Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full hour. But I do rise to discuss a matter of vital importance, following the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), on issues relating to national security. There are some in both parties who are concerned that, perhaps, we are rushing to try to create a new legacy for this President on foreign policies relative to our policies with China and Russia. As someone who spends a great deal of time focusing on both of those countries as a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services and Chairman of the Committee on Military Research and Development and co- chairman of the inter-parliamentary dialogue between Russia and the U.S., I am extremely concerned about not just our relationship with China, which I will have more to say later on this week and next week relative to the NTR vote, but specifically to our relationship with Russia. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the first week of June the President will take an historic trip to Moscow, where he has been asked to address the Duma, which is kind of an historic event, an American President being asked to speak before the lower house of the Russian Parliament. I applaud the President for going to Moscow. I am concerned, however, that the election of Putin as the new President of Russia saw him take his first trip not to Washington, not to the West. But his first trip, in fact, is to Beijing, where he is, in fact, engaged in a series of high-level meetings with the leadership of China. In fact, both China and Russia have talked about a new strategic partnership, one that would include China and Russia against the West and, in particular, against the U.S. Now, it is important that we reach out to this new leader in Russia. I did the day that he was sworn into office on January 11 in a three- page letter that I wrote in Russian to him talking about the need for us to sit down and work together to build, once again, a solid relationship between our two countries. But I am extremely concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the President's upcoming trip in June; and I want to call my concerns to the attention of our colleagues and to the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is not that we do not want our President to go to Moscow. We do. And we do want him to discuss issues that are important between our two countries. And, obviously, reducing the threat of the massive buildup of arms that we both engaged in during the Cold War has got to be our top priority. But, Mr. Speaker, many of us on both sides of the aisle are equally concerned that this President not rush to a quick judgment in our relations with Russia or China that would cause America to, in the end, be more insecure and would cause more destabilizing relations between us and those two nations. Now, why do I raise these concerns today? Because, Mr. Speaker, last week it was brought to my attention by quiet conversations brought to me from both the Pentagon and the intelligence service that the President had ordered the Pentagon to look at a massive reduction in our strategic forces. In fact, one individual told me that the President himself had ordered a presidential nuclear initiative that would, in fact, cut our strategic forces by 50 percent and that this initiative would be announced as a part of the President's trip to Moscow. Now, why is that critically important? Mr. Speaker, as we both know, the strategic stability between us and Russia is based on an outdated theory called ``mutually assured destruction,'' where neither side dares challenge the other for fear of retaliation. We do not have a defensive system to defeat a Russian accidental launch. Although, the Russians do have a defense system around Moscow. So when we negotiate with the Russians in terms of reducing arms, it is critically important that our Pentagon, that our military leaders, that our strategic thinkers in our Government, not Republican or Democrat thinkers, but career thinkers who are paid to protect America, be consulted in terms of what the final outcome of negotiations should be. What I heard last week, Mr. Speaker, which was reported in at least three major newspapers in both Chicago, New York, and Washington on Thursday, was that the administration is, in fact, proposing massive reductions in our strategic forces in terms of our relations with Russia. Now, why am I concerned about that? I do want to see us reduce our strategic forces and our reliance on them, but I want to do it in a logical and methodical manner. This administration, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately does not have a good track record in negotiating treaties that can get the bipartisan support of the Congress. This administration, in fact, has a terrible reputation in terms of our foreign policy in general. Many of our colleagues talk, for instance, frequently about the President's comments before he went into Kosovo and declared that we would see hundreds of thousands of mass graves from where Milosevic had buried the people he had murdered. Well, after that war was, in fact, wound down this year, we had the CIA before our committee and I asked the CIA how many mass graves did we find. They said well below 10,000; and some of those graves may have actually been wounds inflicted by the allied forces in their attempts to remove Milosevic from power. So while the President said one thing to get the support of the American people to go into Kosovo, which he promised us would last only a matter of weeks and which we would win, here we are a year later and Milosevic is still in power. We spent tons of money and, in fact, we have since learned that we probably killed more innocent people with allied bombs than what Milosevic did in his reign of terror. And Milosevic, the war criminal, is still in power and, many would argue, stronger than he was before America and Britain led the NATO allies in a massive deployment in the Kosovo theatre. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues feel betrayed by this administration because of the failure of our arms control policies. In fact, in a floor speech 2 years ago, I documented 37 violations of arms control agreements by China and Russia since 1991, cases where we caught the Russians or the Chinese transferring technology illegally to states like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, as well as India and Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, in all of those 37 cases where we had evidence or inclinations that Russia and China had, in fact, violated arms control agreements, this administration imposed the requirement sanctions only two times. Once we caught the Chinese transferring ring magnets to Pakistan for their nuclear program, and once we caught the Chinese transferring M-11 missiles to Pakistan, both of which are violations of arms control agreements. Seventeen times we saw the Russians transferring technology, and 17 times we did nothing about it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the Congress became so disenchanted with this administration and so concerned about the flagrant ignorance of violations that were occurring by Russian entities that the Congress did something that many felt we would never do. We passed the Iran Missile Sanctions legislation. We passed that because Israel, just several years ago, I believe it was in 1998, told us that they had evidence that Russia was cooperating with Iran to build a new class of medium-range missiles, the Shahab 3 and the Shahab 4. These missiles could target most of Europe and all of Israel. When the Congress heard that the Israelis had evidence, the question to our White House is, well, what are we doing to stop this transfer of technology? As we give Russia a billion dollars a year to assist them in stabilizing their economy, what are we doing to enforce the arms control agreements that require us to take actions against entities in any country that is illegally selling technology to rogue states? The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the response by the administration when we began to get information from the CIA that Israel was correct that we had evidence that Russia was, in fact, cooperating with Iran, the response of this administration was to make life unbearable for Dr. Gordon Ehlers. Dr. Gordon Ehlers was the Director of Nonproliferation for the CIA. Instead of being honest and candid with Members of Congress, as Dr. Ehlers was, the administration wanted to keep the evidence that we had of Russian cooperation with Iran quiet. So Dr. Ehlers was, basically, made so uncomfortable that he took early retirement from his job. The Congress then, in response, introduced bipartisan legislation, the Iran Missile Sanctions bill, endorsed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), a Republican, and Jane Harman of California. This bill would force the administration to impose the required sanctions on Russia. Immediately it got over 200 cosponsors because Members of Congress were livid that that administration was not enforcing arms control agreements that we and Russia were supposed to abide by. By November of that year, the House was getting ready to vote on the Iran Missile Sanctions bill. Vice President Gore called 12 of us down to the White House, Mr. Speaker. I was one of those 12 Members called down to the old Executive Office Building. Sitting in the old Executive Office Building with people like John McCain, Senator Bob Kerrey, Congressman Lee Hamilton, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), Congresswoman Jane Harman, and Senator Carl Levin, we listened to the Vice President tell us that if the Congress passed this legislation, it would be devastating to our relationship with Russia. When he finished talking to us for about an hour, the Members of Congress that were there from both parties from both Houses said, Mr. Vice President, we understand your concerns. But it is too late. The Congress has lost its confidence in this administration's ability to enforce arms control agreements that we are a party to. A week after the Vice President called us down, in spite of his objections and the President's objections, the bipartisan Iran Missile Sanctions bill passed the House with 392 votes. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we do not get those kinds of votes unless Members of Congress on both sides are absolutely upset and feel that this administration is not, in fact, living up to its requirements under our arms control treaties. Then, Mr. Speaker, we broke for the Christmas and holiday recess and came back in February. The Senate was about to take up the same bill, the Iran Missile Sanctions Act. The Vice President again called us back to the old Executive Office Building; and there again, the Vice President, with a member of the National Security Council, Jack Karavelli on one side, and the President's security adviser, Leon Furth on the other side, talked to us Democrats and Republicans, Senators and House Members, many of whom had been there for the earlier meeting, and said to the Senators, you cannot pass this bill. If you pass it, you will embarrass the President and you will cause us irreparable harm with the Russian leadership. Mr. Speaker, for a second time, in spite of the personal pleas of the Vice President and the President, the Senate passed the Iran Missile Sanctions bill with a vote that included 94 Senators voting in the affirmative. Mr. Speaker, you do not get 94 Senators to vote in unison to embarrass the President unless there are serious concerns about the policies of this administration. And those 94 Senators did exactly that. Mr. Speaker, the bill went to a conference. The President, as he said he would, vetoed the bill that year and we had the votes to override the veto because of a lack of confidence in this administration's policies. In fact, I was in all of those meetings where we discussed bringing the veto override up on the House floor with Speaker Gingrich one month before the Congressional elections that year in 1999. Mr. Speaker, it was Speaker Newt Gingrich who stopped the veto override from coming up for a vote in the House. It would have passed. We would have had overwhelming numbers of Members on both sides overturning the President's veto, but Republican Newt Gingrich did not want to bring that bill up a month before the Congressional elections. So in this new Congress, without Speaker Gingrich, without Members like Jane Harman, bipartisan Members again reintroduced the Iran missile sanctions bill, and this year, Mr. Speaker, the Iran missile sanctions bill passed the House and the Senate unanimously. This year, Mr. Speaker, the President could not veto the bill because he knew he would be overridden. So what did he do? He did what Bill Clinton does so frequently. He changed his sides, came over in support of the legislation, and signed the bill into law, even though it was a direct slap at this administration and was a direct contradiction to their policies. Mr. Speaker, that was probably the most clear evidence of the lack of confidence of this Congress in the policies of this administration when it comes to arms control. My most glaring evidence, Mr. Speaker, was when I was in Moscow in 1996 in January, a month after the Washington Post had just reported a front page story that we had evidence that Iraq had received guidance systems from Russia illegally. While I was visiting with our ambassador, Ambassador Pickering in his office in Moscow, I said, ``Mr. Ambassador, what was the response from the Russians when you told them that we caught them illegally transferring guidance systems to Iraq?'' Now, the importance of these systems is that they make their missiles more accurate. As we all know, we lost 31 young Americans in 1991 because of an Iraqi SCUD missile. Any technology that would make those missiles more accurate could endanger the lives of American troops and American allies. The Post reported that we had evidence that Russia had been helping Iraq with their guidance systems. So when I asked Ambassador Pickering what the response was from the Russian side, he said, ``Congressman, I haven't asked the Russians yet.'' I said, ``Why haven't you asked them, Mr. Ambassador?'' He said, ``Because that's got to come from the White House.'' So I came back to Washington. At the end of January 1996 I wrote to President Clinton a letter saying, Dear Mr. President, we have evidence evidently, according to the Washington Post, that we have caught the Russians illegally transferring guidance systems to Iraq, in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime, a key arms control agreement. That is a serious violation, Mr. President, and if it is so, what are you doing about it?'' Mr. Speaker, the President wrote me back in April of that year. He said, ``Dear Congressman Weldon, you are right. If the Russians did what the Post said they did, that would be a terribly serious violation of an arms control agreement, and I assure you, if we can prove that the Russians transferred those devices, we will take aggressive action, and we will take the required actions mandated by that arms control treaty.'' Mr. Speaker, little did I know that at that time, agencies of the U.S. Government had well over 100 sets of the Russian guidance systems that we caught being transferred from Russia to Iraq not on one occasion, not twice, but on three separate occasions. We caught the Russians transferring guidance systems to Iraq. In fact, I have a set of these devices that I carry around when I give speeches. Yet this administration did nothing to impose the required sanctions. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when asked by Members of Congress what action we had taken with Russia, the response by the administration was, ``Well, we got assurances from Russia that they'll never do it again.'' Mr. Speaker, because of the continued policy of ignoring Russia's violations, the Congress lost total confidence in this administration on arms control agreements. Mr. Speaker, as an aside, I am convinced that the reason we did not call Russia on those violations was because of our policy of a friendly relationship between Clinton and Yeltsin and therefore our policy in this country was to prevent anything from surfacing that would have embarrassed Boris Yeltsin. In fact, the year of those Iraqi violations was in fact the year that Yeltsin was running for reelection. In my opinion, that is why we never surfaced those clear violations of an arms control agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, the track record of this administration on arms control is abysmal. Many in this city, including arms control groups, maintain it is one of the worst in the history of this country in terms of letting countries get away with obvious violations of arms control treaties. That is why this administration could not get the votes for the nuclear test ban treaty. That is why this administration could not get the votes for any arms control treaty that it negotiates with any country. That is a sad state of affairs, when the confidence is so low that neither body will support arms control negotiations completed by this administration. Now, we had a similar occurrence occur, Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago. The administration, after the Senate ratified the START II treaty with Russia, a very important START II treaty, ratified by this country in 1993, the year President Clinton came into office, because the Senate believed START II was important to reduce arms negotiated by former President Bush and before that, former President Reagan. So the Senate approved it. But then the administration did something that caused further erosion in the confidence of the Congress. The administration held negotiations with the Russians in Geneva to amend the ABM Treaty. These negotiations went on for months. They were centered around two specific issues: One was to make the ABM Treaty a multilateral treaty that would not just apply to Russia but would bring in Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Now, I could not understand for the life of me why we would want to amend the ABM Treaty to broaden it. The second issue was demarcation, a complicated issue but one that would set up a distinction between a theater missile defense system and a national missile defense system. This distinction would be based on interceptor speed, a very highly scientific development that would differentiate between the two systems. I did not understand the negotiations. Unlike our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I went to Geneva. I think I am the only Member of Congress from either body who went over there to sit in on the negotiations firsthand. I got the approval of the administration up-front. I sat down at the negotiating table with our chief negotiator Stanley Riveles on my side and I sat across from the chief Russian negotiator, General Koltunov. For 2\1/2\ hours I questioned the Russians through General Koltunov about the negotiations going on at Geneva. For instance, Mr. Speaker, I asked Koltunov, ``Why does Russia want to multinationalize or lateralize the ABM Treaty?'' I said, ``General, you are the only country left of the former Soviet Union that has long range missiles. Why do you want to include Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Belarus? They don't have long range missiles. They have all been removed.'' He looked at me and he said, ``Congressman, you're asking that question of the wrong person. We didn't propose multilateralizing the treaty. Your side did.'' Now, for the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I could not understand why we would want to multilateralize the ABM treaty unless there are those in the White House who wanted to make it more difficult to amend the treaty after they left office. If you bring Belarus in, with an unstable leader like Lukashenko, you could have Russia and America agree on an ABM change and have the Russians quietly tell Lukashenko, ``Don't support it,'' and have Belarus be the country that stopped the treaty from being changed. That became a very controversial item of negotiation that this administration agreed to. Then there was a second item, and that was demarcation. The administration agreed to a number difference between theater and national missile defense systems. I asked General Koltunov, ``Where do these numbers come from, General, how do you determine what is a theater versus a national missile defense system? Where is that line? How do you arrive at it? Is it some theory of physics?'' He said, ``Congressman, these numbers were very carefully negotiated by our military and your military.'' I said, ``Well, General, I don't understand but I think it's ridiculous that we would amend the ABM Treaty to broaden it to include theater missile defense systems when you, Russia, already have some of the world's most capable theater missile defense systems and you're selling them all over the place.'' I came back to Washington not satisfied with what I heard. The administration concluded their negotiations in Geneva, and those two items became known as the protocols. I found out a year later what I think is the reason that these numbers were reached for the demarcation between these systems, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague. I thank him for his chairmanship of the Committee on Rules and look forward to his new rule, hopefully tomorrow, on the defense authorization bill for 2001.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, a terrible tragedy occurred on Friday of last week. The District of Columbia fire chief resigned his position. I have known Tom Tippett for a number of years. I have come to respect him and admire him, as do all of those firefighters, men and women, who serve in local 36 of the D.C. Fire Department Union. Tom Tippett is a true firefighter. I first met him about 12 years ago, shortly after I first came to Congress and decided to try to work the issues involving fire and life safety in this country. To create a better awareness among our colleagues about the role of the firefighter in our inner-city areas, I started a tradition that each year would take our colleagues on a volunteer basis and have them run with one of the busiest D.C. fire stations. Mr. Speaker, one of those nights we assigned a group of Members to run with Tom Tippett's station, a truck company and a rescue company that was at that time the busiest station in D.C. As Members of Congress in their jeans and shirts, with their running gear assigned by the Department, sat in the station talking to firefighters and responded throughout the evening to drug dealings, shootings, emergency trauma situations, fires, accidents, HAZMAT disasters, every kind of incident we could think of, all of us were in awe, Democrats and Republicans, of the job these people do every day. Since that time, I have worked with Tom in a number of capacities. He became the President of the local here in the District of Columbia. And then when an opening occurred last year, he was offered the temporary assignment of serving as the District of Columbia Fire Chief. He did an outstanding job, Mr. Speaker. When he took over the role of the chief, he said he would do it, but would have as his ultimate goal the objective of improving the life safety for the firefighters who he now had responsibility for. The safety and well-being of fire fighters and EMS personnel across America is a major issue, Mr. Speaker. In fact, each year, we lose over 100 fire and EMS personnel, most of them volunteers, because the bulk of our Nation's fire fighters are volunteers, in the course of their doing their job. Over 100. In fact, the D.C. Fire Department has lost three fire fighters within the last 3 years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, following a fire several years ago that took the life of one of D.C.'s finest, a fire where that life probably should have been able to be saved, a series of recommendations were made, recommendations following the death of fire fighter and Sergeant John Carter. John Carter's widow was at the press conference today where we called for action to restore these cuts that were made to the D.C. fire department. John Carter was a dedicated professional. He left behind a widow and a 10-year-old son. He died in an unfortunate circumstance that probably could have been avoided, as did two of his colleagues who died almost 1 year ago in May of last year. Following the death of John Carter, the Committee on Appropriations of this body in its legislative language in last year's bill put in the following item, and I will quote from this bill which is actually District of Columbia Appropriations bill for the year 2000 passed in this body on July 22, 1999. This is what it says, ``The Committee encourages the District to provide funding for two critically important safety measures that were developed by the fire department internal committee following the death of Fire Fighter John Carter 2 years ago. These safety measures include restoring the aide to the battalion chief within the fire fighting division and increasing staffing levels to at least five fire fighters on ladder companies. ``The mission of the fire and emergency medical services department is to improve the quality of life to those who choose to live, work, visit, and do business in the District of Columbia by preventing fires before they occur, extinguish those fires that do occur, and providing emergency medical and ambulance service.'' This was in the law that we passed last year in response to the death of Fire Fighter Carter. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, last year we saw two additional deaths of D.C. fire fighters. In fact, in a fire that occurred on May 30, 1999 at 3146 Cherry Road in Northeast, two fire fighters paid the ultimate price, and they left their families behind. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I came down to Washington at the request of the local fire department along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and we joined the thousands of fire fighters, both locally and nationally, who came to pay their respects to these two brave individuals. There was a second study done, Mr. Speaker, following this fire. I will enter into the Record the report of that fire from the Reconstruction Committee, as follows: District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department-- Report From the Reconstruction Committee regarding fire at 3146 cherry road, ne, washington, dc, on may 30, 1999 Incident Commanders need to follow the Incident Command System and sector every incident immediately upon arrival. This will reduce fireground confusion and allow the Incident Commander to quickly contact sector leaders to determine the locations of companies in their sectors. The Safety Officer should not conduct roll calls. Instead, a member of the Incident Command Staff (e.g., a battalion chief aide) should conduct roll calls. The Training Academy must conduct ongoing training and evaluation of fire fighters and fire officers to ensure that all Department personnel respond properly to roll calls. Roll call training must be part of recruit training, company level drills and training academy refresher courses. fireground command Problem--Command Post Location.--Battalion Fire Chief 1's vehicle was not in a position to allow him an adequate view of the incident. Battalion Fire Chief 1 unsuccessfully attempted to relocate the vehicle to obtain a better view, then left his vehicle and proceeded to the front of the building. Battalion Fire Chief 1 never established a fixed command post. By leaving his vehicle, BFC-1 abandoned the stronger car- mounted mobile radio and was forced to communicate using a weaker portable radio. The use of a single portable radio also caused missed messages, due to switching back and forth between fireground and dispatch channels. In addition, it was impossible to maintain the command chart from a roving position. Recommendation.--Incident Commanders must establish fixed command posts. A fixed position allows for better communication, tracking of companies and a better environment for decision making. The Incident Commander should use either his/her vehicle or another emergency vehicle that is more suitably located for this task. The command post should allow a view of the building that includes at least one, and preferably two, sides. The use of a fixed command post allows the Incidence Commander to simultaneously monitor multiple radio channels at greater signal strength as well as access to both mobile and portable radios. Problem--Changing Tactics.--Extinguishing this fire involved a change in tactics from a front to a rear oriented attack. This change in tactics required close coordination and communication between BFC-1 and the front and rear fire suppression teams. Battalion Fire Chief 1 was unable to coordinate front and rear teams because he lacked information, particularly the location of engine company crews. Recommendation.--Proper management of the fireground requires the assistance of a battalion chief's aide. This position was restored on December 19, 1999. Department should continue the position of battalion chief's aide and their role includes the following: Assist in the coordination of fireground activities; gather critical information for the Incident Commander; allow the Incident Commander to sector the incident sooner; handle specific tasks, such as accountability, as directed by the Incident Commander; improving fireground communications. The position of battalion chief's aide is important to fireground safety. All personnel should understand the function of this and other command staff positions through training in the Department's Incident Command System. Problem--Sectoring.--Battalion Fire Chief 1 never sectored the fire or properly used a tactical worksheet. He was quickly overwhelmed trying to manage this escalating incident. BFC-2 was assigned to the rear, however, he was never assigned any companies nor were specific companies directed to report to him. Recommendation--Incident Commanders must follow the Department's Incident Command System procedures on sectoring an incident and use command charts at all incidents. Sectors must be established in the early stages of all emergency incidents. Sector leaders must be assigned companies for which they are responsible. Sector leaders must give progress reports to the Incident Commander every five minutes or more frequently, as necessary. The Department must ensure that all officers are trained to serve as sector leaders. Mandatory use of sector assignments will reduce the risk of exceeding the span-of-control and increase the Incident Commander's effectiveness. Command Staff should also be increased to facilitate the sectoring process. Restoration of the battalion chief's aide will also help alleviate this problem. Problem--EMS Command.--The EMS Supervisor established a separate EMS command structure at this incident. Recommendation--EMS operations must be incorporated into the overall fireground operational plan as a sector that reports to the Incident Commander. Problem--Mobile Command Unit.--It was too long into the incident before the Mobile Command Unit arrived on the scene. Consequently, the command process was hindered because the additional resources afforded by the Mobile Command Unit were not available. Recommendation--The Mobile Command Unit should respond automatically to any incident that the DFC responds or if requested by the Incident Commander. communications Problem--Relaying Important Information.--After the Box Alarm was dispatched, Communications Division received an additional phone call, correcting the incident address and reporting that the fire was in the basement. This information was announced on the Fire Channel 1 at the end of a long transmission. Few companies heard this message and the information was not properly acknowledged. Acknowledgment was only received from E-26 on the address change information. Recommendation--Communications must follow the established SOPs for relaying pertinent information. Communications Division must require that all responding units acknowledge all pertinent information. The Department should also conduct a thorough evaluation of the Communications Division to ensure that its operations meet the Department's needs. Such an evaluation must also include recommendations to improve the Communications Division's performance during emergency incidents. Problem--Size-up Reports.--There was no size-up report from the rear. As a result, personnel did not have a description of the building and the conditions found. Also, BFC-1 and company officers did not request important information, which caused them to act without sufficient information. Recommendation--Company officers must be trained to give immediate and accurate size-up reports at every incident. Company officers must receive ongoing training in effective fireground communication and SOPs. In addition, Incident Commanders and company officers must be trained to request information, such as size-up progress reports, in the absence of this information. The use of Battalion Chief's Aides greatly improves size-up information. Problem--Progress Reports.--The officers from E-26 and E-10 made no radio transmissions during their initial attack, nor did they give progress reports. These companies did not respond to repeated attempts by BFC-1 to contact them by radio. As a result, BFC-1 was not fully aware of the interior conditions or the location of these companies in the building. Accordingly, Battalion Fire Chief 1 delayed a rear fire attack out of concern for the safety of these interior crews. Company officers were unable to hear all radio transmissions at all times. It is likely that the inability of some officers to hear radio transmissions was due in part to the position of the portable radios of the officers. This contributed to the poor communications at this incident. Recommendation--The Incident Commander must be aware of the location, activities and conditions encountered by the companies at an incident. Department SOPs for the Incident Command System requires that companies provide regular progress reports to the Incident Commander. The Department must train personnel through inservice drills and annual training and enforce the existing SOPs for communications at all emergency incidents. Speaker microphones should be used or radio pockets should be added to the Department's turnout clothing specification to improve effectiveness of radio transmissions. Problem--Deteriorating Conditions.--During rescue operations, personnel noticed that the living room floor was deteriorating, becoming spongy and sloping. This critical information was not relayed to BFC-1. Recommendation--Personnel must be trained to immediately relay any information about deteriorating structural integrity of fire buildings to the Incident Commander. Problem--Radio Interference.--Fire Channel 1 (154.190MHz) and Fire Channel 4 (154.205MHz) are too close in frequency, creating interference when either channel is operated simultaneously. The Channel 4 radio transcript shows many unintelligible transmissions and microphone clicks that could not be identified. Fireground personnel may have missed important Channel 4 transmissions when Channel 1 was active. Identical problems were documented during the Kennedy Street reconstruction. Recommendation--As a short term solution, the Department should replace Fire Channel 4 with Fire Channel 2 as the fireground channel. There should be a minimum bandwidth separation of at least 25 MHz between fire channels. There is an insufficient bandwidth separation between Fire Channels 1 and 4 to ensure clear communications capability. Fire Channel 2 is a significantly stronger frequency compared to Fire Channel 4 due to greater bandwidth separation. Fire Channel 2 is currently used by fire units responding on medical calls. Replacing Fire Channel 4 with Fire Channel 2 will not eliminate the problem of insufficient bandwidth separation. Rather, it will shift the communication problems from fire units responding on fire calls to fire units responding on medical calls. EMS units will not be affected by this change because they use a different communications system. Problem--Truck Company Staffing.--Current staffing of the Department's truck companies is inadequate. Working fires require truck company members to perform more work tasks then can be accomplished by four fire fighters in a timely manner. At this incident, improper and insufficient ventilation by truck companies was a critical factor contributing to the deaths and injuries. Other operational deficiencies include the following: Aerial ladders were not raised to the roof of the townhouses, even though it was possible to do so. An insufficient number of ground ladders were placed on both the front and rear of the structure. Truck companies did not turn off the gas or electric utilities at the fire building. Although not a factor in this incident, this certainly could have been catastrophic. In part, the failure of truck companies in completing assigned operations resulted from truck company officers performing fire fighter tasks as well as the role of officer. Management of their companies was, necessarily, a secondary consideration to the primary task of carrying out vital fire fighter operations, such as placing ladders, ventilation, and forcible entry. Recommendation--The Department must properly staff and train truck companies to ensure that vital fireground operations are accomplished in a timely manner. Truck companies must be staffed with a minimum of 5 or 6 fire fighters. Such a staffing level is nationally recognized by NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (scheduled for adoption May 2001), for all jurisdictions with tactical hazards, high-hazard occupancies, high incident frequencies, or geographical restrictions. This applies to all fire responses in the District of Columbia. Restoration of such staffing levels on truck companies will allow truck company officers to properly manage the overall operation of their company and ensure that critical tasks are accomplished. Note: December 1999, the Department restored truck company staffing to 4 fire fighters and an officer. Safety Problem--Integrated PASS Devices.--Fire Fighter Phillips wore an SCBA with an integrated PASS device that was automatically activated. Fire Fighter Matthews wore a manually activated PASS device, which he did not activate. Department personnel who entered the building in search of a missing fire fighter reported that they were able to rapidly locate F/F Phillips because they heard his PASS alarm. They were not able to locate F/F Matthews as quickly because his PASS device was not activated. In later interviews, the majority of fire fighters with manually activated PASS devices reported that they had not activated their devices before entering the building. Recommendation--The Department must maintain SCBA units with integrated PASS devices for all fire fighters. Note: In December 1999, the Department provided every on duty fire fighter and officer with an SCBA with integrated PASS device. Mr. Speaker, I will again quote from this report, although the text of it as I provided will be entered into the Record. But these are the recommendations that were made following two additional deaths of D.C. fire fighters. ``Proper management of the fireground requires the assistance of a battalion chief's aid. This position was restored on December 19, 1999'' at Chief Tippett's request. The ``Department should continue the position of battalion chief's aide and their role includes the following: Assist in the coordination of fireground activities, gather critical information for the incident commander, allow the incident commander to sector the incident sooner, handle specific tasks, such as accountability, as directed by the incident commander, improving fireground communications. ``The position of battalion chief's aide is important to fireground safety.'' Now, that was an internal recommendation of the D.C. Fire Department over the past year following the investigation of the cause of the death of these two fire fighters. The report goes on to say, ``The use of battalion chief's aides greatly improves size-up information.'' On the staffing issue, this same report says the following, ``Current staffing of the Department's truck companies is inadequate. Working fires require truck company members to perform more work tasks than can be accomplished by four fire fighters in a timely manner.'' It goes on to say, ``Recommendation'', ``Truck companies must be staffed with a minimum of 5 or 6 fire fighters. Such a staffing level is nationally recognized by'' the National Fire Protection Association 1710. It goes on to say, ``This applies to all fire responses in the District of Columbia.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, here we have the Congress and the internal investigative arm of the District of Columbia on the record within the last year saying that we should increase the number of fire fighters on truck companies to five and that we should reinstate these aides to the battalion chief incident commander on the scene of a disaster in the District of Columbia. The new fire chief put into a temporary position last year, Chief Tom Tippett, when he was sworn in said that he would protect the lives of those who he was charged to lead. The mayor supported Chief Tippett in that declaration, as did this Congress. That is exactly what Chief Tippett did. Because there was not enough funding in the District of Columbia budget, he used money from the reserve account for overtime and excess dollars that he could find within the D.C. Fire Department budget to increase the staffing level and bring in these aides. So over the past several months, the District of Columbia has had better protection. Unfortunately, it came to a showdown that ended in a very unfortunate decision last Friday. See, Mr. Speaker, the oversight authority for the District of Columbia, the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, headed by former Clinton OMB director Alice Rivlin, told the mayor that they could not continue to fund these positions. Even though Chief Tippett found the money within his own budget allocation when he went back in for a reprogramming to complete this fiscal year, which amounted to over a million dollars, the oversight commission said no. The mayor supported the chief; and to his credit, Mayor Williams said the chief is correct. D.C. fire fighters do not deserve to be treated as second-class citizens. They protect the Congress. They protect the American people. They protect the White House. They will be out there on the streets this coming Sunday when hundreds of thousands of moms march on Washington. They were there a few short weeks ago when thousands demonstrated in support of gay rights. They are here every week when thousands and tens of thousands of citizens from all over this country come to our city. The fire department responds to medical emergencies, fires, disasters, and other problems that confront this city every day. Chief Tippett did what he said he would do. He increased the funding to allow that support to take place for the D.C. Fire Department. Alice Rivlin and her oversight board laid down an ultimatum and told the mayor and the chief, ``We will not support your increased funding.'' Even though the proposed budget for the District of Columbia for the next fiscal year contained an additional $6 million to fund these initiatives, the oversight board said it would not provide the emergency funding to complete the rest of this fiscal year, which would have totaled somewhere less than $4 million. When Chief Tippett was backed into a corner after having given his word, which unfortunately many in politics do not abide by, but that members of the fire service do abide by their word, Chief Tippett did what he felt was the honorable thing. On Friday afternoon of last week, he resigned. He stepped down from his office because he felt that he could not justify nor guarantee the safety of the D.C. fire fighters. Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues that there are at least three other next in line officers who were approached about taking the interim position of D.C. fire chief, and they refused. They refused because of this common bond of honor between all the fire fighters in this city and nationwide. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the irony of this whole incident is that last Wednesday evening in Washington, for the 12th time, we had over 2,000 leaders of the American fire and EMS community come to Washington for a celebration of our domestic defenders, our American heroes, our fire and emergency service providers, volunteers and paid. Yet 2 days later, Chief Tippett has to resign because of a short- sighted decision made by a pencil-pushing budget cutter overseeing a budget in excess of $2 billion that could not find $4 million to help this city to be properly protected. Mr. Speaker, within the last 3 years, three D.C. Fire fighters have given their lives. These fire fighters were burned. In fact, there were a couple at the fire station today on New Jersey Avenue when we had a press conference who did live who were burned. These are not pencil pushers. These are men and women who every day in this city, as their brothers and sisters do across America, respond to every type of disaster that one can think of: bomb threats, explosions, stabbings, drug dealings, because the emergency response community in this city is the D.C. Fire and Emergency Services Department. Yet tonight, Mr. Speaker, those in D.C. are less protected. Those who protect the people of D.C., the brave fire fighters and EMS personnel, are more at risk. Mr. Speaker, today, at a press conference in front of the fire station on New Jersey Avenue and in this room tonight, I call for the resignation of Alice Rivlin. Anyone who is as short-sighted as she must be, to deny a $4 million request, which I, as a Republican, will aggressively support in this body, out of a budget in excess of $2 billion to help guarantee the safety of fire fighters and EMS personnel in this city, in my opinion, is not fit to be the director of the oversight management authority for this the District of Columbia. Either she restores the funding or she herself should resign. As I said today, Mr. Speaker, let her take the money that she makes and the staff that supports her and give that to the D.C. Fire Department. The people of D.C. would be safer if that money were being used to protect them and the people who visit this city. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to go one step further, because Alice Rivlin is the hand-picked choice of this administration. Now, President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore talk a good game when it comes to supporting the Nation's fire fighters. In fact, Al Gore should talk a good game because it was the International Association of Fire Fighters who endorsed the candidacy of the Vice President before any other union in America. Mr. Speaker, I ask myself where is the voice of the Vice President calling for the safety of these fire fighters? Where is his outrage that a former hand-picked senior manager of this administration would make such a disastrous decision? Yet, no word would come out of this administration about the impending problems for the safety and well- being of both the fire fighters, the emergency medical personnel, and the people who work and live in D.C. Besides calling for the resignation of Alice Rivlin, I have today and I am again asking and requesting and demanding that the Vice President of the United States say something about the absolutely outrageous action that was taken by the oversight board to deny Chief Tippett's recommendations. If he does not respond, then I hope every union IAFF member in D.C. and around the country understands that that silence speaks louder than any words. We are talking about the safety of the men and women who protect this city. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, under a different administration, the New Jersey Avenue fire station was closed down, the station that protects this Capitol. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I fought that decision and got on this floor and tried to pass legislation to restore the funding to keep that station operational. We were unsuccessful. Five years later, a few short months ago, that New Jersey Avenue station was reopened. I could not make the reopening, but the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) did, and he deserves much credit for his support in helping that station be reopened. Within the first 30 days of their operation, they responded to 325 calls on Capitol Hill, 325 calls in 1 month, 30 days. Prior to that, those calls had to be answered by distance stations traveling much further to reach this Hill to take care of the citizens of America who visit and work here. Today we have to respond to a different call. Chief Tippett, a brave and honorable man, gave up his profession on Friday based on principle. Now it is time for this Congress, Members from both sides of the aisle, to stand with Chief Tippett on principle. Now, there are many of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, who are railing about support for the fire service, about whether or not one is for this bill or for that bill; whether or not one is for this amendment or that amendment. Well, here is the chance for all our colleagues to join together this week and demand that the D.C. Oversight Board do the right thing and provide the additional $4 million for these brave men and women to protect this city and the people who live and work here, but more importantly to protect the lives of the fire and EMS personnel themselves. It would be absolutely tragic, Mr. Speaker, if another incident like 3146 Cherry Road, Northeast, took place and additional D.C. firefighters were put at risk or, heaven forbid, lost their lives. All of us, Democrats and Republicans, must speak out and speak out loud and in a very clear and coherent voice. Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago tens of thousands of firefighters were joined by the President of the United States and the Vice President as they traveled to Worcester, Massachusetts, to join with all of us as we mourned the loss of six firefighters who were killed during the course of their assignment. They made the supreme sacrifice, just as the three D.C. firefighters did in the last 3 years. Mr. Speaker, words are critical to console the families of those when a loved one is lost, as we all did when those six Worcester firefighters were killed. Where is the voice of those people today, before an additional D.C. firefighter is killed? Where is the voice of the President today? Where is the voice of the Vice President today? And where is the support for Alice Rivlin and the Oversight Board for the additional risks that are being put on those firefighters because they are not being adequately staffed and not being supported to respond to the incidences they have to face in this city? Mr. Speaker, I hold those officials accountable. And I encourage all of our colleagues to join with me and to join with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who went to the New Jersey fire station today, before I did, to state unequivocally that we will support the funding, but we want a decision made now. Not next week, not next month, not next year, but now, to restore the full support that Chief Tippett asked for. And we also want Chief Tippett back in that job. Because, as I told the mayor 3 months ago when he began his search for his chief, when I called him on the telephone, I said, ``Mayor, you know you have a good man there. Your interim chief.'' He said, ``Congressman, I agree with you.'' I said, ``He deserves to be the chief.'' And he said, ``I agree with you.'' As I sat next to the mayor last June, as we had this memorial ceremony for those two firefighters that were killed here in D.C., he said, ``You know, Congressman, my top priority as the mayor is to guarantee the safety of our emergency service workers.'' The mayor is then on our side. The chief is on our side. The director of public safety for the city is on our side. Where is Alice Rivlin? Where is the oversight board? Where is the White House? And where is Mr. Gore with his IAFF endorsement? What is he doing to help protect the lives of these D.C. firefighters?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, over the recess period, I had the occasion of interacting with over 50 senior Russian leaders from the equivalent of our Congress, the State Duma and the Federation Council. I had the pleasure of meeting them at Columbia University at a conference. I spoke to 25 new Duma deputies at Harvard University and the John F. Kennedy School of Government. And just today, on the other side, we met for an ongoing conference between Senators and House Members and members of the Russian leadership. The underlying concern expressed by the Russians with America is a lack of confidence in what our real intentions are. They say that oftentimes we will lead them down a path and then undermine what they thought were our ultimate intentions. That is happening again, Mr. Speaker. We are all happy that the Russian Duma just recently ratified START II, in fact over the break. But, unfortunately, again this administration has led the Russians down a negative road. Three years ago the administration negotiated substantive changes to the ABM Treaty involving multilateralizing the Treaty and demarcation between theater national missile defense systems. As required by our Constitution, the administration should have been brought those changes to the Senate for their advice and consent. Repeatedly members of the Senate said, bring them forward, let us look at them and debate them; and repeatedly the administration failed to do that because they knew they did not have the votes to get them passed. So then they convinced the Russians to put those two items on the back of START II so the Senate would have to consider them as a part of the START II protocol issues. Now we are going to again disappoint the Russians because the administration chose not to have a legitimate debate on those two protocols but rather have the Russians attach them to the START II treaty that they passed in Moscow just several weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, when are we going to learn? To deal with the Russians, we have to be up front, candid, and consistent. The more games that we play, the more underhanded tactics when we cannot get issues resolved according to our Constitution, the more consternation and frustration it causes in our relationship with Russia. Unfortunately, once again, the Russians will feel that we have let them down and that our word is not good. How tragic it is and how sad it is. We need an administration, Mr. Speaker, who will deal with Russia in a consistent, fair, and uphanded manner, not one that plays games on the arms control process.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, this past Saturday evening, we suffered a tragic loss in America when a Marine Corps V-22 Osprey crashed in a test mode and killed all 19 Marines on board the aircraft, a tragic loss of life. All America has joined with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Jones; the leaders in the Pentagon; and the President in mourning the loss of these brave Americans. This tragic incident is now under full investigation. Today I arranged for a full briefing for our colleagues where the Marine Corps presented a full up-to-date assessment as to what has taken place, what facts we know about the incident, and what initial thoughts are occurring in terms of what caused the accident. It is obviously too early to tell, but we expect that within a few weeks we will know the basis upon which a decision can be made about the cause of this terribly tragic accident. But, Madam Speaker, before we even removed all of the remains of these brave Marines, we have political opportunists around the country taking shots at the program and making wild and outlandish statements. One such person, Madam Speaker, is a former Reagan Republican officeholder who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense by the name of Lawrence Korb. Mr. Korb wrote an op-ed in The New York Times on April 11 that is filled with misinformation factually incorrect, is a disservice to the Marine Corps, and to all brave Americans who wear the colors of this Nation. He is the defense equivalent of an ambulance chaser. Before the investigation has even begun, he is trashing what General Jones calls the number-one priority of the Marine Corps, a capability to replace an aircraft, the CH-46 helicopter, that is 50 years old, was built for the Vietnam War, and which is suffering severe problems because of its age and because of its extended use well beyond the original life expectancy of the program. In his article, Mr. Korb makes some gross statements that really are a disservice to the Corps and to all brave Marines serving this country. He says that this program was objected to by all senior officials from the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. That is absolutely incorrect. In fact, it was former Navy Secretary John Dalton would led the fight to keep the V-22 Osprey program alive for the Marine Corps and eventually all of our services. He says in an article that these aircraft cost $80 million each. When, if he would have checked his facts, he would have found that the cost is closer to $40 million per copy and would be lower if we were buying an adequate buy of these aircraft as opposed to having them stretched out at a very low-rate buy. He assesses that Congress only supported the saving of this program because of the jobs that would be retained in America. Well, I would say to Mr. Korb, either get his facts straight or keep his mouth shut. In fact, it was General Al Gray, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who testified before Congress that he would never subject his warriors to what the opponents of the V-22 called a dual-sling option. They said we will bolt two helicopters together and we will ask Marines to fly in those two helicopters to achieve the medium range over the rising capability that the V-22 offers. Madam Speaker, the kind of rhetoric coming from people like Lawrence Korb is really a disgrace to the American service person and Mr. Korb ought to be ashamed of himself. What we now need is, first of all, to mourn these families of these brave Marines. We need to let them know that we are going to do everything possible to take care of them and their loved ones and we are going to get to the bottom of what caused this incident. We will overturn every stone and we will use every bit of capability that we have to find out the cause of this terribly tragic accident. And we will relay this information to the families first, to Members of Congress, and then to the American public. And then once we have all that have data, we will make a decision, we will make a decision based upon information and facts, not rhetoric to allow some columnist to score political points in the New York Times. Madam Speaker, for the Record, I insert the following news release of the Marine Corps dated April 9; the statement of General Fred McCorkle, Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation for the Marine Corps, dated April 11; and an updated information packet on the mishap, dated April 11 so that the American people can see the real facts of what occurred here as opposed to listening to incompetent people like Lawrence Korb. [News Release, U.S. Marine Corps, April 9, 2000] MV-22 Mishap Investigation Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, DC.--The Marine Corps is sending an aircraft mishap investigation team, headed by Colonel Dennis Bartels of Headquarters, Marine Corps, to Marana, AZ to determine the cause of Saturday night's crash of an MV-22 Osprey that took the lives of all 19 Marines aboard. ``The entire Marine Corps family grieves for the Marines we've lost in this tragedy and our thoughts and prayers go out to their families,'' said Gen. James Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps. ``We have sent an expert team to Arizona to quickly investigate the circumstances surrounding this mishap.'' Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig today released the following statement, ``Evaluating new equipment and training for war, like war itself, puts life at risk. In peace and war, Marines accept that risk--it is a bond between us. In that spirit, we grieve today for our nineteen lost Marines and embrace their families.'' The MV-22 was conducting a training mission in support of Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) when it went down near Marana, AZ. During the mission, the crew and Marines conducted Non-combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO) exercises as part of the Weapons and Tactics Instructor course, with Marines embarking and disembarking the aircraft. The mission was conducted at night utilizing night vision goggles (NVGs) and forward-looking infrared radar (FLIR) to enhance night operational capability. Operational Evaluation is a test phase to determine the operational suitability of the aircraft for the Marine Corps. It began in October 1999 and is scheduled to conclude in June 2000. To date, the four Ospreys involved in Operational Evaluation have completed more than 800 flight hours. During March, the OPEVAL aircraft flew nearly 140 flight hours, an average of 35 hours per aircraft. The mishap aircraft was part of the Multi-service Operational Test Team, based at Patuxent River, MD, but was temporarily attached to Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron-1 at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, AZ. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding. This amendment is offered in the spirit in a bipartisan way of clarifying the intent and the substance of our legislation and our amendment, which we hope everyone will support, to provide for the first-time major funding of an emergency nature for our Nation's domestic defenders. Mr. Chairman, it was never the intent of the author nor the coauthors of this legislation to negatively impact the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Mr. Chairman, I will include my statement in the Record to explain in some detail the justification for what we originally intended to do and our agreement to work with the appropriate subcommittee to enact reforms to the Community Development Block Grant program. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I want to thank the leadership for their cooperation; and I encourage our colleagues to vote for this amendment. After consultation with many of my colleagues, I am requesting unanimous consent to delete the portions of the Weldon-Hoyer amendment dealing with the reform of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). I realize that many of my colleagues have strong feelings about CDBG and the role it plays in our low- and moderate-income communities. As a former mayor of a town that receives CDBG funds and as a former chairman of a county council that administers and distributes CDBG funds, I share that commitment. The CDBG reforms that were included in amendment 42 were intended to do two things: Clarify existing law to clearly define what fire and emergency service activities are eligible for CDBG funds under the current program. Reform CDBG to allow counties and municipalities to designate portions of their CDBG funds for activities that benefit poor communities and also other areas of the community. For example, my reforms would have allowed CDBG funds to be used for the following activities: Allow the use of CDBG funds for municipal-wide training facilities for fire and EMS personnel--including basic fire and EMS training, HAZMAT, terrorist threat response, etc. Such facilities would obviously benefit poor communities, which often have less money available for training and could take great advantage of a municipal-wide facility. CDBG funds cannot currently be used for such an activity unless the municipal government proves that 51 percent of the activities at the facility benefit low- and moderate-income families--even if the facility itself is located in a poor community. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that routinely respond to emergencies in poor communities or in areas that have high concentrations of poor people--even if these groups are not themselves located in CDBG-eligible areas. For example, many fire companies located in towns bordering poor communities respond to fires and other emergencies in poor communities on a regular basis. Likewise, local fire companies from non-CDBG eligible communities are often the first response units for shopping malls, sporting arenas and other community gathering places that attract large numbers of people from low- and moderate-income communities. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that are the first response units for highway accidents and traffic incidents that impact low-income communities. For example, if a major thoroughfare cuts through a low- and moderate-income community, accidents on that thoroughfare impact the safety of that community. Fire companies from surrounding municipalities are routinely called upon to assist with major incidents--even though they themselves are not located in CDBG-eligible areas. By offering CDBG reforms along these lines, I was merely recognizing the unique nature of fire and EMS response in our local communities. Local first responders do not ask whether an emergency occurs in a low- or moderate-income area, they respond without hesitation. It would seem that we could take some small steps to help these organizations that benefit many areas of the community--including our poorest communities. It would not seem unreasonable to make some of these changes, given the existing ``quirks'' in the administration of the CDBG program, under which-- 1. Curb cuts in even the wealthiest communities count as assisting low- and moderate-income people, and 2. CDBG monies can be used for historic preservation in even the wealthiest parts of the community once the municipality has certified its CDBG spending for low- and moderate-income communities. I am pleased that there are efforts to reform many parts of the CDBG program in an authorization bill being authored by my friend Congressman Lazio. I look forward to working with him to reform CDBG to make it easier for counties and municipalities to spend CDBG funds in cost-effective ways to benefit our low-income communities.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to know what is happening. What are we doing? I want to see the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have an opportunity to speak also. What are we agreeing to?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the Community Development Block Grant program monies have been eligible to be used for fire and EMS for years. This is not a new use. The money has been used for impoverished people in cities for years. It is not a new use. Secondarily, the decision as to whether or not to use CDBG monies for local purposes is not mandated by any legislation. That is a decision made by local elected officials, county commissioners, and members of city councils across America. This provision does nothing to change that. Furthermore, thirdly, we have met with the chairman of the appropriate subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). We have promised to work with him through the entire process. There is no attempt to undermine the commitment of the CDBG fund for poor people. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), coauthor of this amendment, for any comments he would like to make.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, tonight we have an opportunity to do something that this body has never done before. That is to provide some immediate dollar assistance to those brave men and women across America who, day in and day out, have responded to our natural and man-made disasters. Today I met with all the fire service groups of America, the Fire Fighters Union, the Volunteer Fire Council, the fire chiefs, the arson investigators, the fire instructors, the National Fire Protection Association. All across America tonight, Mr. Speaker, they are watching this vote to see whether or not this Congress will equate fire and emergency services personnel with law enforcement personnel, with teachers, because they have all benefited from our work, but we have done nothing of substance for the brave men and women, largely volunteers, who protect this country from disaster. Tonight is that opportunity: $100 million of funding to provide assistance for burn research, volunteer fire assistance, an $80 million competitive grant program for the 32,000 fire departments in every district across America, plus a facilitation of the CDBG program to provide flexibility for fire and EMS personnel to use those dollars. I encourage our colleagues to vote for this important amendment. I will ask for a recorded vote upon the completion of the debate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the cosponsor of this amendment and chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. At the time of the vote, Mr. Chairman. Very good. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, is the Chair ruling that I could offer a perfecting amendment when we return for the vote on this amendment? Is that what the Chair is stating?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer some of the questions raised. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues. And I would just say that first of all, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Lazio) and I had discussions about the CDBG provisions, and we have given him full assurance that we would work with him to protect the program as I explained. Further, FEMA Director James Lee Witt called me today and offered his unequivocal support for this entire provision. He said it was the right thing to do, and publicly he was solidly behind this as the head of FEMA. So we have the administration on the record saying it is positive legislation. They support it thoroughly. They are not going to be administering burn programs; they are going to be providing funding for burn research centers across America. Mr. Chairman, I hope our colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, there are some Members on our side who would like to have part of that 5 minutes. Is the gentleman prepared to yield?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency supplemental. Let me cite some emergencies for our colleagues: Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Hugo, the wildlands fires in California and in the west States of Oregon and Washington, the Midwestern States. How about the World Trade Center bombing. How about the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City. How about the earthquakes at Loma Prieta and North Ridge. Or how about the recent fire that killed 5 firefighters in Worcester, Massachusetts, or just last night in Fort Worth, Texas where a tornado in downtown Fort Worth killed 4 people. What is common with all of these emergencies, Mr. Speaker? They were all handled by our domestic defenders, our 1.2 million fire and EMS people who have not received one dime of support from this body in the past. Today, an amendment will be offered that will, for the first time, provide $100 million for the fire and EMS personnel across America, 85 percent of whom are volunteers, 32,000 departments, on average, 60 to 80 in every congressional district represented in this body. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot pass that Weldon-Hoyer bipartisan amendment supported by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell); supported by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews); supported by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) unless we pass the rule. Mr. Speaker, we cannot pass the amendment unless colleagues on both sides of the aisle join in supporting the bipartisan Weldon-Hoyer- Smith-Pascrell-Andrews amendment for the fire service. Mr. Speaker, we cannot provide the $100 million of short-term funding and access to $4.8 billion of long-term funding unless we pass the supplemental. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues who have joined in support of the Pascrell bill, over 260 of us, to support the fire service of this country. Today is our chance. Fire fighters across America are going to man the phones. Now is Members' chance to show their support for them with a real vote to help deal with the emergencies of this country.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in an unanticipated move to rally the support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the constituents of our colleagues on both side of the aisle who are involved in the Nation's fire and emergency services and those who support those brave men and women who protect our communities, our cities, and our counties all across America. Mr. Speaker, there are 32,000 organized departments in this country, 85 percent of whom are totally volunteer, who every day across this Nation, respond to every conceivable disaster that the American people face, not just fires, floods, hurricanes, tornados, missing children, problems in the community. They are there. Incidents involving chemical plants, oil refineries, people who are there when there are problems on our waters. The Nation's 1.2 million men and women who serve as our domestic defenders have an opportunity this week that they have not had in the 250 year history of this body and this country. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, when the supplemental appropriation bill comes to the floor, I expect that an amendment will be offered by myself, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the appropriate subcommittee from the Committee on Science, by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has a major piece of legislation pending, all of us coming together, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Majority Whip, to support the first major comprehensive appropriation for the Nation's emergency response community. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for 14 years. Before coming to this body, I was the mayor of my town; and before that, I was the volunteer fire chief and spent a good part of my life working as a volunteer fire fighter, fire instructor, trainer for 80 fire companies as a volunteer in southeastern Pennsylvania. It was 13 years ago that I helped organize what is today the largest caucus in this body and the other body, and that is the Congressional Fire and EMS Caucus. Our role has been to raise the awareness of these brave Americans who every day of every year have protected our country from domestic tragedies. Mr. Speaker, there is no other group of people largely volunteer who, each year, lose 100 of their members who are killed while responding to disasters, because that is what happens in America every year. On average, 100 fire and EMS personnel are wiped out either in fires, in accidents, hazmat incidents, floods, tornados, responding to emergency situations, who are just doing their job. There is no other profession where 85 percent of the people are volunteers and yet 100 of them are killed each year. We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to recognize these people on the House floor tomorrow. Our bipartisan amendment will put forth $100 million of emergency supplemental funds to help these men and women better prepare to serve their communities. Now, a cynic might ask, why would the Federal Government want to help what is basically a local responsibility? We are not trying to federalize the fire service. But we are asking the fire and EMS people across this country to do more and more every day. We are asking them to respond to incidents of terrorism involving chemical or biological weapons. We are asking them to respond to large natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and tornados. Yet the bulk of the money to buy the equipment and do the training of these people comes from chicken dinners, tag days, and suppers in the fire halls. We have an opportunity tomorrow, Democrats and Republicans, to come together with an overwhelming vote in support of our American heroes. These brave men and women who, for 250 years, have protected America's towns and cities, a unique aspect of this group, Mr. Speaker, is they protect our inner city urban areas and they protect our rural farming districts. They are all over America. We have missed the boat. We created the AmeriCorps program, a great idea to promote volunteerism. Do my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, the volunteer fire service cannot even qualify for the hundreds of millions of dollars that AmeriCorps gets each year? We support the law enforcement, the police departments in AmeriCorps, in fact about $3 billion a year. We even use Federal funds to help buy the police vests for the local police officers. But we have done nothing for the fire and EMS community. The President wants 100,000 new teachers. He wants 100,000 new police officers, not a mention of the fire and EMS personnel departments and people across America. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, in this body, our colleagues can have a chance to support the first major appropriation of real dollars to help these brave men and women: $10 million to fully fund the rural fire protection program, for small rural departments, $10 million for burn research, and $80 million for a national grant program to be competitively based, where every fire department in America can compete for a dollar-for-dollar match for funds to provide communications, training, equipment, to help them better protect their towns. Finally, we will change the provision of one of the largest Federal block grant programs to our cities and counties across America, the Community Development Block Grant Program, to allow that money to be used if the local leaders so choose for fire and EMS. That could mean the availability of up to $4.8 billion this year of money already going out to our cities and counties across America. I would ask our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to respond affirmatively. I would ask our constituents all across America to make those phones ring tomorrow morning from 8 o'clock on to make sure that all of our colleagues are aware that it is time that this body step up and support these brave American heroes, people who every year have fought to keep our towns and our cities safe. The supplemental bill is important. It will put more money into defense. It will put more money into FEMA. But for the first time, we have an opportunity to put money into those organizations that have been there in each of our towns protecting our citizens. Each congressional district has, on average, 80 fire and EMS departments, ambulance organizations, organizations involving rescue and fire departments. Tomorrow is our chance in this body to support that legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, in closing I ask our colleagues to support the amendment that will be offered by myself, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) with the support of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the support of people like the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), as we come together in a bipartisan message of support for these brave and true American patriots, the men and women we call our domestic defenders. I urge our colleagues and our constituents again to make sure that we hear that message loudly and clearly tomorrow. Get on the phone. Make those calls. Be heard so that this government responds with a token amount of money to allow these people to continue to serve America most of them being volunteers.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would know anything about FEMA, none of that money goes to local fire and emergency response. None of it. Not one dime of it. The gentleman needs to get his facts straight.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the base budget bill. As one of the few classroom teachers in this body, who ran a chapter 1 program for 3 years in an urban school district, I am strongly in favor of this budget because of what it does for education. We focus on teachers. We focus on kids. We do not focus on bureaucracy. I am proud of what this budget does in terms of Social Security and Medicare, what it does to pay down the public debt. But I am most proud of what this budget and what this part of the Congress and the House has done for our defense. The other side talks about rebuilding our defense. Over the past 5 years, Mr. Chairman, it has been this side who has increased defense spending by $43.1 billion over the President's request. Even the former Clinton Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry, just 2 months ago acknowledged if we had not done that, we would be in a devastating position right now as this President tries to recapture a $15 billion increase and that is not enough. This President has committed our troops to deployments 34 times in 8 years, versus 10 times in the previous 40 years. None of those 34 deployments were budgeted for. All the money for those deployments came out of an already decreasing defense budget. Our morale has never been lower. Our retention rates for pilots in the Air Force and Navy is hovering at 15 percent. Our ability to recruit young people, except for the Marine Corps, is going unmet by all the services. We are sending aircraft carriers into harm's way with five and 600 sailors short. We have military personnel on food stamps. That is the legacy of this administration even though we have increased defense spending by $43 billion over the past 5 years. This budget reinvests in defense and makes a commitment to our military. But it does something else, Mr. Chairman, that no one has talked about tonight in any of the budgets and is not even mentioned in the budget that my good friend and colleague is offering tonight on behalf of the minority. We talk about police and both budgets spend billions of dollars on law enforcement. We buy vests for police. We talk about teachers; 100,000 new teachers. What does your budget do for the 1.2 million men and women who are domestic defenders, our fire and emergency services personnel? What statement does your budget make about the 32,000 fire and EMS departments that have responded to every flood, every tornado, every earthquake, every disaster our country has? Your budget has zilch, zero, nada, nothing. Our budget for the first time ever recognizes the brave heroes of America who respond to our domestic problems, the 1.2 million men and women, 85 percent of whom are volunteers, in every one of your congressional districts, that day in and day out supports the job of protecting our American people. Even though we lose 100 of these people a year, you say nothing. We provide support for them. For that reason, I say vote for the Republican base budget bill.

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