Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respectful tribute to the Adult Communities total Services, ACTS, Inc., on the 25th anniversary of the opening of the first of its 15 retirement communities in 1972. Lima Estates, since its subsequent construction in 1979, has upheld the highest standards that ACTS demands. Six thousand individuals are residents of the 15 ACTS lifecare retirement communities in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida. Since its creation in 1971, ACTS has been the leader in lifecare, combining a wide range of services and amenities to meet changing health care needs at any level: from fully independent living, to home health care, to assisted living and skilled nursing care. The obvious advantage is that seniors can be assured of receiving the exact level of care they need in one setting, usually without having to be separated from a spouse, friends, or family. Throughout its 25-year history, ACTS has been the preeminent leader of lifecare. Since day one, Lima Estates has remained a haven for seniors and a great provider of lifecare. Beautiful woodlands, rolling hills, and graceful colonial style architecture welcome you to this 54-acre site. They hired only the best, highly trained employees available and have remained alert to advances in health care and to the challenging needs and expectations of its residents. Lima Estates is proud of its affiliation with ACTS and hopes that their continued partnership to provide the premier lifecare in the Nation will continue well into the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Lima Estates and ACTS as it celebrates its 25th anniversary. Their formidable record of providing the best quality lifecare available has improved and invigorated the lives of so many. I am proud to have such an important and respected organization in my district.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respectful tribute to the Adult Communities Total Services, ACTS, Inc., on the 25th anniversary of the opening of the first of its 15 lifecare retirement communities. Granite Farms Estates was the 11th such community and, since its creation, it has upheld the highest standards that ACTS demands. Six thousand individuals are residents of the 15 ACTS lifecare retirement communities in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida. Since its creation in 1971, ACTS has been the leader in lifecare, combining a wide range of services and amenities to meet changing health care needs at any level; from fully independent living, to home health care, to assisted living and skilled nursing care. The obvious advantage is that seniors can be assured of receiving the exact level of care they need in one setting, usually without having to be separated from a spouse, friends, or family. Throughout its 25-year history, ACTS has been the preeminent leader of lifecare. Although ACTS, Inc. inaugurated the first of its communities in 1972, it was not until 1986 that Granite Farms Estates was opened. Situated atop a beautiful rise on the former Wawa Dairies' pasture on 25 acres, the Granite Farms Estates has remained a haven for seniors and a great provider of lifecare. Its serene country setting and its close proximity to a nature preserve have contributed to its mission to secure a peaceful environment and state of mind. Home to over 500 residents, Granite Farms has hired only the best, highly trained employees and has remained alert to advances in health care and to the challenging needs and expectations of its residents. Granite Farms Estates is proud of its affiliation with ACTS and hopes that their continued partnership to provide the premier lifecare in the Nation will continue well into the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Granite Farms Estates and ACTS as it celebrates its 25th anniversary. Their formidable record of providing the best quality lifecare has improved and invigorated the lives of so many. I am proud to have such an important and respected organization in my district.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my good friend and colleague from California [Mr. Dreier] for stopping by and sharing his thoughts and thank him for his support. He was the 104th cosponsor, we now have 105. One hundred and five Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker, have challenged this administration on their top priority, theater missile defense, in 1 week. I started this bill on Monday. Today I introduced the bill with 105 cosponsors, 20 Democrats, 85 Republicans, who are as concerned as the Israeli Minister of Defense, who this week is in Washington, Minister Mordecai, who has said publicly that if the United States does not respond Israel will have to take preemptive action to protect its people. Is that what we are getting to now, Mr. Speaker? We have to rely on our allies coming to our defense because we do not want to put the systems in place to protect the loss of life of our troops? Is that what we have degenerated into? A second-rate nation that is going to allow our kids to be killed first and then say we should do something? That is what happened, Mr. Speaker. When we lost those kids in Desert Storm, it was because we did not apply the resources where the need was greatest. This bill will prevent that from happening again. It will allow us to put the resources, very small resources, on the threat that is here and very nearly will be deployed by a nation that everyone in the world considers to be a rogue operative and that has threatened to annihilate the American people and our troops on a consistent and regular basis. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that the reason why I think we are where we are today is a threefold reason. First of all, this administration has not enforced arms control agreements. I have given instances, seven times now with the MTCR, no sanctions imposed. With the case of China, accelerometers and gyroscopes going to Pakistan, no sanctions imposed. In the case of China, chemical and biological materials going to Iran, no sanctions imposed. What good are arms control agreements if we are not going to enforce them? The second problem, Mr. Speaker, is the President has used the bully pulpit to lull the American people into a false sense of complacency. As I said on this floor many times before, this President 140 times has given speeches all over America, 3 times from this pulpit in the State of the Union Address where he has looked at the camera and said, ``You can sleep well tonight because for the first time in 50 years, Russian missiles are no longer pointed at America's children.'' As the Commander in Chief, he knows he cannot prove that, because Russia will not give us access to their targeting practices. He further knows that if he could prove that, you can retarget an ICBM in 30 seconds. But by saying that over and over again, 140 times on college campuses, in the well of the Congress, around the world, you create the feeling in America that we have nothing to worry about, there are no longer any threats, use of the bully pulpit in an extreme way just as wrong as some of my colleagues wanting to recreate Russia as an evil empire, which I do not believe. The third reason why we are where we are today with Iran, Mr. Speaker, is because this administration has deliberately politicized and sanitized intelligence data. That is a pretty harsh statement. Can I back that up? Mr. Speaker, I will cite, not today with the lack of time, but I will cite for anyone who wants the information five specific instances where I can prove that this administration has deliberately taken intelligence data that is intent on giving the Congress an understanding of an emerging threat and this administration has either cut off the head of the messenger or has sanitized that information. Most recently last week we saw the announced early resignation and retirement of the director of our CIA Non-Proliferation Center, an outstanding professional who has given his life to allowing this country to understand emerging threats from proliferation activities of countries like North Korea, China, and Russia. Because of pressure that was felt on this individual and his job because of briefings he has given to Members of Congress and where he has given us information about technology transfer about China and Russia giving technology to rogue nations, he was basically put in such a terrible position that he took early retirement rather than face the prospect of having to fight his superiors in the White House and the State Department. The second example. I heard about a briefing from a Russian expert at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 2 years ago called Silver Bullets about emerging Russian technology. As the chairman of the House research committee on defense, I asked for that briefing. For 6 months, I was denied the briefing. During the 6 months, I got an anonymous letter in my office which I have kept. The anonymous letter was addressed to me, no return address, no signature. It said, ``Congressman Weldon, please continue to ask for this brief.'' Mr. Speaker, we should never have to have the intelligence community anonymously ask us to be briefed on an issue as important as emerging technologies. Another example of this administration choking the information that we need to make intelligence decisions about the threats that are emerging around the world. Mr. Speaker, we need to understand that intelligence is designed to keep us informed on emerging threats. A third example was the direct removal of Jay Stewart from his position as the person in charge of security for the Department of Energy intelligence operation monitoring Russian nuclear material. That case has been documented. Jay Stewart has been before my committee. Jay Stewart was removed from his position because he was saying things that people in the White House did not want to listen to. This is not America, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are where we are today. That is why Iran has a capability that is going to threaten America, threaten our troops and threaten our allies. I would encourage our colleagues to cosponsor Impact 97 so that we have the protection we need 12 months from now to defeat Iran in its effort to destabilize the entire world community. Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank the staff for bearing with me during this special order.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to congratulate both Stella Gabuzda and Robert Roche on their receipt of the Founders' Bank 1997 Quality of Life Award. These two distinguished honorees will receive their award on Thursday, October 23 at a special ceremony held on their behalf. The Founders' Bank Quality of Life Award recipient is chosen by a council of former recipients and is presented by Founders' Bank to members of the southeastern Pennsylvania community who have made a major contribution to the quality of life of the people of their community. Since October of 1988 the Founders' Bank Quality of Life Award has been awarded to one individual each year. This year however, two people have been selected. Stella Gabuzda began her distinguished career in 1965 when she became a member of the Bala Cynwyd Board of Trustees and subsequently the Lower Merion Library Association Board. In 1976 she joined the township's library staff where she took charge of the fledgling film service at Ludington Library. She moved on to the Penn Wynne Library in 1980 as its head librarian. For 5 years, the Penn Wynne neighborhood reveled in her warm, personal approach, a hallmark of Stella's style. In 1989 she became Ludington's head librarian and met the challenges of running the township's biggest library with her customary zest. Stella's talent to combine professionalism with personal caring led to remarkable growth of special endowments and gifts to the library. Known for her wide-ranging knowledge, enthusiasm, energy, leadership and vision, her 20 years at Penn Wynne and Ludington Library spanned the pre-computer era to today's constantly changing and challenging world of computerized information technology. But she never lost sight of what mattered most to her; giving the residents the best possible library service to fulfill their reading, listening, and informational needs. Robert Roche began his career of service in 1950 when he joined a Philadelphia fundraising consulting firm where he served such clients as the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Saint Christopher's Hospital For Children, and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. In 1958 he became the director of capital campaigns and later director of development of the University of Pennsylvania. There, he ran a $93 million campaign and participated in the building of a truly professional development office. In 1968, he founded Barnes & Roche, Inc., a fundraising consulting firm, and since then has personally served some 250 clients. He is currently founding chairman of the firm. He has served the community in many ways. He was an active volunteer firefighter for 25 years and has served several terms as a member of the Merion Fire Company Board of Managers. He currently serves on the Quadrangle Board of Directors, the board of the Lower Merion Conservancy and the Campaign Committee of the Volunteer Medical Service Corps of Lower Merion and Narberth. Each year the recipient of the Quality of Life Award chooses a charity of his or her choice to receive the donations made by the invited guests. Stella has chosen to support the Bala Cynwyd Library, Ludington Library, Penn Wynne Library, and the Lower Merion Historical Society. Bob has selected the Merion Fire Company, the Lower Merion Conservancy, and the Volunteer Medical Service Corps of Lower Merion and Narberth. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in commending Stella Gabuzda and Robert Roche on their receipt of the 1997 Quality of Life Award. Their numerous endeavors in the field of public service have left an indelible mark on the communities they represent. In addition, I would also like to thank Founders' Bank and especially president Robert F. Whalen for initiating the award and, as a result, bringing to the forefront the courageous actions of these and many other fine individuals. Thanks to Founders' Bank and Robert Whalen, both Stella Gabuzda's and Robert Roche's contributions to the community will not go unrecognized.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 518, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' personal explanation

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Cabrini College in Radnor, PA which has the distinguished honor of being named today to the John Templeton Foundation's 1997-98 Honor Roll for Character-Building Colleges. One of only 134 colleges nationwide selected for this honor, Cabrini deserves recognition for its dedication to emphasizing character building as an integral part of student life. Cabrini College's commitment to character building is reflected by the school's inclusion of community service in its student curriculum. Other aspects of Cabrini College that contributed to its being named to the John Templeton Foundation's Honor Roll include the school's emphasis on developing and strengthening of its students moral reasoning skills, its encouragement of spiritual growth and moral values, and its promotion of character-building programs and activities. A private, Catholic college located in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Cabrini College's faculty-student interaction, beautiful campus, and excellent curriculum make it one of the most respected institutions in the region. I am pleased that Cabrini College is receiving the national recognition and respect that it has earned many times over. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing this significant accomplishment of Cabrini College and thanking the John Templeton Foundation for its promotion of character-building colleges like Cabrini.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues a significant honor that was bestowed today upon Rosemont College in Rosemont, PA. Today Rosemont College was named by the John Templeton Foundation as one of only 134 colleges nationwide on the foundation's 1997-98 honor roll for character-building colleges. Founded more than 70 years ago as a women's college, Rosemont has repeatedly earned national recognition as one of the country's premiere liberal arts colleges. To prepare women for the 21st century, Rosemont has achieved a remarkable balance, combining the traditional liberal arts education with a variety of pre-professional studies and experiences. As a Catholic college, Rosemont encourages character building among its students by urging them to explore and define the values that will provide them both stability and direction later in life. Other aspects of Rosemont College that contributed to its being named to the John Templeton Foundation's honor roll include the school's emphasis on developing and strengthening of its students moral reasoning skills, its encouragement of spiritual growth and moral values, and its promotion of character-building programs and activities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Rosemont College on achieving this outstanding recognition from the John Templeton Foundation. And I thank both the administrators and faculty for emphasizing the importance of character building as a daily part of student life at Rosemont College.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank the staff for bearing with me as I attempt to address two key issues that I think are extremely important to this country. I hope not to take the entire hour. Mr. Speaker, my first issue has to do with a trip that I took this past weekend to South Africa. It was a very difficult weekend. I left Washington on Thursday and flew 22 hours to Durban, South Africa, and returned Monday to be able to be here for votes on Tuesday. The reason I went to Africa, Mr. Speaker, and to Durban, was because the African Association of Physiological Sciences and the South African Physiological Society invited me to deliver the keynote speech at the conference representing those health care professionals throughout the African nations as they assembled for their annual conference, and in the case of the other organization, their biannual conference. The purpose of the session was to convey what is happening in the technology area relative to this country and how it could assist Africa with the terrible problems they have with their medical care delivery. I was asked to give the keynote speech because of a major initiative that we are involved in in the Philadelphia area, including the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, to create the first smart region in America, and in fact, in the world. Over the past 2 years we have worked on a project that is known as HUBS, which stands for hospitals, universities and businesses and schools, to link all of these institutions through an aggressive, large, fiberoptic network into one major supercomputing center, as well as 14 satellite sub-HUB centers throughout the four-State region, and in doing so to be able to provide the storage and capability of high- speed transportation of data so that our health care institutions, our schools, our colleges, can, in fact, provide better use of the Internet and information for our citizens. In fact, one example in the health care area of what the benefit of this kind of an instrument will be is best evidenced by the example of what the University of Pennsylvania has been able to do just within the last 2 years in terms of our HUBS project. The University of Pennsylvania has been, in fact, the primary processor for the imaging data collected from an MRI unit by the Children's hospital in Philadelphia so that when a child would undergo brain surgery, the imaging data from the MRI unit would be processed by the computers at Penn, which are very sophisticated, high-speed computers. In spite of their speed, it would normally take the Penn computers 5 hours to process the imaging data so that the surgeon could have a look at that child's brain prior to surgery. Partly because of the effort that we started and the fact that Penn's lab is now connected to the fat pipe supercomputing center in Illinois, Chicago, and in San Diego, we can now process that same data for a child's brain surgery procedure in 3 seconds. So we have taken, because of the speed and the capability, the processing of data that in the past has taken 5 hours and given those surgeons the real-time capability of looking at that child's brain image in 3 seconds. We want to give that same speed and capability of using data in the health care field to every medical institution in our region, but we want to do more than that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we have two initiatives underway in the region, one of which is to market the health care services of the four-State region worldwide, and to market the Delaware Valley four-State health care network as the world's health care resource center. We want to establish not just this fast supercomputing capability within the four States, but we have already agreed with the Shanghai Government to establish a direct satellite linkage to Shanghai as they are in the process of now developing smart capability there. And also we want to establish that same capability for the African continent, and specifically to the African health care system. Now, I am going to Africa, and I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to enter into the Record the letters of invitation that I received from the African medical leadership. African Association of Physiological Sciences, Lexington, KY, July 12, 1997. Hon. Dr. Curt Weldon, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC. The African Association of Physiological Sciences (AAPS) was founded in 1989 in Helsinki, Finland, by the African delegates to the XXX Congress of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), the most important and prestigious international organization of this all important field in the medical science profession. AAPS is a non-governmental, non-profit making organization that aims to unite the entire African scientific communities, especially those involved in active research into and/or teaching of human or animal physiology in Africa. The Association primary objective is to advance physiological sciences, bring it to cutting edge that has been left behind in global human scientific discoveries in the last 5 centuries. It is our earnest hope that through this, we will bring medical sciences practice in the African continent to the way it should be practiced in the 20th century and the 21st century! AAPS held his first scientific congress in Nairobi, Kenya in 1992 with the participation of 800 scientists from 40 countries, nearly all from Africa. Due to our active pursue of excellence, and our inclusive policy of welcoming all scientists of the world, especially those from the African continent, AAPS was admitted as a regional member by IUPS in 1993 and presently has over 2000 members from every country in Africa. We are very proud to say that this makes it the largest and probably most significant scientific association in Africa. The second congress will be held in Durban, South Africa, September 21-24, 1997. It will be the honor of not only our large congress, but by extrapolation the entire scientific community of Africa if you, as the technological, educational and international relations champion in the United States Congress, could bestow us the honor of accepting our invitation to deliver the keynote address at this congress. I have been informed by Professor K.J.R. Abaidoo, Director- General AFRET and Adviser to the Government of Lesotho on Health, that upon hearing the possibility of having you as the keynote speaker, the Vice President of the Republic of South Africa, the Honorable Thabo Mbeki, has agreed to serve as your host while you are in the country. They are also trying to arrange a meeting between you and your entourage to meet with His Excellency Nelson Mandela. For your information, subsequent AAPS congresses will be held as follows: 2000--Nigeria. 2004--Sudan. 2008--South Africa. 2012--Tanzania. The idea of setting up an African Regional Training Center for the Basic Medical Sciences (AFRET) was conceived at the AAPS meeting in Nairobi, as an attempt to address the major concerns for the African medical education system. AFRET is a regional resource sharing facility established to support the basic medical science teaching needs of African medical schools. It's major objective is the training of suitably qualified Africans in the disciplines of anatomy, biochemistry, biostatistics, epidemiology, microbiology, pharmacology, and physiology. It is a regional support program designed to strengthen the basic medical sciences and the quality of medical training, to meet current and projected basic medical science teaching needs of African medical schools. The AFRET congress in Durban, September 19-21, 1997, will focus on how to effectively begin the activities of the center. The Center will embark on the following activities: 1. Network teaching of basic medical science across the region to support the immediate teaching needs of all African medical schools. 2. Graduate academic programs (MSc/Ph.D) to be carried out in designated centers of excellence in the region. 3. Specially designed programs for short-term fellows and scholars. 4. Workshops and seminars. 5. Evaluation, research and development activities as they relate to basic medical sciences. 6. Consultation and technical support to African medical school. 7. Publication of learning resources and materials. 8. Maintenance of a resource library. 9. Promotion of staff development and in-service training. Dear Honorable Curt Weldon, as medical practitioners, educators and scientists for Africa, our journey is a very long, and indeed very arduous one. Even so, the longest journey will always begin with a first step. We see AAPS and the AFRET initiative as steps aimed at propelling the continent forward in Health care delivery. We hope that you, with your worldwide reputation as one of the most farsighted leaders of the most industrialized and humane nation of the world that you will allow your reputation and gesture to assist us in this exciting trip for Africa into the new millennium. This will also be consistent with your efforts to make available healthcare system from your region to the large number of citizens of the global village. We want to have a share in your vision, as we see it as the only way to forge ahead. Sincerely, Kayode Adeniyi, Ph.D., Professor of Physiology, University of Jos, Nigeria, Secretary General, AAPS.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 1903, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997. As the information revolution continues to rage, the United States and specifically this Congress, must begin to make wise and informed policy for this fast-paced new era. Sadly, we are somewhat behind business and industry in our ability to comprehend the abilities and ramifications of information technology. Worse still, we are behind the criminals and rogue operatives who would use the technology of the information age against us. The United States, more than any other country in the world, is extremely susceptible to this new, frightening breed of terrorism and crime. In March of this year, I chaired a hearing on information warfare, the first such hearing ever held in Congress. What I learned at the hearing was positively alarming. One witness testified that with $1 billion and 20 people, he could shut down the Nation. Another witness said that he could accomplish the same task for $100 million. While the United States has done a good job to date in developing secure information technology systems, its implementation of those systems has been desperately lacking. As a result we are left unprepared for an information assault that could cripple the Nation. For this very reason, the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development included an increase in funding for information warfare defense and associated programs. Protecting our defense backbone is simply not enough, however, and we must begin to implement secure system strategies for our private sector companies and civilian agencies to thwart the threat of information terrorism. I would like to applaud the Science Committee and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their efforts to this end. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1903 takes wise and measured steps in an effort to develop sound and lasting policy for the information age. As we legislate for this era, we must be primarily concerned with the safety and security of our Nation, both civilian and defense, both private sector and public sector. While I think that we all agree that Federal policy regarding the export of our best technology needs to be developed in light of the public availability of comparable technology outside of the United States, I believe that we are also resolute in our pledge to defend our Nation in this frontier age. Certainly we should not provide the means of our own destruction as some have been so wont to do. H.R. 1903 will allow us to measure the quality of foreign encryption technology, a central portion of any secure system. That measurement with evaluations from the Department of Defense will allow us to determine which domestic products can be exported without posing an additional threat to national security. Taken in light of global market competition, this criteria will strike the delicate balance between national security requirements and business needs for the information age, a balance that should be paramount in our discussions about national security as we enter the next century. As we continue our efforts to develop policy in this frontier age, I would encourage my colleagues to examine these issues closely, to weigh the need for competitiveness against the responsibility to defend our Nation from information terrorists. The issues here are as complex as the underlying technology, and our willingness to take rhetoric and spin at face value without seriously researching the issue will ultimately lead to a dangerous imbalance. The Science Committee has set a wise course for this policy, and I would encourage others to follow and support this measure. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairwoman Morella, and the Science Committee for their efforts and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Resolution 168, a resolution that would implement the recommendations of the bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force. I would also like to commend the bipartisan task force for its dedication and commitment to developing new standards for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to follow. They have had an extremely difficult assignment to do, and I believe they have done an admirable job. Their legislation represents an important initial step toward restoring public confidence in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, I am committed to speaking before over 1,000 people at the African Association of Physiological Sciences [AAPS] and the African Regional Training Center/Network for the Basic Medical Sciences [AFRET] in Durban, South Africa. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of this measure which I am confident will help repair a ethics process that has been properly criticized by both Members of Congress and the American people.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of my colleagues to a major company in southeastern Pennsylvania as it approaches an important milestone in its history-- QVC, Inc. In the 1890's, the Sears Roebuck & Co. produced our Nation's first mail order catalog, revolutionizing the lives of millions of Americans by allowing them to shop from home through mail. Nearly 100 years later, QVC has established itself as a pioneer in the home shopping industry, providing consumers with the luxury of shopping from the comfort of their own living room. Thanks to QVC, customers nationwide have the luxury of shopping at home for items that range from fashion and jewelry to home furnishings and electronics. Not only can individuals make purchases while watching products demonstrated live on television, but now consumers can make purchases through QVC's interactive shopping over the Internet. Founded in 1986 by Joseph Segal, QVC quickly established a national name for itself, racking up $112 million in revenue in its first full fiscal year of sales, a new American business history record. In just 7 years, QVC became the No. 1 U.S. electronic retailer. On Wednesday, September 24, QVC will reach yet another milestone, as it celebrates the grand opening gala of its new state-of-the-art broadcast facility, Studio Park. Located in West Chester, PA, Studio Park will usher in the next century for QVC, allowing it to continue to both expand and improve the quality service that it provides the American public. And QVC is indeed expanding. In fact, QVC's customers continue to grow by over 100,000 individuals per month. And where QVC shipped more than 51 million products to customers throughout the country in 1996, the company expects that number to increase to 63 million by the end of this year. That's two packages of every second of every day for an entire year. And QVC's expansion has had a profound impact upon the region's local economy. First established in West Chester, PA, QVC has remained true to its founder's roots. As the studio expanded from 20 people when it first opened in 1986, to 197 employees 11 weeks later, to roughly 7,000 employees 11 years later, it has been the residents of the Delaware Valley who have felt the benefits of increased employment. The expansion and success of QVC, I am sure my colleagues in the House will agree, is simply amazing. Through close interaction between the management and the work force, QVC has established itself as a nationally respected company. I ask my colleagues to join me today in applauding QVC for its past accomplishments, while wishing the company and its employees continued success in the years to come.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we lost a Philadelphia legend, a baseball legend and an American legend. Richie Ashburn passed away at 6 a.m. yesterday morning after having broadcast the baseball game for the Phillies the evening before. Richie Ashburn was involved in major league baseball for 50 years of his life. Forty-seven of those years with the Philadelphia Phillies organization. He was Rookie of the Year, two-time national league batting champ. Nine times he batted over .300. He had an exemplary career and was recognized by being inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame in 1995. But Richie Ashburn, being one of the Whiz Kids from Philadelphia, was more than a baseball legend. He was a role model. He was an example for this country and our young people to follow and to look up to. He really was an American hero. Born and raised in Tilden, NE, he became the favorite son of the city of Philadelphia and the region around the Philadelphia city. In fact, his most famous quote was, in talking about his city that he loved so dearly, ``If I looked at my life and I had a chance to change it, I wouldn't change anything. I really wouldn't. Philadelphia is where I wanted to be, and where I wanted to play, and where I wanted to live.'' We are going to miss Richie Ashburn.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity today to recognize the Valley Forge Sewer Authority in Valley Forge, PA. Today, the Valley Forge Sewer Authority was presented with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Operations and Maintenance Excellence Award for 1997. Valley Forge Sewer Authority's consistent excellence in providing wastewater treatment to a wide area of homes and businesses in and around Valley Forge, as recognized by this award, is particularly noteworthy and deserves special recognition in this year the, 25th anniversary of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. All too often, the positive aspects of our Nation's environmental protection efforts and laws are not acknowledged. Rather, the focus is placed more on the unfortunate instances when our environment is harmed. Valley Forge Sewer Authority, which serves thousands of households and numerous businesses, is an example of how we can live and work in harmony with the environment under the direction of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. As the Representative of the Seventh Congressional District, in which the Valley Forge Sewer Authority is located, I ask my colleagues to join me congratulating the authority for its accomplishment. The member municipalities, municipal authorities, and Valley Forge Sewer Authority's management and staff deserve our commendation for true environmental protection.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss several defense issues, but before discussing those issues, I would like to follow up on the previous special order that we just heard, since many of our colleagues perhaps in their offices, and citizens around the country, have been listening to three of our colleagues discuss education. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, applaud the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green] because I heard him use the word ``bipartisanship'' a number of times in reference to education success. I want to applaud him, because I want to distinguish my colleague from Texas as opposed to the other two Members from whom we heard nothing except the phrases ``Democrats, Democrats, Democrats.'' Now, I do not know what amount of classroom teaching experience my colleagues that spoke have. I spent 7 years in the public schools of Pennsylvania, was active in my education association as a vice president, was a negotiator for a while, was involved in running a chapter 1 program in an impoverished area in my county. So my experience is based on real life. I am not one of the attorneys in this institution. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have in the past, continue today, and will be in the future, in the forefront of working to improve our educational system in this country, and for some Member to stand up here for 50 minutes and talk about only one party has a market on what we need to do to improve our schools is an absolute outrage. It is really a shame, because I think it is a slap in the face to people like the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] who chairs our Committee on Education and the Workplace, who himself was a classroom teacher, a superintendent, and someone who was involved in education. Or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who spent a significant amount of time working on education priorities. The successes that we have had in this Congress have been bipartisan, and they have not been because of any one party. In fact, I would remind some of my colleagues who just spoke, and I again say with the exception of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green], that it was the Democrat Party who for 50 years controlled this institution. In fact, the first 2 years of the Clinton administration the Democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. Is not it amazing that those who would seek to be most partisan in this debate on education would now begin to take credit as a political aspect of the Democrats' agenda for what a Republican Congress has enacted in the last 3 years? It has, in fact, not been a Democrat win and it has not been a Republican win. It has been a bipartisan effort, as the gentleman from Texas alluded to, to bring Members of Congress together for the good of our children and the schools of this country. Mr. Speaker, I take exception to some of the comments that were made, and as a classroom teacher who spent a number of years working to improve the quality of our children's educational opportunities, I am proud of what this party and this Congress has done, bringing Democrats in with us, to bring forth new initiatives and new ideas to help all of our schools across this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, my real purpose tonight is to discuss several defense priorities that are going to be coming up and should be on the minds of our colleagues over the next several weeks. In fact, one issue is going to be coming before several of our committees. It already has, in fact, been an issue in the Committee on International Relations as well as the Committee on the Judiciary where a bill has passed and is now pending before the Committee on National Security, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Commerce. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a very technical piece of legislation dealing with an issue that many of us have not focused on, and that is the whole issue of information. One of our greatest challenges as we approach the 21st century is how to manage information and to make sure that we, in fact, can become smart cities, smart regions, and further utilize information technology to enhance the quality of the lives of our people. Mr. Speaker, in that process, however, we face a dilemma. At a hearing that I chaired in March of this year as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Development, I took testimony for 6 hours on the issue of information warfare, and I heard recommendations and reports provided to us that an adversary in the 21st century may not have to spend his or her dollars on sophisticated weapons systems or on bigger bullets or larger missiles or longer range technologies, but rather concentrate on using methods to compromise our information systems, to bring down our banking and financial systems, our mass transit systems. Mr. Speaker, the recommendation coming out of that hearing from the Defense Science Board was that we should dramatically increase spending for information security and control by about $3 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to do that because that is just too much money. We made a modest increase in this year's defense bill and we are working to keep that modest increase in place to demonstrate new technologies to allow us to protect our systems in this country from the threat of an adversary taking them down. But there is a piece of legislation that is being pushed on a fast track basis that would totally remove the export controls over encryption technology. Encryption, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, is the technology and the process used to code information so that when we have a conversation over the Internet, no one else can intercept that conversation. There are very important principles in question here relative to the security of the people of this country having their ability to communicate and not having the Government or anyone else be able to have access to that. Encryption provides that protection and, in fact, it is available in this country. However, the piece of legislation that is now under consideration, H.R. 695, which a number of our colleagues have cosponsored, would basically remove export controls and allow this technology in its most sophisticated form to be sent overseas. Now, there are some in this country, and myself included, who have some concerns about the administration's current policy over encryption and want to see reforms that will allow our software industry to continue to be on the cutting edge of new technologies to encrypt information that, in fact, we will be using every day. However, while I do not support the current policy of this administration, I cannot in good conscience support a total wiping out of any export control on technology that a cartel, a drug cartel, or an adversary nation has been using and could be using to prevent our law enforcement, intelligence, and defense resources from protecting the American people from the threats of drug dealing, from the threats of intimidation, terrorist activities, or other activities of that type. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to carefully review the impact that this legislation will have, first of all, on our national security and on our intelligence-gathering capabilities. In fact, everyone in fact in the administration concerned with defense intelligence has come out with grave reservations about this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have also received a letter from Secretary Cohen expressing his grave reservations about this legislation. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, when the Committee on National Security marks up this piece of legislation, I will be offering an amendment that will enjoy the support of both the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], chairman of the Committee on National Security, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], ranking Democrat on that committee, that hopefully will pass, that will deal with one-half of the issue and that is whether or not we should completely eliminate all export controls and export process to review encryption technology that would be sold overseas and marketed overseas. I think it is a fair compromise. It does not, in fact, satisfy all of the industry groups who want to have no export controls, and it does not satisfy the administration, but it does give us an ability to have a process in place to continue to allow our Department of Defense to monitor the kinds of technologies that we allow to be sold to rogue nations. It is a very important amendment. It also closes a loophole, Mr. Speaker, in H.R. 695 that, in effect, would allow supercomputers to be sold overseas if, in fact, they have encryption built in. Now, this is kind of an ironic twist here, because many of the cosponsors of this bill voted for an amendment that criticized the administration for allowing Cray supercomputers to be sold to China and Russia. Yet, Mr. Speaker, in this very provision that some of them have unknowingly cosponsored, there is a loophole that would allow those same supercomputers, if encryption is contained in those supercomputers, to be sold overseas with no restrictions. I do not think that is the intent of most of our colleagues, and the amendment that I will be offering on Tuesday will correct that. Now, I would also encourage our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to try to get briefings from Louis Freeh, the Director of the FBI, who I had in my office today for 1 hour, or from the National Security Agency, on the domestic impact of a total elimination of controls over encryption. Again, I am not happy with the administration nor am I happy with their proposal to establish what is called a key recovery system. But we do need to allow the law enforcement entities in this Nation, we do need to allow the Justice Department, to go through the established system of our courts with court and judicial approval to gain access to gather data that can be used; for instance, in uncovering pedophiles who in fact have been using and continue to use our Internet to unknowingly get the attention and to communicate with young people through the Internet; or to get access to encrypted data that, in fact, has been used by drug cartels; or for instance, the group that was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. Our law enforcement community has to have some ability, through a very difficult and very well-thought-out process, to get the approval from our courts to get access to encrypted data for very specific purposes when the national security of this Nation and our people is at risk. It is extremely important every law enforcement head in our Federal Government has, in fact, signed a letter to every Member of Congress stating their concern with this bill. I would also, Mr. Speaker, like to enter that letter into the Record. Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, July 18, 1997. Dear Member of Congress: Congress is considering a variety of legislative proposals concerning encryption. Some of these proposals would, in effect, make it impossible for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Secret Service, Customs Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to lawfully gain access to criminal telephone conversations or electronically stored evidence possessed by terrorists, child pornographers, drug kingpins, spies and other criminals. Since the impact of these proposals would seriously jeopardize public safety and national security, we collectively urge you to support a different, balanced approach that strongly supports commercial and privacy interests but maintains our ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes. We fully recognize that encryption is critical to communications security and privacy, and that substantial commercial interests are at stake. Perhaps in recognition of these facts, all the bills being considered allow market forces to shape the development of encryption products. We, too, place substantial reliance on market forces to promote electronic security and privacy, but believe that we cannot rely solely on market forces to protect the public safety and national security. Obviously, the government cannot abdicate its solemn responsibility to protect public safety and national security. Currently, of course, encryption is not widely used, and most data is stored, and transmitted, in the clear. As we move from a plaintext world to an encrypted one, we have a critical choice to make: we can either (1) choose robust, unbreakable encryption that protects commerce and privacy but gives criminals a powerful new weapon, or (2) choose robust, unbreakable encryption that protects commerce and privacy and gives law enforcement the ability to protect public safety. The choice should be obvious and it would be a mistake of historic proportions to do nothing about the dangers to public safety posed by encryption without adequate safeguards for law enforcement. Let there be no doubt: without encryption safeguards, all Americans will be endangered. No one disputes this fact; not industry, not encryption users, no one. We need to take definitive actions to protect the safety of the public and security of the nation. That is why law enforcement at all levels of government--including the Justice Department, Treasury Department, the National Association of Attorneys General, International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National District Attorneys Association--are so concerned about this issue. We all agree that without adequate legislation, law enforcement in the United States will be severely limited in its ability to combat the worst criminals and terrorists. Further, law enforcement agrees that the widespread use of robust non-key recovery encryption ultimately will devastate our ability to fight crimes and prevent terrorism. Simply stated, technology is rapidly developing to the point where powerful encryption will become commonplace both for routine telephone communications and for stored computer data. Without legislation that accommodates public safety and national security concerns, society's most dangerous criminals will be able to communicate safely and electronically store data without fear of discovery. Court orders to conduct electronic surveillance and court- authorized search warrants will be ineffectual, and the Fourth Amendment's carefully-struck balance between ensuring privacy and protecting public safety will be forever altered by technology. Technology should not dictate public policy, and it should promote, rather than defeat, public safety. We are not suggesting the balance of the Fourth Amendment be tipped toward law enforcement either. To the contrary, we only seek the status quo, not the lessening of any legal standard or the expansion of any law enforcement authority. The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy and liberties of our citizens but permits law enforcement to use tightly controlled investigative techniques to obtain evidence of crimes. The result has been the freest country in the world with the strongest economy. Law enforcement has already confronted encryption in high- profile espionage, terrorist, and criminal cases. For example: An international terrorist was plotting to blow up 11 U.S.- owned commercial airliners in the Far East. His laptop computer, which was seized in Manila, contained encrypted files concerning this terrorist plot. A subject in a child pornography case used encryption in transmitting obscene and pornographic images of children over the Internet. A major international drug trafficking subject recently used a telephone encryption device to frustrate court- approved electronic surveillance. And this is just the top of the iceberg. Convicted spy Aldrich Ames, for example, was told by the Russian Intelligence Service to encrypt computer file information that was to be passed to them. Further, today's international drug trafficking organizations are the most powerful, ruthless and affluent criminal enterprises we have ever faced. We know from numerous past investigations that they have utilized their virtually unlimited wealth to purchase sophisticated electronic equipment to facilitate their illegal activities. This has included state of the art communication and encryption devices. They have used this equipment as part of their command and control process for their international criminal operations. We believe you share our concern that criminals will increasingly take advantage of developing technology to further insulate their violent and destructive activities. Requests for cryptographic support pertaining to electronic surveillance interceptions from FBI Field Offices and other law enforcement agencies have steadily risen over the past several years. There has been an increase in the number of instances where the FBI's and DEA's court-authorized electronic efforts were frustrated by the use of encryption that did not allow for law enforcement access. There have also been numerous other cases where law enforcement, through the use of electronic surveillance, has not only solved and successfully prosecuted serious crimes but has also been able to prevent life-threatening criminal acts. For example, terrorists in New York were plotting to bomb the United Nations building, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and 26 Federal Plaza as well as conduct assassinations of political figures. Court-authorized electronic surveillance enabled the FBI to disrupt the plot as explosives were being mixed. Ultimately, the evident obtained was used to convict the conspirators. In another example, electronic surveillance was used to stop and then convict two men who intended to kidnap, molest, and kill a child. In all of these cases, the use of encryption might have seriously jeopardized public safety and resulted in the loss of life. To preserve law enforcement's abilities, and to preserve the balance so carefully established by the Constitution, we believe any encryption legislation must accomplish three goals in addition to promoting the widespread use of strong encryption. It must establish: A viable key management infrastructure that promotes electronic commerce and enjoys the confidence of encryption users. A key management infrastructure that supports a key recovery scheme that will allow encryption users access to their own data should the need arise, and that will permit law enforcement to obtain lawful access to the plain text of encrypted communications and data. An enforcement mechanism that criminalizes both improper use of encryption key recovery information and the use of encryption for criminal purposes. Only one bill. S. 909 (the McCain/Kerrey/Hollings bill), comes close to meeting these core public safety, law enforcement, and national security needs. The other bills being considered by Congress, as currently written, risk great harm to our ability to enforce the laws and protect our citizens. We look forward to working to improve the McCain/ Kerrey/Hollings bill. In sum, while encryption is certainly a commercial interest of great importance to this Nation, it is not solely a commercial or business issue. Those of us charged with the protection of public safety and national security, believe that the misuse of encryption technology will become matter of life and death in many instances. That is why we urge you to adopt a balanced approach that accomplishes the goals mentioned above. Only this approach will allow police departments, attorneys general, district attorneys, sheriffs, and federal authorities to continue to use their most effective investigative techniques, with court approval, to fight crime and espionage and prevent terrorism. Sincerely yours, Janet Reno, Attorney General. Louis Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Barry McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy. Thomas A. Constantine, Director, Drug Enforcement Administration. Lewis C. Merletti, Director, U.S. Secret Service. Raymond W. Kelly, Undersecretary for Enforcement, U.S. Department of Treasury. George J. Weise, Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service. John W. Magaw, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, again I am not saying that the administration's policy is a correct one nor is their policy of key recovery one that I can support. What I am saying is that this bill should not be rushed through. Members need to look at this very complicated subject in detail. Yes, we need to protect the civil liberties of our citizens to be able to communicate in a confidential and protected manner. But we also need to look out for the national security implications of this legislation, the intelligence implications of this legislation, and for the ability for our law enforcement community, our State Police, the FBI, the Justice Department, when necessary through an established legal process to be able to get access to deal with those rogue entities that are using encryption to hide the activities they are involved in which are illegal. So I would ask our colleagues to closely monitor this legislation as it moves through the process. Mr. Speaker, the second issue I would like to discuss is also a national security and defense issue, and I want to bring this up because it is going to be a major issue this weekend in the national media. It deals with a concern that I have relative to the former Soviet Union, especially now with one of the former Soviet States, Russia, the largest one. Mr. Speaker, as many of our colleagues know, I spend a great deal of time working in a positive way with Russia and its leadership on energy issues and environmental issues. This year I focused on establishing a middle-income housing program for the Russian people. I have established a new Russian Duma American Congress study group, which I cochair with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and which is chaired on the Russian side by Deputy Speaker Shokhin. So I spend a lot of time trying proactively to improve our relationships, but I have a great deal of concern with what I think, and with my impression of the administration not being aggressive enough in pursuing concerns that many of us have relative to Russia's ability to control its nuclear material, its strategic weapons, and the state of the military in Russia. Mr. Speaker, the problem is compounded by the fact that the administration, especially the Commander in Chief, has repeatedly used the bully pulpit to convey a message to America that we no longer have to worry about a threat coming from Russia. Again, I do not want to recreate a scenario where we depict Russia as some ``Evil Empire,'' because it is not. And I trust Boris Yeltsin for what he is trying to do, and applaud him for his efforts, as well as his key leadership, Chernomyrdin, Nemtsov, Chubays, and all of his people involved in leading his country. But facts are facts. And there are major problems that we cannot sweep under the rug or put our head in the sand and ignore. And to that extent, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about my most recent trip to Russia in May of this year and I have been there twice. The most recent trip was a part of an interparliamentary exchange where we met with senior members of their Duma and discussed common issues. And we found many areas where we can work together. Along with that, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to focus on some security concerns that I have with Russia and the need for Russia to be more transparent in terms of what their objectives and intents are relative to national security issues. In the course of these meetings, I had the occasion to meet, along with the entire delegation, for 2 hours with Gen. Alexander Lebed. As we know General Lebed was a major candidate for the office of President when Boris Yeltsin ran for that office and won successfully last year against Mr. Zuganov, the candidate of the Communist Party. Many speculate that the reason why Yeltsin was so successful was because he was able to get Lebed out of the race, partly by offering him a position as senior defense advisor to President Yeltsin on defense issues as a very respected retired Russian general. So the credibility of General Lebed is not something that I can vouch for but rather, based upon what President Yeltsin did in moving General Lebed into this position on his confidence in General Lebed as a senior defense advisor. In our meeting with General Lebed he talked to us without the press being present and this is now in the public record and our trip report about the status of the stability of the Russian military. He raised some very serious concerns to us, Mr. Speaker, that we have to deal with and understand and that this administration has got to be more aggressive in pursuing as to whether or not they are facts or fiction. One of our questions to General Lebed was whether or not there was a possibility of armed revolution inside of Russia by its own military. General Lebed said he thought that was not possible primarily because, as General Lebed said, former Defense Minister Pavel Grachev had removed all the professionals from the army. General Lebed went on to say that the trained professional soldiers and leaders are gone and are now working with the criminal elements inside of Russia. And many of these generals and admirals have had access in the past to very sophisticated weapons and technologies that in fact could be sold on the black market. And, in fact, we are seeing some evidence of proliferation of both weapons, strategic materials and in some cases even the seeking of nuclear materials. In fact, General Lebed went on to say that the army and the military does not have sufficient control over nuclear weapons. In fact, he said to us that of 132 nuclear submarines being decommissioned by Russia, only 25 have had their reactors dismantled. In fact, two submarines nearly sank. Some reactors, he said, are in emergency condition. We have an aggressive program through our Navy to work with Russia to help them deal with their nuclear technology. I have been supportive of that. But the problem is a very real one. Russia has severe problems with control of their nuclear material. He went on to say something that is even more provocative and something that is going to be the subject of a ``60 Minutes'' speech on Sunday evening this week, which I urge our colleagues to tune into. It is also going to be the subject of a Washington Post story and an AP story and also is going to be highlighted in a book that is going to be released next week by two authors. That book, by the way, is the basis, part of the basis for the Steven Speilberg movie that will be released this month entitled ``Peacemaker,'' which is a fictional depiction of the possible transfer of a Russian SS-18 missile out of Russia to a rogue nation. General Lebed, in our meeting with six Members of Congress, said that when he had been Boris Yeltsin's chief defense advisor, he was given the responsibility to account for the location of 132 suitcase-sized nuclear devices, these are nuclear bombs, each with a capacity of 1 kiloton. One kiloton is not as great as the bomb at Hiroshima because that was approximately 15 kilotons. But 1 kiloton would cause a significant amount of damage wherever it was used. Now, General Lebed said to us in a session with the bipartisan delegation, he was given the responsibility to account for the location of 132 suitcase-sized nuclear devices that Russia had manufactured. During his time in the capacity of advising Boris Yeltsin, he could only find 48. When we asked him where the rest of these devices were, he shrugged his shoulders and could not answer us. That is troubling. That is troubling because here was a man who Boris Yeltsin put into a key position advising him on defense matters who, according to him, was given the responsibility to account for these suitcase-sized nuclear weapons. And yet he told us, in a meeting in Moscow, that he could not in fact account for them. And I believe on ``60 Minutes'' this Sunday night you will see General Lebed again repeat that in his own words on that program. I have asked the administration, both through our intelligence agencies as well as in a briefing that I gave to the current Secretary of Energy, to try to get an accounting from the Russians as to the validity of this statement. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of issue that we cannot sweep under the rug. I have the same ultimate objective that Strobe Talbott and President Clinton have in terms of a stabilized relationship with Russia. But that does not mean that we ignore problems that exist, whether it is suitcase-sized nuclear devices that may be out there available on the black market or whether it is the transfer of accelerometers and gyroscopes that had Russian markings, that were intercepted by the Jordanians on their way to Iraq, which is a violation of the missile technology regime, or whether it is the response by Russia to a Norwegian rocket weather launch that they had been given prior notice of and that Russia is in such a paranoid state that it put its entire strategic offensive force on alert because of Norway's launch of a weather rocket which meant that Russia was within 60 seconds of an all-out attack in response to a Norwegian weather rocket which they had been previously notified of. Now the President of Russia has acknowledged publicly that his chegets, the devices that control the nuclear trigger, were in fact activated as a response to that Norwegian rocket launch. Mr. Speaker, these are real issues, just as is the concern that many of us have over whether or not Russia just detonated another underground explosion, which is not in sync with the test ban treaty the administration has been pursuing. It is the same issue that I have over Yamantau Mountain, a major multibillion-dollar complex that has been under construction in the Ural Mountains for 18 years that is the size of the city of Washington, DC, where the Russians have built a city of 65,000 people, a closed city, continuing to work on this project when Russian military officers do not have decent housing, when Russian retired officers have not been given back pay. The question is, what is this huge complex being built for? The reason why I raised these points, Mr. Speaker, is that we need the administration to be more aggressive in pursuing transparency and candor with Russia on these issues. I am not raising these issues for the first time, because it is not my intent to try to put a monkey wrench in the relationship between the United States and Russia. In fact, I have raised the issue of Yamantau Mountain on at least 10 occasions in written form and verbally with senior Russian leaders, my counterparts in the Russia Duma, and most recently a three-page letter that I wrote in Russian to Boris Yeltsin asking for transparency in terms of what is happening at Yamantau Mountain. For us to have a stable relationship and if we follow the logic of this administration, a relationship with Russia based on bilateral treaties, then we must make sure that not just the United States but also Russia is abiding by those treaties, whether it is ABM, MTCR, the chemical weapons treaty, the nuclear test ban treaty or whatever that treaty happens to be. My feeling is that we have not done that, and I could take time to go through and cite specific examples at least seven times where the administration has not imposed sanctions on violations of the missile technology control regime that we know took place. So I hope that what is going to unfold over the next several days, this weekend on ``60 Minutes,'' and into next week, as this new publication is released, will alert our colleagues that we must begin to focus on the problems of instability in Russia, not to create hostility between our two nations but, rather, to say we must be candid, we must be transparent, and we must work together to resolve the instability that currently exists and in the control of Russia's nuclear and conventional and strategic arsenal. It is of the highest importance for both nations and an issue that I am going to continue to pursue throughout the rest of this session of Congress. Mr. Speaker, my final point tonight is one that is a personal item that I would like to spend a few moments discussing. It also has security implications but it also is a very emotional human interest story that I would like to relate to my colleagues and pay appropriate thanks. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are always looking for new technology in the defense arena that can assist us in civilian applications. Shortly, this fall, we are going to be announcing the use of cold war technology that was used to at one point in time to detect rocket launchers around the world that we have been working on for the last year that is now going to be used to tell us when a wild land or forest fire first begins, instant imaging to give us that information so that we can have our emergency responders be there on the scene quickly to prevent the kind of conflagrations we have seen in the West, the Midwest, and the Northwest over the past decades. So it is using cold war technology for a very valuable function to assist us. I saw evidence of a similar technology, Mr. Speaker, that we have now developed for commercial use called side scan sonar. I want to talk about the individual case because it involves a constituent family from Pennsylvania. Back in February of this year, a young 19-year-old from Chester County, a neighboring county to my home county, the eldest of six children and the only son of the Swymer family was doing a co-op program at Penn State up at the Finger Lakes in New York. During the course of his stay, right adjacent to Lake Owasco on a Saturday afternoon, where the temperature rose to the mid-60s, he ventured out into this very deep lake in a rowboat. A storm came up very quickly. And the individual evidently, for one reason or the other, because of the winds and the extreme nature of the storm, was tossed out of the boat. The boat was found 2 days later on the opposite side of the lake, which is about a mile wide, along with the oar and the life preserver and no sign of this young 19-year-old, 6-foot tall, strapping, very successful student and solid athlete. The State police in New York did a very commendable job in trying to locate the young man's body. They searched the entire lake perimeter. They tried to do dives and they just could not find this individual. The family, through State representative Bob Flick, called my office in March and asked if I could provide any kind of technical assistance. Using the resources that we have developed primarily for the military and for ocean research as well as for disaster recovery, I called my friends in the oceangraphic community and my friends in the emergency response community. We were able to get the same technology that was developed for the military called side scanning sonar that was used to help us recover the remains of the TWA 800 crash off of Long Island in New York. We were able to get that technology through the generosity of the New York Police Commissioner, Howard Safir, to have it sent up to the lake to look to see whether or not we could in fact locate this boy's body. A couple of suspected sightings were made, but we could not complete a dive to determine whether or not it was a positive find. They came back and were unsuccessful. In June, I followed up with the Woods Hole Laboratory in Massachusetts and asked them to assist, and we identified perhaps the top national experts on deep dives relative to drownings. We assembled a team that in the last week of August was able to travel to Auburn, NY, to put together on the water a team consisting of four boats, all volunteers during their time, to try to locate this young man's body. The head technologist for this whole operation was Butch Hendrick, the president of Lifeguard Systems, Inc. of Hurley, NY, who is an expert in locating people in these kinds of situations and dealing with drownings. We also had an expert in terms of reading side scan sonar, Brett Phaneuf, from Marine Sonic Technology who also donated his time. I spent the first 3 of the 5 days on the lake with this team, along with the very courageous volunteer firefighters from the Owasco Fire Department. Five of them spent the entire week away from their jobs volunteering the entire day each day to help us go back and forth across the 1,000-by-2,000 foot area of this lake and the lake was 1 mile wide and 14 miles long, trying to use this technology to determine whether or not we could find this young 19-year-old. I had to leave New York on Wednesday. On Thursday, three specific sightings were made, the markers were identified, and on Friday we brought in a dive team from Buffalo, NY, the Buffalo Industrial Diving Co. headed up by Mark Judd, four divers prepared to go down 150 feet. We had a decompression chamber on standby, a helicopter to take the divers if they should have problems. On the first dive, they recovered the body of 19-year-old Nathan Swymer and brought him back up and were able to reunite him so that his family could have a proper, decent burial. Mr. Speaker, this story would not have been a success were it not for the cooperation of a number of very unselfish people, people who volunteered their time and their expertise to see if we could use a military technology to assist us in a very emotional situation involving the loss of someone's loved one. The importance here, Mr. Speaker, is not that we just were able to locate Nathan Swymer 7 months after he fell off that row boat in Lake Owasco, but the technology that can be used across this country, in lakes, in rivers to assist us in similar types of operations and to avoid, where possible, the exposure to losing additional lives to send down to recover people who in fact have been drowned. In fact, Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, it is my understanding that we have begun to lose more and more people in the rescue efforts to bring people who have drowned back than we should, and that is partly because we have not used appropriate technology to assist us in that process. It will be my hope over the next several months to put together a congressional hearing where we can showcase this technology, where we can make the case that these kinds of technologies should be made available and that we should assist in that technology transfer process to departments across this Nation who have similar situations with deep lakes and with rivers so that we do not have to jeopardize additional lives in going down to recover our loved ones. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] whose district Auburn and Lake Owasco is in. He has been very cooperative throughout this entire process and he was very supportive of our effort the last week of August. I also want to thank Bill Andahazy, who is a consultant from Woods Hole who donated his time, Capt. Don Swain from the New York State Police and his team and all of those other individuals, the volunteer firefighters, the divers, the technologists who assisted us in closing this very difficult chapter in the lives of the Swymer family from Chester County, PA. I want to encourage our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to work with me, to see where we can find not just this kind of technology to use for commercial purposes but to see where we can take similar initiatives and assist us in solving day-to-day problems that face the people of this great Nation. For the record, Mr. Speaker, I include the list of the Owasco Lake search team and thank them for their tireless efforts in this operation. A number of companies and individuals in the Philadelphia area donated over $10,000 along with the Chester County Chamber of Commerce to help us defray the costs of transporting the equipment to that lake. All of the individuals that were there donated their time. The money that we raised was used to defray the costs of the transportation of that equipment to the site to allow us to complete the rescue mission. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the staff who stayed this late hour for this special order. Owasco Lake Search Team Rep. Curt Weldon, Member, US House of Representatives Rep. Robert J. Flick, Pennsylvania House of Representatives W.J. (Bill) Andahazy, Independent Consultant Capt. Donald Swain, Zone 2 HQ, New York State Police Trooper David Hartz, Troop E, NY State Police Trooper Karl Bloom, Troop E, NY State Police Walter (Butch) Hendrick, President, Lifeguard Systems Inc., Hurley, NY Andrea Zaferes, Lifeguard Systems Craig Nelson, Lifeguard Systems Lt. David Holland, Inst. of Environmental Medicine, Canadian Navy Brett Phaneuf, Marine Sonic Technology, White Marsh, VA Mark C. Judd, Buffalo Industrial Diving Company, Buffalo,

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask our colleagues to please listen to the law enforcement community. For the last year, Members of Congress, especially those who have cosponsored this legislation, have heard from the software industry, the Microsofts and those companies that see dollar signs in terms of export sales that could grow astronomically. And I want to see them succeed, too. That is part of my ultimate goal. But we also need to listen to law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to include a letter signed by four of the major law enforcement groups in this country, including the District Attorney's Association, the Chiefs of Police, and others, expressing their strong reservations about a total elimination of our ability to deal with encryption as it relates to law enforcement. International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA, July 21, 1997. Dear Member of Congress: Enclosed is a letter sent to you by the Attorney General, the Director of National Drug Control Policy and all the federal law enforcement heads concerning encryption legislation being considered by congress. Collectively we, the undersigned, represent over 17,000 police departments including every major city police department, over 3,000 sheriffs departments, nearly every district attorney in the United States and all of the state Attorneys General. We fully endorse the position taken by our federal counterparts in the enclosed letter. As we have stated many times, Congress must adopt a balanced approach to encryption that fully addresses public safety concerns or the ability of state and local law enforcement to fight crime and drugs will be severely damaged. Any encryption legislation that does not ensure that law enforcement can gain timely access to the plaintext of encrypted conversations and information by established legal procedures will cause grave harm to public safety. The risk cannot be left to the uncertainty of market forces or commercial interests as the current legislative proposals would require. Without adequate safeguards, the unbridled use of powerful encryption soon will deprive law enforcement of two of its most effective tools, court authorized electronic surveillance and the search and seizure of information stored in computers. This will substantially tip the balance in the fight against crime towards society's most dangerous criminals as the information age develops. We are in unanimous agreement that congress must adopt encryption legislation that requires the development, manufacture, distribution and sale of only key recovery products and we are opposed to the bills that do not do so. Only the key recovery approach will ensure that law enforcement can continue to gain timely access to the plaintext of encrypted conversations and other evidence of crimes when authorized by a court to do so. If we lose this ability--and the bills you are considering will have this result--it will be a substantial setback for law enforcement at the direct expense of public safety. Sincerely yours, Darrell L. Sanders, President, International Association of Chiefs of Police. Fred Scoralie, President, National Sheriffs' Association. James E. Doyle, President, National Association of Attorneys General. William L. Murphy, President, National District Attorneys Association.

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, July 20, 1997, marks the 23d anniversary of the illegal invasion and occupation of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey. The legacy of this invasion and subsequent division of Cyprus continues to this day, making Cyprus the only country in the world divided by a wall. Constructed by the invading Turks in an effort to divide the island, the Green Line, as it has become known, is a symbol of the ugly face of naked aggression. This aggression came on July 20, 1974, in the form of 6,000 Turkish troops and 40 tanks. Turkish forces successfully seized 40 percent of the island which represented 70 percent of the Nation's economic health; 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forced from their homes by the invading forces, and to this day, 1,619 people remain unaccounted for-- 5 of them American citizens. Turkey has since fortified its illegally obtained gains by placing 30,000 troops and 65,000 settlers in the land that rightfully belongs to the forcibly ousted Greek Cypriots. We simply cannot validate an unwarranted, unprovoked invasion of a peaceful, self-governing republic by allowing Turkish occupation to continue. The presence of the Turkish troops represents the continuing shackles of occupation and oppression and also demonstrates a gross violation of human rights and international law. I am encouraged by the undaunted spirit and courage of the Greek Cypriots in the face of this occupation. That is why I hope that the 23d anniversary that July 20 signifies will rekindle American and international intolerance of aggression and inspire us to nullify the rewards Turkey has reaped as a result of this illegal action. The Greek Cypriots deserve this justice and I remain committed to efforts to deliver this to them.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, my comments today are aimed at our newer Members. I am unusual in this debate, because I have opposed MFN in the past. In fact I voted against NAFTA because I was not happy with the side agreements. In fact, I am concerned about China's human rights record. I am a member of the Human Rights Caucus and take great pride in my involvement there. And on missile proliferation, I probably spend as much time on that issue as any Member in this body as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on National Security. As a matter of fact, I wish I had as much interest as demonstrated today by Members on both sides on missile proliferation on the debate on our defense bill as I have heard today in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I would remind our colleagues when we heard about the attack on the Stark, the U.S.S. Stark, it was not a Chinese missile, it was a French-made Exocet missile. In fact, we have our own allies exporting missiles that are being used against our troops by rogue nations around the world. Now, I am not happy with China's actions in many areas, but I do not want to isolate China; I think that is the worst thing we can do now. I fault this administration for a lack of enforcement of existing arms control agreements. The MCTR violations, the Garrett rocket engines that were sent to China, the M-11 missile transfers, the ring magnet transfers, the chem-bio transfers, they are all wrong; but we do not just talk about those on the MFN debate alone. We deal with those issues all year long, and I do that all year long, and all of us should do that all year long. I am appalled by the statement that has been said numerous times here of Gen. Xian Guang-Kai, but I say to my colleagues, I confronted him personally. I went to Beijing and sat across the table from him, and I said, General, those statements are unacceptable. That is what we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is aggressively engage the Chinese leadership. I spoke this past year twice at the National Defense University in Beijing, and I told Chinese military leaders what I am telling our Members today. We are not happy with China's policies in many areas, we are not happy with human rights improvements in China, and we are not happy with arms control violations; but we have to do that in an effective way and not isolate China and make it a demon. That is the wrong signal to be sending. Oppose this resolution and support the status of trade relations normally with China.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, I agree with the gentleman.

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

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rise to commend the full committee chairman and the ranking member for this en bloc amendment. There are a number of very significant and important items that are covered. I would like to comment on a number of them, but we do not have the time. But I would like to single out one that was accepted through a bipartisan agreement on the floor, and that deals with a project in the Ural Mountains in Russia. Mr. Chairman, as most of my colleagues know, I take great effort at working with the Russian Government and, in fact, under some serious pressure, voted against two recent amendments, one which was just voted on, that I felt went too far with Russia; and proactively, my goal is to foster a better relationship with the Russian Government and the Russian military and the Russian people. However, Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention over the past 5 years that a major project is underway in the Ural Mountains that we need to have more transparency on. This project is one that has been very secretive. There have been hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars spent mining out a huge operation in Yamantau Mountain, formerly known as Beleretz 15 and 16. As recently as a month ago, I was in Moscow and met with the Minister of Natural Resources, Orlov; the Minister of Atomic Energy, Mikhaylov; the Deputy Defense Minister, Mikoshin; and number two Chief of the General Staff, General Melov. And I expressed to them our concern about what is happening in this project. They all encouraged me to proceed to President Yeltsin to get more transparency on this initiative. I have since written to him and asked for him to allow a bipartisan delegation to visit this site to better understand what Russia is, in fact, accomplishing. One of the amendments in this en bloc series which I introduced, in fact, calls for Russia to be more transparent. As a sense of the House resolution, it says that we need to understand more clearly what Russia is doing in Yamantau Mountain to make sure it is not a destabilizing project and one that will not upset the balance of our relationship. So I thank both the chairman and ranking member for accepting this amendment and the spirit that I bring to the floor of one of cooperation with Russia. I hope that Russia will respond positively and allow our people and our leaders to better understand what their ultimate objectives are at Yamantau Mountain.