levels in our relationship with the Russians, as Ronald Reagan and George Bush did; but Ronald Reagan and George Bush negotiated with Russia with three basic conditions in mind: Strength, consistency and candor. For the last 7\1/2\ years, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen any of those three positions used in our negotiations with Russia. We have wavered. We have ignored reality. We have pretended things are not what they are and we have allowed Russian entities to get away with deliberate violations of arms control treaties that have undermined the confidence of the Congress in terms of a new treaty we would enter into, and that is a real sorrowful situation. So I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this administration and the President and his team would reach out in the last 3 weeks before the Moscow trip to the Congress to bring in Republican and Democrat leaders, to have a full and open debate and dialogue about where we are going with Russia; not to do something in secret, not to have some grand announcement, where he attempts to capture the imagination of the American people to restore a failed foreign policy legacy and not to boost Al Gore's campaign and give him an edge on defense issues. If the President does not do that, Mr. Speaker, then this Congress will not support anything that the President negotiates and, unfortunately, we will again create more of a lack of confidence on the Russian side as to what our intentions are in our relationship. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have encouraged the President to move away from the whole theory of mutually assured deterrence where we basically dare each other to attack and build up these large missiles to attack each other and move toward what I call asymmetric deterrence, where we continue to negotiate with the Russians decreases in our offensive weapons but begin to allow in those negotiations strategic defensive systems as well, so that we focus on defending our people as opposed to threatening to attack the other side. Mr. Speaker, if this President wants to change the legacy that he has made for himself, the best thing he could do would be to go to Moscow with a bipartisan approach. In fact, I would go even one step further, Mr. Speaker. I would implore the President in this, an election year, to invite Governor George Bush and Vice President Al Gore in to let each of them share in any negotiation that takes place in Moscow, because President Clinton is not going to get anything ratified that he does in Moscow, number one, because of the legacy of the failed arms control practices of the past 7\1/2\ years but, two, just because of the time involved. The President will go in June. We will be in session the rest of June and July. We will break in August, come back in September. No arms control agreement has ever been ratified that quickly by a Senate, and the President knows that. So he will not have to get the support of the Congress in the next session. It will be either Al Gore or George W. Bush. So my advice to the President would be, bring in Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Speaker; have an honest discussion with us about our approach with the Russians; clear up the START II treaty; get rid of those two protocols that were never a part of the START II treaty that the Senate ratified in 1993 and bring in George W. Bush along with Al Gore and involve both of them in any discussions with the Russians, because if the President does not, Mr. Speaker, if he does not do that then we could only read his intent as being purely political; purely political because the President knows that his only attempt would be to, one, change his own legacy and, two, bolster Al Gore's campaign and not to a sincere effort to get this country's legislative bodies to ratify a substantive agreement with Russia, because if that were the case the President would involve this Congress and he would involve George W. Bush in this process before he goes to Moscow. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to convey their concerns, as I will be doing.