Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Strickland] for his observations and for his leadership and agree that improved engines are of great importance to the success of defense modernization. And I promise that I will continue to work to ensure that appropriate level of funding is provided for such efforts in the future.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and my friend for raising these issues. I pledge to work with him through the conference process. I would not raise this issue if the President had made this statement only one or two times, and I have the actual citation for every time he has made the statement. Mr. Chairman, the President has raised this issue specifically 130 times. The Vice President and his staff have raised it 22 times. There is a very deliberate effort on the part of the administration to make this same statement, which the gentleman, I think, agrees with me on, we cannot verify it, but yet the President continues to make this statement. And that drives the mood and the feeling of my constituents, because they think, well, if the Commander in Chief says this, it must be true. I understand the gentleman's concern with the wording, and I would say he is probably correct, no wording will probably satisfy this, because in the end he knows what the President is going to come back and say. We asked DOD to do a report last year on this same issue. They came back and said to us in a report, you cannot verify it. My point is, even though DOD in a report certified that to us, the President, between last year's bill and this year, has made that statement time and time again across the country. I have no other recourse. I would like to go to the President and say, Mr. President, please stop saying this, not just because it is not true, but you send the wrong message. As the gentleman knows, I am not an alarmist. I have spent a lot of time working with Russia. But I would like to be frank and candid and open and honest with them. I will confront them on this issue, but I think when the President makes this statement, in the context of the number of times he has made it since, it is wrong, but I will pledge to work with the gentleman through the conference process.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment, which may seem unimportant to some, but which is perhaps in my opinion one of the most important statements that this body will make in this bill this year. Mr. Chairman, as all of us know, the funding level for what our military needs are is largely determined by the threat that is perceived by the American people and by Members of Congress. So if the American people perceive that there is no threat, then in fact they want us to cut defense spending. If they in fact think there is an emerging threat, then they respond and say increase defense spending. Now, our colleagues are going around saying well, the American people are satisfied; we are spending too much on defense. Mr. Chairman, my question is, why would they think that? Well, Mr. Chairman, my amendment gets right to the heart of why they think that, because this President, over the last 5 years, has used the bully pulpit to drive home a message that I seriously question, and let me get at the heart of my amendment. On 130 occasions, actually it is 130 and counting, this President has made the statement; so it is not just once, three times in this pulpit, at universities across the country, in 36 of our States, to women's groups, to environmental groups, on college campuses, he has said, and I quote: There are no longer Russian missiles pointed at America's children. Now, he has made this statement not one time, 130 times; and his chief advisers in the security operation and the Vice President have made that contention 22 more times in public speeches. So the President is clearly trying to get the point across to America, do not worry; as the Commander in Chief, I certify to you that there are no Russian missiles pointed at America's children. Mr. Chairman, in testimony before my subcommittee, Bruce Blair, a former targeting officer, said that one can retarget a Russian missile in 10 seconds. Ed Bradley on CBS News, ``60 Minutes'' interviewed General Sergev who in fact headed up strategic command and space for Russia and who now is the defense minister. He has said there is no way to verify whether or not they are targeting their missiles at our children, just like they cannot verify ours. But yet the President continues to make this statement, that there are no missiles pointed at our children, so all of our constituents back home in our districts think, well, if the Commander in Chief said they are no longer pointing their missiles at us, that must be true. My amendment is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It requires the President to certify to the Congress that in fact there are no missiles pointed at America; that in fact we have a way of verifying that, and also what the time would be to retarget a missile, even if we did know. Why is this so important? Because when the top leaders of this country on 152 occasions on every major media network in every major media outlet tell the stories in our cities and towns that we no longer have a threat, they respond. They criticize us when we say that we need to deal with that threat. This amendment is very simple. It says, Mr. President, certify what you are saying. You said from this pulpit on three occasions that you are confident there are no missiles pointed at America's kids. This amendment says, certify that, put that in writing, and verify that for this Congress. If you cannot do that, Mr. President, you had better stop misinforming the American people. Nothing is more fundamental to this debate, because that speech, given 130 times by the President, 22 times by the Vice President, by the heads of security for this administration, has misled the American people. The President has a chance to rectify it. All he has to do is give us an official certification that in fact he can certify that there are no Russian missiles pointed at our children. General Sergeyev from Russia says you cannot do that. Bruce Blair says you cannot do that. General Shalikashvili says you cannot do that. Secretary Perry told us you cannot do that. But yet the President has said it 130 times. What we are saying in effect, Mr. Chairman, is, put up or shut up. If you cannot verify the statement that you are making to the American people about one of the most severe threats facing this country, then do not mislead the American people, because from the bully pulpit that drives the debate in this country, to have the American people believe that they no longer have to worry, that drives the debate on missile defense, it drives the debate on the threat, and it drives the debate on the systems that we want to fund. I ask my colleagues to vote for this very simple amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment, and I want to again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership in helping us address the need to reduce the infrastructure and better manage the Department of Defense. The changes that are recommended in this amendment are very serious, they are substantive, and they are needed. It allows us to bring down the cost of those people who oversee purchasing. The DOD civilian personnel, that is still too high. It allows us to make management reforms to bring in privatization where possible. But let me talk about one portion of this amendment that we dropped, Mr. Chairman, and that deals with environmental costs. Earlier I spoke about one of the most rapidly increasing portions of the defense budget, and that is the cost for environmental protection. I cited a ballpark figure at that time of $12 billion. The actual amount, Mr. Chairman, is $6 billion for DOE environmental costs, $4.8 billion for DOD costs. And those figures do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars that we spend either locally at our bases on research programs, through accounts that are managed by DARPA and a number of other agencies. So, when we add all of that up within DOD, we are spending close to $12 billion. Mr. Chairman, I take great pride in my environmental voting record, support for things like endangered species, wetlands protection, clean air. But we have to find a way to better utilize defense dollars to clean up our sites. And what we are not addressing in this amendment, but which I know our chairman supports, is an effort down the road to address the increasing environmental costs. Let me also add that under our chairman and ranking member, we have taken great steps. In fact, we introduced a whole new coordinating initiative with the oceanographic community in this country, not actually spending new money, but having the Navy work with nine other Federal agencies to better coordinate the money they spend on understanding the ocean ecosystem. It is a better use of DOD's assets, which are primarily for defense and for national security, but which also offers tremendous environmental opportunities. That is in the bill. And that is the kind of success that we take along with our efforts to help solve problems like the nuclear waste disposition problem in the Arctic by the Russians. So we are not saying that we should not be environmentally sensitive, and we are not saying that we should not be concerned. And where possible, the military, when it does its primary purpose, can also benefit us environmentally, we should take advantage of it. But we have to get control of the increasing costs. We have to find a way to provide flexibility so that, when we shut these bases down, and when one day we have kids playing in a playground or going to school on a military base and the next day after the base is closed we say it is a toxic waste site, that is just unacceptable. It is causing us to take more money from programs and from quality of life that is important. And I applaud my chairman and the ranking member of the leadership and I ask for consideration of this in the future.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation and applaud both the Chairman and the ranking member for their leadership and the cooperation of our subcommittee chairs and the ranking members. There are those in this country who think that we have mistakenly increased defense spending dramatically. The facts are, if we compare to what we are spending today to John Kennedy's tenure, and I raise that point in time because we had relative peace, it was after Korea and before Vietnam; we were spending 9 percent of our country's gross national product in the military. We were spending 52 cents of every Federal tax dollar on defense. In this year's budget, we are spending less than 3 percent of the GNP on the military. We are spending 16 cents of the Federal taxpayer dollar on the military. Now, in spite of that dramatic decrease, we have to consider the fact that in John Kennedy's era we had a draft. All of our young people were drafted out of high school, they were paid less than the minimum wage, they served for 2 years, they were not married, they did not have higher education; and therefore, we did not have the quality of life costs that we have today. Our troops today are all volunteer. They get better pay. Many of them are married. They have advanced degrees, they have children, we have housing, education, quality of life costs that we never had before. So in spite of reducing defense spending to this lower level, a much larger percentage of this smaller amount of money is going for quality of life issues. It is not going for sophisticated systems. And in fact, I have publicly said that we should cancel some major weapons systems. But the facts are that the bulk of our money is going to pay for the troops to take care of the family members who serve this country. We are hurting right now, because on top of the increased quality of life costs, the fastest growing portion of our defense budget is in, guess what? Environmental mitigation. Almost $12 billion this year to clean up the environment. And on top of that, we have an OPTEMPO deployment rate that we have not seen for the last 50 years. We have an internationalist foreign policy with an isolationist defense budget. We are committing our troops to more locations at higher costs and not planning for those expenditures, so are taking the money to pay for those operations out of the accounts to modernize our forces and to take care of our quality of life issues. And in fact, to add insult on top of injury, we are even paying the cost of our allies who come into these operations. Mr. Chairman, we had a very difficult process. In my subcommittee we focused on three major 21st century threats that we see emerging, and we plussed up funding in each area above what the administration requested. First of all, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, missile proliferation is our No. 1 concern. In a bipartisan vote, we plussed it up significantly. We never wanted to see an incident occur like we saw over in Saudi Arabia where in 1991 we lost a number of our young kids to a low-class Scud missile. Second, we increased significantly funds for antiterrorism. So yes, we can locate those attempts to bring in weapons, not necessarily from missiles, but sneaking them through our ports. Our committee increased funding for the third consecutive year in antiterrorism, both in technology and, more importantly this year, in training first responders all across the Nation. Third, we put a new focus on information warfare. When a foreign adversary can electronically transfer illegally $100 million from one of our banks, when they can potentially shut down the information systems of this Nation, we as a Committee on National Security are coming to the forefront and saying yes, we want our military prepared for that eventuality as well. We put $90 million of additional funding in this year's bill over what the President asked for so that we can help address the issues of encryption and protection of information systems that could bring down the economy of our country. Mr. Chairman, we have done it all. We have done the best that we could with an impossible budget number. Unfortunately, it is not enough. I would have liked to have seen us had more money to meet these threats in a more robust manner. We talk about the cost-effectiveness of acquisition reform; and while the administration talks about that, we drive up the costs of our program dramatically. But I ask our colleagues to vote in the affirmative on this very important bill.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise again to pay tribute to both the chairman and the ranking member and the appropriate subcommittee leaders and also to follow up on the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. My colleague makes a good statement that defense has always been a bipartisan issue in this city, and it still is today. We have all acknowledged that the success of enduring what has been a very difficult pattern of cuts over the past 5 years has basically been provided by both Democrats and Republicans. It is not something that we on the Republican side take credit for. In fact, I think many of our disagreements are more between this institution and the White House than it is between Republicans and Democrats in this body. Now we are criticized the last several years for our add-ons. We are told that we were putting money that was not needed by the troops, by the chiefs. What we heard this year, Mr. Chairman, were requests by the chiefs for $20 billion of additional program needs that were not requested by the administration. Every one of us who serves as a chairman of a subcommittee or ranking member was visited by all the services saying these are absolute priorities. But Mr. Chairman, it was not limited to the service chiefs. We had the administration come back to us, the President, after criticizing us for increasing funding for national missile defense for 3 straight years, and say to us this year, we made a mistake, we want you to provide $2.3 billion of additional money for national missile defense. We had to find $474 million this year above what the President asked for because the President said we need more money for missile defense. The President said we had needed to fund a high energy laser program for Israel's protection called THEL. Yet the President never gave us a dollar amount. We had to beg the Army on the day of the markup to give us a figure. We are finally able to arrive at a $38 million figure even though the administration had told us last year it was their No. 1 priority when, in fact, the facts did not bear out the rhetoric. Mr. Chairman, our bill is based on the threat. We are not saying we want to recreate the cold war, but we know what is happening in Russia. We see the demise of the conventional forces in Russia; and with that demise, we see a heightened reliance on strategic offensive weapons. Just a year ago, in January, the Russian long-range ICBM's were out on full alert. Boris Yeltsin himself announced publicly that he had activated the black box because of a Norwegian rocket launch to detect weather conditions. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is reality. There have been numerous records of threats from Russia of missile material. We have the evidence of accelerometers and gyroscopes going from Russia to Iraq which were used for long-range ICBM's. We were told by the intelligence community that no one would deploy a system that would threaten our troops because we would see it tested first. Yet just 1 month ago, as reported in every major international media, North Korea fully deployed the No Dong missile system after one test. That No Dong missile system, with the range of 1,300 kilometers, now poses a real risk that we cannot defend against to every one of our troops in Japan, South Korea, and Okinawa. That is what this bill is about.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The ultimate irony here is that I have in fact joined my colleague on efforts involving protecting working people. What he fails to mention is that in our defense in aerospace cuts we have, in fact, caused 1 million union workers in this country to lose their jobs. Now he talks about compassion. What he does not mention in his amendment are the additional hundreds of thousands of UAW, IAM, IEU, IBEW workers and building trades workers who will walk the streets with the other 1 million workers that have been displaced because of what he wants to do in additional cuts. Now let me also correct the gentleman. He said that we added over $2 billion above what the President asked for. Well, I would submit to the gentleman he has not done his homework, because after the President gave us his budget he came back and asked for $1 billion of additional money beyond that. Now if the gentleman would bother to ask the committee, he would have found out that the President asked for $474 million this year, $2.3 billion for everything. That was the President's request after his budget. Or he would have found out the President asked for $300 million for flying hours above his budget. The gentleman would have found out he asked for $30 million for the THEL program above what his budget suggested. So to stand up here and put out misinformation is just flat out wrong, and to say the Soviet Union no longer exists, I have been to 50 classified briefings this year. I do not know how many the gentleman has been in attendance of, but let me tell you that is not the impression I have. Maybe the gentleman knows about Yermentau Mountain. Maybe he has visited Beloretsk 15 and 16. Maybe he knows what that city of 65,000 people in the Urals has been doing for the past 18 years, spending billions of dollars. Maybe the gentleman knows all of those answers. Maybe the gentleman knows the instability occurring in the Middle East. Maybe the gentleman is aware of what is happening in North Korea. What we have done, what we have done, is provided for the best defense we can within the budget constraints, and it should be based on fact and not rhetoric for tomorrow morning's newspaper.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I cannot stay with him for the entire hour, but I appreciate his leadership, not just for this special order but for the leadership he provides on the committee and as chairman of our acquisition and procurement operations. He has done a fantastic job. I appreciate that. I know that the country does as well. I want to follow up on his point about the perception of the American people that somehow we have dramatically increased defense spending over the past several years. Unfortunately, I think part of that perception has been created by the White House itself. Let us go back. The gentleman talked about some of the things that have taken place in terms of cutbacks. Let me highlight a few other facts that our colleagues need to keep in mind tomorrow as we begin the defense bill. During John Kennedy's era, that was at a time of relative peace, it was after Korea and before Vietnam, we were spending 9 percent of our gross national product as a Nation on the military. We were spending over 50 cents of every Federal tax dollar coming into Washington on the military, nine percent of our GNP over 50 cents of every tax dollar. In this year's budget, we are spending less than 3 percent of our GNP on defense; 16 cents out of the Federal tax dollar will go toward the military in this next fiscal year, 16 cents and dropping. That does not take into consideration the fact that when John Kennedy was President, we drafted young kids out of high school. They were paid less than the minimum wage. They served the country for peanuts. They were not married. They did not have families. Today we have an all-volunteer force. Our kids are better educated. Many of them are married. They have spouses. We have housing costs, health care costs, education costs. We pay them a decent wage. So out of that 16 cents that we are spending, a much higher percentage of that goes for quality of life. It does not go for exotic weapons systems. It goes to protect the morale and the well-being of the members of the military and their families and loved ones. We take those factors and then add in that we have had an administration over the past 5 years who has increased the level of deploying our troops to the highest level in the last 50 years. This President has committed our troops to more locations and more operations than any President since World War II. So we have increased costs with deployments that we did not budget for. In fact, as the administration has put our troops in Haiti, which was hotly debated in this Congress, the problem is not just the increased costs that we have to pay for our troops to be there, but as the gentleman full well knows, we are also paying for the cost for the housing and the food of the other countries. The President talked about how he has a multinational effort. What he does not tell the American people is the reason why Bangladesh sent 1000 troops is we are paying their housing and food costs. It is a great deal for them. What the President did not tell the American people in the Balkans, when he committed us to get involved in the Balkans over in Bosnia, and I would say that the majority of the Members of this body did not disagree with our being a part of the multinational force, our problem was, why were we committing 36,000 troops to that theater on the ground and in the area when Germany, right next door, was only putting 4000 troops in and when the Japanese were not paying their fair share? So the point is, as the defense dollar has gone down, as quality of life costs have gone up, we have seen a President who has overseen these cuts increase dramatically where we send these kids around the world, and also increase dramatically the amount of DOD money going for environmental cleanup. So the largest pot of money being used to clean up environmental sites in America is not the energy bill, it is not the commerce bill, it is not the bill to reauthorize EPA, it is the Department of Defense bill. And, as the gentleman full well knows, we are spending hundreds of millions and billions of dollars out of DOD's budget to clean up sites and to pay lawyers, which is the bulk of what we do. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, told me one month ago he was required in this fiscal year to request one-half of the amount of money he is spending on his total buying for all the Marine Corps on environmental costs. So he is spending one-half of his total buy just on environmental costs.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Exactly.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Right. So all of these factors have caused us to be put into an environment where we cannot meet the needs of our military. That has resulted in a decline of morale. That has resulted in problems in terms of funding. I have been with base commanders who have not paid their electric bill for 8 months because they have had to shift money over to help the administration pay for deployments that they never budgeted for. All of this we have to deal with. Now, for the past 2 years, the Republicans, supported by a significant number of Democrats who are our friends, this is a bipartisan debate in the Congress, the battle here is not Republicans versus Democrats. The battle here is this Congress versus a White House that is totally insensitive, in my opinion, to the military needs. We increased funding for defense for the past 2 years. What did the administration do? They soundly and roundly criticized us. They said this money was going for what they called pork barrel programs, even though 98 percent of what we funded were requests by the services. But what really offended me was former Secretary Perry coming in before our committee and testifying that they had stopped the cuts in the acquisition accounts. In effect, what he was doing was taking credit for the plus-ups that they had criticized us for putting in the year before. Even more outrageous, and the gentleman knows full well this issue because he and I cochaired this hearing, we told the administration that in each of the past 3 years they were grossly underfunding our requests for national missile defense. We put extra money in and we were criticized. What did the administration do the beginning of this year? Secretary Cohen, being an honest broker, came before the Congress and said, ``Well, ladies and gentlemen, we made a mistake. We have underfunded national missile defense by $2.3 billion.'' So after the President submitted his budget, we were then given the task to go out and find the money that the President did not ask for, that we told him about for the past 3 years, to fund missile defense. So out of my subcommittee I had to eat a $474 million plus-up just for national missile defense, to fund the shortcomings and the mismanagement of this administration. On top of that, because they underfunded the intelligence budget, they asked me to also put up $207 million of additional funding to fund the shortfall in intelligence. On top of that, even though the President pounded his fist on the table and said to the AIPAC members across the country that he was for the Nautilus program, and that he would fight to protect the Israeli people, he never requested funding for that very program. And as the gentleman full well knows, we had to go and find out ourselves by plussing up our own estimate of what the money would be needed to give the Department of Defense enough money next year to actually implement the cooperative program with Israel called tactical high energy laser. Once again, the administration committed to it but never asked for the funding to make it happen. All of these things we have attempted to deal with in this bill. I say to my friends and my colleagues who will listen to the debate tomorrow that they should be very careful because we are in a very difficult time. We are having to make decisions in an environment where the administration is not giving us the leadership. They are causing us to spend more money than we have, they are causing us to stretch programs out, driving up the costs of those programs, and they are not working with us in a way they should be working with us for the betterment of our people and for our troops. I would add one more point. The administration talks a good game about jobs and so do the Members on the other side. I heard some of my colleagues down here wailing about the loss of jobs in this country. And as my good friend knows, we do not fund defense because it provides jobs, we fund defense because we want to support our troops and because there has never been a country that has been attacked because it was too strong. We never want to lose that edge. But over the past 5 years, under this President, something we have never heard the other side talk about when they have railed about NAFTA, when they have railed about this side of the aisle, is the 1 million men and women who belong to unions who have lost their jobs because of this President's cuts in defense spending. He has decimated defense in aerospace. So the gentleman has had a million workers who belong to the UAW, the IAN, the building trades, all the major metal trades, and all of them have felt the impact of the downsizing. Most of those people are out looking for positions paying not even one-half of what they were making when they worked in the defense industry. Another important point about the impact of the defense downsizing and the impact on our industrial base that has occurred over the past 5 years.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate his lead on missile defense initiatives. This Congress, again in a bipartisan manner, Democrats and Republicans, have come together for the past 3 years, and the single biggest difference between our position on security and the President's is we have said we have to move aggressively in protecting our troops, our allies and our citizens. Two years ago we plussed up by a billion dollars in this area, last year by a billion. This year our bill calls for about $800 million of additional spending. Now, why do we do that? My friend and colleague knows the largest loss of life from a single incident that we have had, at least in the last 5 years, actually a little bit longer than 5 years, was when we lost those troops that were killed by that incoming Scud missile in Saudi Arabia. It was horrible. These young kids never had a chance. What hit them? A low-class, very rudely constructed missile that Iraq fired into that barracks.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. That is right, the Model T. We said as a Nation, never again will this happen to our troops. That is why the Congress gave the administration carte blanche. We said we would give them the money they needed, we would give them the resources, but they needed to give us a system that is highly effective, that will protect our kids wherever they are in the world. What has been the administration's response? They now are projecting that they want to wait until 15 years after those kids were killed to deploy the first battery of that highly effective system that is now called THAAD, theater high altitude area defense system. We say that is unacceptable. We provide the full funding for THAAD, but we go beyond that. We fund the Navy's lower tier program, because we believe, as the scientists have told us, that the best way to protect our troops and our allies and our people from the threat of missile proliferation, that the best way to do it is to have a layered approach. The first layer is Navy lower tier, which provides protection against cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are now being built by over 20 nations. Over 75 nations in the world now have cruise missiles. Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, every country we can think of has cruise missiles that they can fire. We are putting the funding in well above what the President asked for, but what the Navy requested to implement Navy lower tier as soon as possible. We have a promising capability, as my colleague and friends know, in Navy upper tier to give us a capability using the Aegis systems to allow us to protect our ships wherever they are and to provide a wider range of coverage against faster, hotter missiles. We have funded that system to a higher level, again in line with what the Navy says they need to move aggressively, to see whether or not Navy upper tier offers us potential well beyond just protecting a fleet of ships, perhaps even becoming eventually a national missile defense system. Now, while we have been doing that, funding Navy upper tier, Navy lower tier, THAAD, cruise missile defense, we have also funded a space- based sensing capability so that we can detect the moment that a rocket is launched so that we can activate a response. Now, some on the liberal side would say we should not do that, that is destabilizing. The Russians have had the world's only operational ABM system in place since the ABM Treaty was signed back in 1972. It protects 80 percent of the Russian people around Moscow and they have modified it three times. The Russians, as my colleague and friends knows, have some of the most sophisticated missile defense systems they are now selling on the marketplace. In fact, the gentleman and I have had conversations that perhaps we ought to buy that system, because under this President we are never going to be able to deploy a decent, effective system. General Lyles is on the record, and Under Secretary Kaminski, in charge of technology for DOD, said that we will not have a highly effective system under their plan to protect our troops until 2006. Now, why is that such a priority for us? As my colleague and friend knows, we were told by the intelligence community that we would not have to worry about a threat to our troops or our homeland. They said we would see evidence of an aggressive testing program by an adversary like North Korea. We were told the No Dong missile of North Korea, with a range of 1,300 kilometers, would never threaten our troops because we would see it developing, so we could take our time. Up until 1 month ago, when the world community saw North Korea deploy the No Dong missile system now. So that today, June 16, we have all of our troops in Japan, South Korea, and Okinawa at risk from the threat of a No Dong missile being fired at them, for which we have no defensive system that can shoot that missile down. That is outrageous, and that is what this whole debate is about, giving us a capability that we know is there. It is kind of ironic that the administration now comes back this year and says to the Congress, ``Well, we criticized you soundly last year and the year before on missile defense, but we guess you were right. We did underfund national missile defense by $2.3 billion, and would you please help us find that money?'' But it really irritates me that it has taken us 3 years to convince the administration that they had in fact not had the facts on their side. Only because of the efforts of a bipartisan group in this Congress with the leadership of my good friend and colleague, joined by Members of the other side, have we been able to keep these missile systems in place to protect us. While we have done that, as the gentleman knows, we are increasing funding above the administration to protect us against the chemical or biological attack. That is the Congress taking the lead, not the White House. Three years ago we started funding money for chem-bio technology, for training our first responders. The administration followed us. We were the ones in the Congress that funded extra money for technology relative to information warfare above what the White House requested. This Congress has been the guardian of the defense of this country for the past 6 years under this administration. Once again, we hope that our colleagues tomorrow will begin to understand why this has been so important and why we ask for them to join with us in a strong bipartisan vote.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on the way out, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] struck a note that I had to come back and respond, because he is raising very valid points here. When he talks about intelligence and how we decide how much money to spend on defense, it is supposed to be driven by the threat that we see emerging around the world. Unfortunately, in many cases it has not been done in that manner. In fact, it has been basically a budget number given to us. But hopefully tomorrow, to my good friend and colleague, the Committee on Rules will allow me to offer one, and I have actually asked two amendments to be put in order, and the gentleman will know the importance of each of these amendments. The reason why we have such a tough time convincing the American people on the issue, or the American people have been lulled into a sense of complacency, is that we have heard nothing from the bully pulpit except do not worry, everything is OK. As my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] knows, this President on 135 occasions has made a speech that has the same phrase in it. He has done it 3 times at the podium in this room. He has done it on college campuses. He has done it before women's groups and national associations where he has looked this group squarely in the eye, squarely in the TV camera, and he said, ``You can sleep well tonight because, for the first time in 50 years, there are no long- range missiles with nuclear weapons pointed at America's children.'' Now, he has made that statement 135-some-times, and most of our constituents, since the President is the Commander in Chief, think that he probably knows what he is talking about. My amendment says one very simple thing: Mr. President, certify to the Congress the facts that bear out your statement. Certify to us that you can document that there are no long-range ICBM's pointed at our children. Certify to us how long it takes to re-target those missiles, which we have been told in hearings takes about 30 seconds, some have said 10 seconds. And certify to us that if a missile is taken off of targeting, that when that missile is activated it reverts back to the original targeting pinpoint, which would mean it would be aimed at an American city. The President, as my good friend knows, cannot certify that. Because we have heard testimony over and over again that we do not know whether or not Russia has taken its missiles off of activation in terms of targeting our cities. We cannot verify that. But the point is that when the President says that over and over again, that drives the mood in this country that there is no longer a threat. The second issue is one that is becoming increasingly important. As my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], knows, I work Russian issues aggressively and advocate engaging the Russians. But there has been a project in the Ural Mountains that Russia has been working on for 18 years. They built a city of 65,000 people right next to it. The site is called Beloretsk 15 and 16. And this site, we just do not know what it is for. They actually have mined out over 18 years a monstrous underground complex.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. All underground. There have been articles in the London Times and the New York Times and there have been over 30 articles in the Russian media about this project. When I was in Russia, my 10th visit to that country, 3 weeks ago, I met with Minister of Atomic Energy Mikhaylov, I met with Minister of Natural Resources Orlov, I met with Boris Yeltsin's top assistant, Boris Nemtsov, I met with the Deputy Defense Minister Mikoshin and I met with the No. 2 guy in the general staff, General Manlov, and I asked each of them about this project and I said, we need to have some transparency. The response was, each of them knew about the project but none of them would claim that it was their project. In fact, Mr. Mikoshin said to me in front of five Members of Congress, ``Mr. Chairman, Mr. Congressman, I know of that project, and I do not like that project. But to get further information, you have to go directly to Boris Yeltsin.'' Now I could tell my friend and colleague, I have had all the briefings that we can get as Members, classified at the highest levels. We do not understand what is going on there. If you read the Russian media, in 1991, General Zyuganov, who was in charge of this project, said that it was an ore mining project. In 1992, General Zyuganov said that it was a facility to store food and clothing. Since that point in time, the Russian security apparatus has identified this project as one that is of strategic importance, that is one of the highest security that exists in Russia today. My point is, at the same time that we have a President and an administration trying to create a feeling that there is no longer a concern, we ignore the fact that there are things going on in the world, not just in Russia, the transfer of technology from China, the M-11 missiles, the ring magnets, the chemical-biological technology, the Iraqis taking accelerometers and gyroscopes from Russia for long- range missiles. All of these things are happening, and not in a vacuum, and yet we have a President that is telling the American people, do not worry, there is nothing to be concerned about. In fact, he is even going so far as to basically ignore the enforcement of the arms control agreements that he maintains should be the cornerstone of our relationship. He has waived the sanctions under the MTCR with China. He has waived the sanctions under the MTCR with Russia time and again. So even though the administration claims arms control agreements are the critical component of our bilateral relationships, there is a pattern here of consistently waiving sanctions that should be imposed under them. The reason why I mention all these things is because the administration is driving a feeling in this country that creates a false sense of security. As my friend knows, we are not advocating that we resort to the cold war again. In fact, we are doing more with Russia than any Congress has done in the last 50 years proactively. But we want an administration to work with us, to be candid, to be honest and forthright. We get none of those things in this administration. In fact, we have gotten little or no cooperation on strategic programs that we feel are important, that our Joint Chiefs feel are important to our long-term security. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] for yielding on those couple of points I wanted to also add.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to a great American who passed away yesterday evening while involved in a State conference involving the fire service of the State of Texas. Nine years ago, Mr. Speaker, in my first term in this Congress, in an attempt to provide representation for the 1.2 million men and women who every day of the year respond to disasters in this country, I formed what has become the largest caucus in the Congress, the congressional fire and emergency services caucus. During that first term, I was able to convince minority leader Bob Michel to join with us and to help us kick off what would be a tremendous decade of success for the men and women who every day risk their lives. I was not, however, able to convince Speaker Wright to join. I gave a speech out at the National Fire Academy, and one of the attendees there was a man by the name of Mason Lankford from Texas. Mason came up to me after that meeting and said, ``You need the Speaker to be involved?'' And I said yes, and within a week Mason had convinced his good friend, Speaker Jim Wright, to support our efforts. Jim became a very aggressive supporter of the fire service during the rest of his tenure as the Speaker of this body. Mason Lankford, over the past 9 years, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the Texas Fire Service, past president of their State association, past active member of the Fort Worth Fire Department, known throughout Fort Worth and the Arlington area as someone who was always willing to give of himself, was doing what he liked best yesterday, Mr. Speaker. He was addressing the members of the Texas Fire Service in Galveston. He had been introduced by his good friend, Chief Willie Wiscow of the Galveston Fire Department, and following Mason's brief comments, unfortunately, he passed away. Mason will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, by the 1.2 million men and women across this country who every day risk their lives, for having helped create a new awareness of fire and life safety issues in this Congress. It was Mason Lankford who over the past 9 years helped convince over 400 Members of Congress to join our efforts to provide more awareness and more support for these brave men and women. Mason attended each of our nine dinners here in Washington, where he helped organize those events, annually raising between $400,000 and $500,000 to provide staff support for the issues important to firefighters and emergency medical personnel across the country. Day in and day out Mason Lankford was there helping those who he knew best, those men and women who he worked with in Texas and throughout this country in both the paid and the volunteer fire and EMS services. We are going to miss Mason, Mr. Speaker, and I rise tonight to pay tribute to him. I know all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle wish Mason's family well through these very difficult times. And I know that all of us will join in remembering Mason for the outstanding contribution that he made to society, that he made to mankind. The services for Mason will be Thursday at 2 p.m. At the First Methodist Church in Arlington, TX, and I ask all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join together and extend our condolences and best wishes to Mason's wife, Lynn, and his children Joe and Nancy, who are following in Mason's footsteps. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is a tragic loss. We are all going to miss Mason, but Mason certainly has completed an outstanding effort on behalf of those firefighters in this country who are better off, who are better equipped, who are better trained and who are better served because of his efforts, not just over the past 9 years but even before that as an active member of the largest group of unsung heroes in this country, our domestic defenders, our fire and EMS personnel.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation introduced by my colleague and friend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and I rise as one of the original cosponsors of this legislation. I want to speak to the issue of a new era of cooperation with Russia, because there are perhaps some in this body and perhaps some in this country, and perhaps others outside of this country who think that this bill is attempting to undermine a new relationship with Russia and some of the other former Soviet States. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is a specific provision that allows us to begin a new era of engaging Russia, especially in the area of missile defense. Now, this is not necessarily a new area, because in the Committee on National Security for the past several years we in fact have supported funding for joint missile defense initiatives. But what this legislation calls for is a formal process of working with Russia to build a sense of understanding about what we are trying to accomplish. It does not mean that we are going to reveal any secrets, it does not mean that we are going to give the Russians any strategic information; it means that we are going to build confidence and that we are going to continue to work on programs like the RAMOS and the follow-on to the agreed project, which engage our physicists and scientists in new relationships that allow us to show Russia that perhaps the old relationship that was best identified by the strict interpretation of the ABM Treaty is perhaps not suitable for the current relationship between our country and Russia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what is kind of interesting is, the Russians have just participated in a 2-year study with us that has been funded by our ballistic missile defense organization, headed up by Dr. Keith Payne and Dr. Shoumikin on behalf of the Russian side, that in fact has called for the possibility of a new bilateral relationship that would allow for, instead of a process of mutually assured destruction upon which we base our bilateral relationship, that we move into looking at the possibility of asymmetrical deterrence, which means that we include offensive missiles in an attempt to bring them down, and as we do so, that we also discuss and perhaps look at changes to the ABM Treaty to allow defensive systems to be put into place without creating a destabilizing impact on our relationship. This bill lays the groundwork for that to happen. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the administration seems to be going in the opposite direction. I say that because recently at the Helsinki summit there was an agreement to expand the ABM Treaty to include demarcation provisions relative to theater missile defense systems. Mr. Speaker, a number of us in this body, including a significant number of Members of the minority party, have expressed their concern through a bill that I introduced that said, this is the wrong time to be expanding the ABM Treaty to include theater missile defense systems, and this legislation puts the House on record expressing our concern in that regard. This legislation also, Mr. Speaker, identifies the strong concerns of this body with the idea and the notion of multilateralizing the ABM Treaty. Many of us think that that would hamper our ability to move away from the strict interpretation of the ABM Treaty and comes at a very inopportune time where Russia has, in fact, given us the willingness in the form of a signal that they are now willing to talk about moving into a posture away from relying on the ABM Treaty as our key instrument in terms of our bilateral relationship. I think this is extremely important, and yet at the same point in time in approaching this new dialogue with Russia, we want to reassure them that we are not about tweaking them. We are not in this bill attempting to isolate Russia. In fact, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] made a very important point that he has made in my presence before Russians that were here just a few short weeks ago. He said ultimately, we even envision the day where Russia may be able to qualify for membership in NATO. So in fact, I think that is a basic underlying premise here. The question is how we get there, and in this era of emerging threats from rogue nations and the threat of destabilization in the Russian military relative to their offensive arms, North Korea and China deploying long-range missiles, we can no longer rely on an outmoded ABM Treaty. This bill allows us to move into a new era where in fact our bilateral relationship is not just based on a strict ABM, but actually allows us to move into a new era of relationship building on cooperate missile defense and also looking at ways that we can in fact move away from the strict interpretation that allowed us in the past to rely on a theory of mutually destroyed destruction. As the administration moves ahead with NATO expansion, we must make every effort to assure Russia that we are pursuing this new arrangement to enhance everyone's security, not to threaten them. This bill goes a long way toward doing that by establishing a program to pursue joint missile defense projects such as early warning sharing and lay in a groundwork for the revival of United States-Russia talks on the ABM Treaty and missile defense cooperation. Mr. Gilman has stated that he believes it is essential that we take proactive steps to build confidence with the Russians. NATO expansion will not be a complete success if it results in a revival of tensions between Russia and the United States. He believes this bill sets us on the right course by establishing initiatives that set the tone for long-term dialog and cooperation. This bill makes clear our intent to work with the Russians, it states our intention to ensure the fundamental security interests of the United States and that of our NATO partners. While I believe that is wholly appropriate, I think we want to clarify that point. As you know, the bill states that no commitments should be made that would limit the rights or impose responsibilities on new NATO members different from those applicable to current NATO members--including the deployment of nuclear weapons. That statement could be perceived by the Russians as a sign that we intend to support the creation of a new threat at their borders. Mr. Gilman has stated that that is certainly not the intent of this bill, nor is it in the administration's plans. In fact, the NATO Council issued a statement on December 10, 1996, that its members have ``no intention, no plan, and no reason'' to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of the new member states. He also said that so far as he is aware, no one in this House takes issue with that statement.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker: There is a place down in Philly called Broad Street, Where opponents were once turned into minced meat, These bullies, they skated and were generally hated By all of those whom they routinely deflated; The Spectrum was home to these champions of ice, The Stanley Cup was made theirs not once, but twice, With Clarkie and Leach and Parent in the net, Their blood, sweat, and tears we will never forget; But now here we are in 1997, The Flyers approaching ice hockey heaven, Eric the Great has shown us the way, His heart, speed, and talent on constant display; With well-seasoned Coffee and a Legion of Doom, The orange and black have shown opponents their tomb, Super Mario was valiant but nevertheless, He just couldn't beat power with pretty finesse; Over the Sabers they rode on Snow's bulging shoulder, And then back to Hextall both wiser and older, The Rangers and Great One were just out of place, The only ``Mess'' that we saw was of Robitaille's face; The heroics of Brind'Amour, Klatt, and Podein, Have made all us Flyers' fans stand up and scream, Here we are in the finals with sights set on the Cup, Like the 70's, no Russians will mess this dream up; Big Joel Otto and Therien have merely begun, To pummel the Wings til their Red starts to run, And just like the days when the Broad Street Bullies did reign, The Stanley Cup will belong to the Flyers again.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge that we have just concluded one of, if not the largest ever, conferences on the oceans here in Washington. This conference involved 3 days of intensive dialogue between 200 delegates from over 30 nations including large ministerial delegations, 15 ministers as well as parliamentary leaders, large delegations from Russia and Norway, the European continent, Africa, the Americas, as well as other nations, and it was an extremely successful conference. We came under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Seas as well as GLOBE and the Council on Oceanographic Research and Education. Vice President Gore spoke to our conference last evening in Statuary Hall. Yesterday at lunch the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], gave the keynote speech. The Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Navy, senior leaders of the administration and a significant number of Members of Congress, including my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] who stayed for the entire conference, had the chance to interact and put together a new comprehensive strategy for the world on helping to cooperate in cleaning up our oceans and our seas. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the proceedings and the final recommendations of this conference, and I thank those Members who participated, and I thank all of those who made this conference so successful. Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea, Draft Report of the Conference--Oceans and Security, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, 19-21 May 1997 background 1. The international community's efforts to regulate the world's oceans in order to protect and conserve their resources and habitats, and to safeguard their potential for economic development, spans several decades. However, it has only been in recent years that a growing awareness of the pervasiveness of environmental issues has found echo in all fields of human activity. In particular, the role of environmental problems as constitutive of security concerns, in conjunction with the end of the Cold War and the relentless processes of globalisation, has opened a broad horizon for policy definition at both national and multilateral levels that the international community has only just begun to explore. 2. The Conference on Oceans and Security was organised by the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS) and was undertaken with the assistance of the office of Congressman Curt Weldon, Chairman of the Research and Development Committee of the Security Committee of the Congress of the United States of America and ACOPS' Vice- President from the United States; Governments of the United States, Canada and Norway; Commission of the European Union; International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW); Preston Gates, Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP; Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE); and Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE). The meeting was held in the United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. from 19 to 21 May 1997. participants 3. The Conference was attended by: the Vice-President of the United States of America, Hon. Al Gore; Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich; Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense of Portugal, Senhor Antonio Vitorino; Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Ms Elizabeth Dowdeswell; Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Nay Htun; 189 governmental and other participants from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Russian Federation, the Seychelles, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States of America, including seven ministers; representatives of the following intergovernmental organisations: United Nations; UNEP; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); the World Bank; the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO; the Organisation of American States (OAS); and the Commission of the European Union; as well as members of the European Parliament and legislatures from Brazil, Philippines, and the United States; representatives of ACOPS and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs); and representatives of the scientific community and private sector. A list of participants appears in this report as Annex I. messages 4. Messages in acknowledgement of the Conference's contributions were received from four Heads of States from the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe, as well as from ACOPS' President, Lord Callaghan, and from ACOPS' Vice-President from the USA, Congressman Curt Weldon. 5. President Bill Clinton of the United States of America extended his best wishes for the success of the Conference and praised the participants in their efforts to promote the sustainable global development of marine resources whilst protecting the marine and coastal environments. He pointed out that this was important not only for our health and quality of life but also for promoting international peace and prosperity. 6. President Nelson Mandela of the Republic of South Africa stated that the marine environment formed a very important and integral part of our ecosystem, and that promotion of the international exchange of information was critical to the advancement of good environmental resource management. The President extended his warmest greetings to the participants and congratulated ACOPS on its initiative. 7. President Fidel Ramos of the Republic of the Philippines welcomed participants to the meeting and drew attention to the success of the ACOPS' Meeting of Environment Ministers of South-East Asia which was held in Manila in December 1996 under his patronage. 8. President Jorge Sampaio of the Republic of Portugal highlighted the contribution of oceans to the welfare and survival of the human race. He added that the Washington Conference and other global and regional programmes consolidated ACOPS' role as a leading international NGO in this field. 9. Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, ACOPS' President and a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, expressed his best wishes for this global programme. He emphasised that never before had such an illustrious group of top level policy makers met to discuss vital issues as appeared on the agenda of this Conference. 10. Congressman Curt Weldon of the United States, and ACOPS' US Vice-President, expressed his pleasure at being able to host the ACOPS' 1997 Global Conference on Oceans and Security. He added that the USA had renewed its interest in, and commitment to, the protection of the oceans, and that it was now time to reach the international community to further promote the importance of the world's oceans. proceedings of the conference A. Opening of the conference 11. At the opening ceremony, the participants heard the following statements (Annex II contains speeches and statements presented at the Conference): 12. Lord Clinton-Davis, outgoing Chairman of ACOPS, and recently appointed Minister of State for Transport, Department of Trade and Industry of the United Kingdom, emphasised the recognition of the contribution of ACOPS to global and regional ocean management issues at an international level, and stressed the need to integrate sustainability and environmental considerations into all policy making, noting that the management of oceans especially characterise the challenges posed by the goal of sustainability. With reference to the upcoming UNGASS, which should strengthen the oceans agenda, and to the 1998 Year of the Oceans, during which Expo '98 would be held, Lord Clinton-Davis underlined the timeliness of the Conference. He also stressed the new Labour Government's commitment to environmental and ocean issues, and said that as Minister for Trade, he would be particularly keen to develop links between trade and environmental issues which were intrinsically linked. 13. Congressman Curt Weldon expressed his recognition of the work undertaken by ACOPS and highlighted Lord Clinton- Davis' contributions as Chairman. He also noted that the Conference was sponsored by both ACOPS and GLOBE, organisations committed to the goal of sustainable development. Congressman Weldon added that the Republican majority in Congress had enabled him to participate more decisively in the definition of the agenda, which reflected an increasing commitment to environmental concerns, and in particular, to ocean issues. With reference to the need to channel more funds into ocean research, he noted that the recently adopted Oceans Partnership Act had established a framework for greater coordination between federal agencies with responsibilities in ocean research, and emphasised the need to progress more aggressively in strengthening ocean research, and to provide the scientific community with greater access to previously classified technology. Military and environmental concerns should be dovetailed and existing capabilities united to enhance the capability for effective ocean management. He urged participants to ensure that this approach was replicated in other countries and said that each participant should take back an agenda for working with national parliamentary and ministerial leaders. Congressman Weldon also said that it was crucial that this Conference should establish a strong framework for follow up and implementation, and that he was prepared to ensure that the USA took a lead in advancing this initiative at a global level. He ended by saying that by the Year 2000, a new movement to protect oceans should be established, and in particular, environmental awareness and education should permeate every community, every activity and every country, in order to leave a solid legacy of a clean ocean and a stable global environment. 14. Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell registered her gratitude as Executive Director of UNEP for the very significant contributions of ACOPS to the development of UNEP's Ocean and Seas programmes. She said that the Conference should provide a new vision of the oceans that incorporated such elements as equitable participation and technological change. 15. Ms. Dowdeswell underscored her concerns. First, that the oceans could be considered as the last frontier in that there was much mankind still did not know. Secondly, she said that the oceans provided crucial concepts, such as keystone species, and fundamental contributions to the world environment, such as their role in climate change. However, the human race did not treat the oceans with due respect, and the utilisation of the world's oceans as waste receptacles constituted a biological timebomb, while declining fish catches demonstrated the perils of the excessive exploitation of resources. She added that in the latter case, it was developed, and not developing countries, that were largely responsible. Thirdly, Ms. Dowdeswell stressed the links between oceans and freshwater drainage basins, and the negative repercussions on marine ecosystems land activities. She emphasised that protection of marine ecosystems could not be sacrificed to development and economic imperatives, and therefore mankind faced an immense challenge to develop effective coordination mechanisms between ocean and freshwater management. In this context, she highlighted the importance of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) as the means of incorporating diverse factors and needs, of achieving integrated policies that went beyond sectoral, fragmented approaches. She noted that UNEP had moved in this direction with its Integrated Water Management Programme, and through the Global Programme of Action, which recognised a link between oceans and chemical management, and which symbolised a clear commitment with the stated objectives. 16. Dr. Nay Htun, Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and Assistant Administrator of UNDP, also noted the importance and potential of the Conference, and highlighted various considerations. He referred to the political, social and economic consequences of increasing demographic pressure on coastal areas and noted that according to the 1997 Human Development Report, poverty remained pervasive. He stressed that since the problem of poverty was central both to the sustainability of oceans and to security, it played a central part in countries' policies on oceans. However, with regard to the critical and strategic role of coastal zones, he said that there was a clear need to improve governments' responses to ensure the identification and implementation of effective, efficient and relevant measures. Mr. Htun pointed out that to improve the knowledge base and integrate it into economic and developmental policies interactions between land, oceans and atmosphere still required greater research, and made reference to UNDP's role in the promotion of sustainable and equitable development. Stressing once again the inseparable link of life, water, security, oceans, and homo sapiens, he expressed the hope that this timely and significant conference would send a strong political message of paramount importance regarding oceans and security. 17. Dr. Kantathi Suphamongkhon presented the speech of Her Royal Highness Princess Professor Dr. Chulabhorn Mahidol of Thailand, Vice-President of ACOPS, and conveyed her apologies for her absence due to official duties. 18. Dr. Suphamongkhon then proceeded to present the Princess' remarks on what she emphasized was a landmark conference since it addressed all sectors of society. She remarked that it was a notable achievement to have brought together policy makers with different ministerial portfolios from many countries and regions. Princess Chulabhorn also referred to objectives and programmes in Thailand, which centre on raising environmental awareness and information dissemination on environmental issues and concerns. She noted that presently Thailand was experiencing rapid economic and industrial growth, and there was a need to ensure that such progress was sustainable, and therefore the Conference should highlight the importance of united economic and environmental security concerns. She stated that remedial measures for environmental protection were more costly than preventive measures, which argued for a holistic approach to managing the planet. The wide range of interests represented in the Conference should enable it to chart new routes for ocean management. B. Scope and objectives of the conference 19. The Conference was convened at the initiative of Congressman Curt Weldon, and Lord Clinton-Davis. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the issues of environmental, food, and economic security, and related research and defense issues using a multi-sectoral approach to identify problems and propose solutions. With a view towards fulfilling these goals, a broad spectrum of highest-ranking officials representing different government departments were invited to participate. It was hoped that the informal manner in which ACOPS' global and regional conferences traditionally unfold would enable participants to explore solutions to problems in a more comprehensive and independent manner than is customary for diplomatic conferences. C. Introduction of the main themes of the conference 20. During the last part of the morning session, the four resource persons introduced the main themes of the Conference: economic security, environmental security, food security, and research and defence issues. Economic security 21. Mr. Andrew Steer, Director of Environment, World Bank, stated in his paper that economic security and the environment were inextricably linked: poverty and market failures drove over-exploitation of natural resources, while rapid economic growth in the absence of sound economic policies and regulatory frameworks led to severe environmental degradation. Erosion of the natural resource base and its productive capacity resulted in economic loss, social conflict and growing political insecurity. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the coastal zone, where two thirds of the world population was concentrated. 22. Mr. Steer went on to say that global dependency on coastal and marine ecosystems for food and livelihoods, coupled with increasing vulnerability of human settlements and investments to human-induced shifts in ocean processes such as climate change and sea level rise, required that appropriate environmental management frameworks and economic policies be put in place to secure sustainable development of marine and coastal resources. Among the most important priorities for the international community to engage in were to: (1) invest in human knowledge; (2) reform economic policies that undermine sustainable use of marine resources; (3) invest directly in marine conservation; (4) ensure adequate funding (e.g. through the GEF, bilateral and multi- lateral programmes); and (5) coordinate efforts regionally. Mr. Steer ended by saying that the World Bank, in partnership with UNDP, UNEP and other international players, was committed to supporting these objectives. Environmental security 23. The presentation of Dr. Laurence Mee, Coordinator of the GEF Programme for Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea and Chairman of ACOPS' Advisory Board on Oceans and Coastal Areas Management, examined the concept of environmental security with particular emphasis on the case of international waters. Feelings of insecurity were themselves driven by uncertainty and unempowerment (a perceived inability to improve the situation). It was suggested that understanding and addressing the root causes of environmental problems could improve individual and collective security. The causes were considered to be market failures, failures in information and understanding, and failures in governance. Dr. Mee said that if mankind was to avoid a serious deterioration in human security in the 21st century, a change in many aspects of lifestyle would be required in order to reduce waste, eliminate over-consumption and to improve the protection of natural habitats and landscapes. He added that in the aquatic environment, particularly urgent action was required to mitigate environmental security hot spots but that actions should not be limited to conflict resolution. An understanding of the root causes of environmental degradation, coupled with individual and collective commitment to take action to address them would inevitably lead to an improvement in long- term security. Work should begin immediately. Food security 24. Dr. Scott Parsons, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, stated that food security from world fisheries and aquaculture would depend on implementation of new integrated approaches to resource conservation and management. Production from world fisheries was leveling off after increasing by a factor of five over the past fifty years. Technological innovations and development of a world market in fish products had combined with activities unrelated to fishing to place unprecedented strains on world fish resources, including overfishing, habitat loss due to pollution and physical degradation, and changes in the marine climate. National and international jurisdictional arrangements favoured piecemeal approaches to ocean management. While the problems of world fisheries had become the stuff of headlines, innovative solutions to these were being developed and applied, many involving fundamental shifts in approach. Knowledge of how fish stocks function in an ecosystem context was increasing, thanks to advances in science. New marine management models such as integrated management of marine regions and increasing use of protected areas were being developed. The widespread implementation of property rights in fisheries in the form of individual transferable quotas (ITQs) over the past ten years showed that movement from theoretical model to implementation of a fundamentally new approach could be rapid. New jurisdictional arrangements at national and international levels were coming into place, which would allow an integrated approach to ocean resource management. Perhaps the most promising recent development was widespread recognition of the need for a precautionary approach to conservation, under which conservation comes first and lack of certainty could not be taken as an excuse for inaction. Research and defence 25. Admiral Paul Gaffney, Chief of Naval Research, Office of Naval Research, USA, stated that it was readily apparent that environmental issues were being considered more and more in the formulation of national foreign and defence policy. His presentation dealt with two important issues related to environmental security, defence concerns and military scientific efforts. A modern military must be concerned with environmental issues beyond its borders. Environmental degradation, scarcity, and related conditions such as increased population growth, urbanisation, migration, and the spread of infectious diseases had contributed to world instability and many times led to conflicts drawing neighbours and allies into regional turmoil. Modern military establishments were developing preventive defence, which required understanding what conditions had the potential of leading to instability and conflict in the future, and what was needed to address those conditions early enough to make a difference. In the framework of the US military scientific efforts, the US Navy had invested billions of dollars in research that responds to military requirements and needs. This research also served to address issues of great environmental concern. The US Military had a wealth of experience and expertise it could share with the militaries of other nations. US defence environmental programmes were becoming an important tool in which to engage the militaries of new democracies. All must understand such environmental conditions which may generate conflict, in order that conditions for peace may be developed in their place. D. Panel on oceans and seas of the Americas 26. The co-moderators, Mr. James Baker, Administrator of the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Mr. Arsenio Rodriguez, Director of the Regional Office for Latin American and the Caribbean, UNEP, introduced the subject to be discussed in the Panel. Mr. Baker reminded participants that oceans played a key role in sustainable development, and that mankind was dependent on them for economic growth, food security, marine transport, tourism, and aquaculture, among others. He underlined that the Americas were endowed with unique and valuable marine resources. He then discussed important factors that were influenced by the oceans, such as climate variability, as exemplified by the El Nino phenomenon, which contributed to national security. As the world emerged from the Cold War, Mr. Baker said that there was a need to ensure civilian applications for military technology. 27. Mr. Rodriguez noted that during the last 20 years, great progress had been made in the identification and conceptualisation of the problems and issues relevant to environmental and ocean management. He also stated that the challenge facing the conference was to further integrated management responses based on international cooperation, given the inability of resolving all problems exclusively through national responses. However, he queried the effectiveness of existing international cooperation and management schemes, and said that the problem nowadays was implementation. Moreover, there was a need to ensure that other sectors of society participate, not just governments. 28. The panellists were: Dr. Otis Brown, MEDEA, Dean, Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami; Dr. Gordon Eaton, Director, US Geological Survey; Congressman Sam Farr, House Agriculture Committee, California; Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, Resources Committee, Maryland; Hon Suwit Khunkitti, Minister for Justice, Thailand; Dr. David Lavigne, Executive Director, International Marine Mammal Association; Mr. Victor Lichtinger, Executive Director, Commission for Environmental Cooperation; Mr. Jose Vicente Mogollon, Former Minister of Environment, Colombia; Mr. Peter Mokaba, Deputy Minister of Environment and Tourism, South Africa; Congressman Frank Pallone, House Commerce and Resources Committee, New Jersey, USA; Senhor Carlos Pimenta, Memer of the European Parliament, President of GLOBE EU; Senor Manuel Rodriguez, Colombia, ACOPS' Vice President from the Wider Caribbean; Dr. Eduardo Verano De La Rosa, Minister of Environment, Colombia; Congresswoman Telma de Souza, Member of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party (PT), Former Mayor of Santos, Brazil; Mr. Ulf Svensson, Assistant Under-Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sweden; Congressman Curt Weldon, Chairman, Sub- Committee of Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, House of Representative, Congress of the USA, and ACOPS' Vice-President from the USA. 29. Minister Khunkitti stressed the interrelation of marine resources and problems and informed participants that Thailand had established national structures to address these issues in the Thai seas. 30. Mr. Eaton spoke of work carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey and said that these activities were of great relevance for addressing diverse concerns related to ocean management. 31. Congressman Farr celebrated the presence of representatives from so many governments and sectors, although lamented the absence of press and media. He noted that this was indicative of the need to involve more people in environmental issues, as well as to bring politics to the local level. Moreover, given the present downsizing tendency and the increasing competition for scarce funds, it was necessary to define measurable goals. 32. Congressman Gilchrest highlighted the need to exchange information, and to ensure that it is disseminated to elected politicians and communities around the globe. He added that population growth was not matched by a parallel increase in natural resources. 33. Mr. Lavigne declared that a gulf existed in fisheries management between theory and practice. Management should take into account not only scientific considerations, but also public opinion, political realities, and cultural and economic considerations. Moreover, there was a need to give scientists greater independence so that their advice and work was not compromised by political decisions. He strongly urged the implementation of the precautionary approach and that priority was given to conservation goals. 34. Mr. Lichtinger stressed that the issues of freshwater and of shared water resources would be of the greatest importance in the next century. Mankind faced great problems of scarcity, yet no attempts had been made to deal with the issue. Water should be used in a more efficient and wise manner, and water consumption should therefore be measured. This objective also depended on active public participation. 35. Mr. Mogollon affirmed that sweeping generalisations could not be made in the environmental sphere, as illustrated by a successful programme adopted in Colombia which led to an increase in mangrove acreage. He went on to refer to the need for greater financing of environmental conservation schemes. 36. Mr. Mokaba began by stating that environmental management was about change, and added that attention should be paid to the linkage between land activities and oceans. He stated that it was important to generate a sense of ownership and participation in people in order to achieve good resource management. However, he reiterated that sustainable economic development depended on good environmental management. In the context of trade, he said that the third world finds itself excluded from trade arrangements and relegated to the periphery, and stated that an African renaissance depended on greater opportunities for commerce. Economic security would also be strengthened by developing interregional trade between Africa and South America. He called for ACOPS to convene a Conference on the problems faced by Africa. 37. Mr. Pimenta called on governments to agree to further emissions reductions within the framework of the Climate Change Convention given that the relationship between climate and oceans was crucial. He added that sources of pollution and sea degradation required permanent international action, and cited as an example tanker washing just beyond EEZ boundaries. Greater enforcement was generally needed. 38. Mr. Manuel Rodriguez considered that the major problem concerns implementation of existing instruments and declarations, and that the major obstacle is one of political will. Moreover there was a need to increase public awareness. He went on to speak about the conflicts of interest that existed between stakeholders and users of land and marine resources, which should be addressed. Resolution of such conflicts required consensus at the national level. 39. Mr. Verano affirmed that the lack of financial resources was not the only factor leading to a lack of progress and action, given the need for a clear definition of issues and for greater consensus building between scientists and politicians. He also addressed the need to internalise environmental externalities which affect marine and coastal resources. however, financial agreements between north and south were needed. 40. Congresswoman Telma de Souza presented a detailed description for the programme for beach recovery implemented in the city of Santos, which had received international recognition. As a concrete example what political will could achieve, she affirmed that such will should also be globalised. 41. Mr. Svensson manifested Europe's interest in the oceans of the Americas, and noted that issues such as food security were affecting all regions alike, in many cases leading to open conflicts. He suggested that the year of the Ocean be one of full cooperation between regional fisheries organisations. He also addressed the issue of the lack of scientific data, which could limit the possibility of applying the precautionary approach to fisheries. He noted that the release of military data had doubled the amount of information available. He affirmed that there was a need to focus on the consequences of environmental degradation as well as on the links between fisheries and the marine environment, and concerns such as direct habitat destruction. He noted that mankind had before it a series of necessary institutional reforms. 42. Mr. Brown presented a description of the Medea Mission for releasing previously classified data. He noted that one of its objectives was to provide advice on use for data derived from natural security systems, in order to attain a greater understanding of the environment, and especially to oceanography. 43. At the conclusion of the Panel, Congressman Weldon noted with satisfaction that the Conference had begun very successfully, with the endorsement of four heads of state. He asserted that the suggestion of holding a combined ACOPS and GLOBE conference, with ministerial and parliamentary participation was excellent. Equally, a conference should be held, as suggested by Mr. Mokaba, to showcase environmental issues in Africa. He added that the bipartisan support evidenced for this conference showed there was a will for forging ahead on these issues, and that he was interested in proposing to NATO allies and other countries that their military data also be declassified and shared with the international community. E. Panel on the Pacific Ocean 44. The co-moderators, Dr. Eduardo Verano de la Rosa, Minister of the Environment of Colombia and Mr. Geoffrey Holland, Chairman of OIC of UNESCO and Chairman of ACOPS' Advisory Board on Marine Natural Resources Management chaired this session of the Panel on the Pacific Ocean. 45. Dr. Verano described the varied nature of the geography of the Pacific Ocean, the richness of its resources, the diversity of its culture and the dynamism of its economies. Nearly 20 of the world's largest cities are located on the Pacific coasts which are threatened by population growth pollution, loss of valuable habitat and deterioration of the coastal environment. Mr. Holland recalled several of the points made in the previous day's discussions that would be important to pursue for the Pacific. In particular, the size of the Pacific emphasized the need for cooperation and resources for ocean observation, addressing poverty must be an essential part of environmental solutions, a precautionary approach must be adopted for fisheries and a preventative policy for industrial and agricultural policies. 46. The panelists were: Hon. Senator Heherson Alvarez. Phillippine Senate and ACOPS' Vice President from East Asia; Mr. Jong Hwa Choe, Counsellor, Embassy of Korea; Ambassador John Fraser, Environment Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada and ACOPS' Vice President; Mr. Joemari D. Gerochi, Under-Secretary, Chief Executive and Legislative Liaison Officer, Department of Agriculture, Republic of the Philippines; Mr. Ian Kiernan, Chairman, Clean up the World and ACOPS' Vice-President from Australia; Dr. Mok Mareth, Minister of Environment, Kingdom of Cambodia; Mr. Tsuyoshi Maruyama, Director of Ocean and Earth Division at the Science and Technology Agency (STA), Japan; Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, House Science Committee, California, USA; and Mr. R. Tucker Scully, Director, Office of Ocean Affairs, US Department of State. 47. Congressman Rohrabacher highlighted the need to utilize military technology in the fight for the environment and quality of life. He saw an equally valuable opportunity in the application of space technology for the resolution of ocean problems. Senator Alvarez, commented that the security of a maritime nation such as the Philippines was dependent on the security of its adjacent oceans. Cooperation in the region is important and ACOPS had great value in promoting communications. An unfortunate situation existed in the South China Seas where disputes over the sovereignty of several small islands was leading to military interventions by the disputing parties, and was hampering joint efforts and actually harming the environment. 48. Ambassador Fraser reminded the meeting that although participation is such a high level gathering was a privilege it also carried a responsibility. Actions were required. The Ambassador challenged the concepts that job creation and environmental protection were alternative choices. On the contrary, in the long term, addressing environmental problems would conserve economies and prosperity. 49. Senator Gerochi reiterated the importance of the ocean to the Philippines, in particular to the fisheries. The Philippine Government had introduced legislation that had sustainable development as an operating principle. Many mechanisms for fisheries management were being adopted at all jurisdictions of government down to local level. 50. Mr. Kiernan brought the concept of people power to the debate. He explained that to bring the environment to the highest priority, one had a empower the public. His own initiative of ``Clean up the World'' had been taken in 110 countries and involved 40 million people. 51. Mr. Mareth spoke of the problems in Cambodia that his country was trying to address as quickly as possible. A strategy had been adopted to tackle coastal zone issues. 52. Mr. Maruyama brought the perspective of a developed country to the table. He spoke of the high priority Japan accords ocean research, technology and observations. Japan is also supporting the cooperation between the space-based and in situ ocean measurements. 53. Mr. Scully reminded the meeting of the intergovernmental agreements that had been motioned since the Rio Conference. In his opinion, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into force in 1994, formed the basis for subsequent agreements. In particular, the several fisheries agreements, signed and awaiting ratification, were a direct follow-up of the UNCLOS provisions. Regional agreements on fisheries and other environmental issues were an important adjunct to global conventions 54. Finally, Mr. Choe, described the situation in Korea, which had a huge 10% of its economy related to the marine environment. Environmental security was an obvious priority of his country. 55. In summing up, the moderators agreed on the following highlights from the discussion and recommended actions: Disputes amongst countries are an obstacle to environmental cooperation and their resolution is therefore important to the resolution of regional environmental problems. ACOPS was seen as a valuable mechanism to enhance cooperation and communication amongst nations. Both technology and research are required to address environmental problems so that knowledge and capability are used together. Global fisheries agreements are now in place awaiting ratification, setting the agenda for future work. More needs to be done to protect pelagia and fish habitat. Regional agreements are an effective way for nations to cooperate on environmental issues. Governments need to harmonise their policies to ensure the effective interaction of the respective agreements. Governments need to act now and will need much public pressure to initiate appropriate actions. F. Panel on the Indian Ocean 56. Mr. Peter Mokaba, Deputy Minister of Environment and Tourism of South Africa and Mr. Terry Jones, Director of Multilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Planning and Environment of Seychelles chaired this session of the Panel on the Indian Ocean. 57. The panellists were: Prof. Dr. Khosla Ashok, President, Development Alternatives, India; Mr. Joseph Belmont, Minister for Administration and Manpower, First Minister Designate, Seychelles; Dr. Robert Corell, Head of Geoscience Directorate, National Science Foundation, USA; Mr. Bernardo Ferraz, Minister for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs, Mozambique; Congressman Peter King, House Foreign Affairs Committee, New York, USA; Dr. Mok Mareth, Minister of Environment, Kingdom of Cambodia; Mr. Philip Reynolds, Manager, Strategic Initiative for Ocean & Coastal Management, UNDP; Congressman Chris Smith, House Foreign Affairs Committee, New Jersey, USA; and Dr. Plodprasop Suraswadi, Director General of the Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. 58. The panel discussed ------ G. Panel on oceans and the Russian Federation Dr. Alexander Solovyanov, Deputy Chairman of the State Committee on the Protection of the Environment of the Russian Federation and Senior Policy Adviser to ACOPS, Prof. Vladimir Tetelmin, Deputy Chairman of the Committee on Ecology of the State Duma, Russian Federation, and Coordinator for ACOPS' Russian Programme, and Prof. Vitaly Lystsov, Chairman of ACOPS' Arctic Working Group chaired this session of the Panel on Oceans and the Russian Federation. The panellists were: Dr. James Baker, Administrator, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USA; Mrs. Siri Bjerke, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway; Mr. Mikhail Faleev, Deputy Minister of the Russian Federation for Civil Defence, Emergencies and the Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM); Ms. Sherri Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defence (Environmental Security), USA; Dr. Ljubomir Jeftic, Chairman, ACOPS' Advisory Board on Pollution Control and Prevention; Prof. Dr. Willem J Kakebeeke, Assistant Director General for the Environment, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, The Netherlands; Admiral Igor Kasatonov, First Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy and Chairman of Section No. 2 on Sea and Ocean Studies in the Russian Federation Committee on Science and Technology; Dr. Laurence Mee, Coordinator, GEF Programme for Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea, and Chairman, ACOPS Advisory Board on Oceans and Coastal Areas Management and Policy; Mr. R. Tucker Scully, Director, Office of Ocean Affairs, Department of State, USA; Mr. Vitaly Sevastianov, Member of the State Duma, President of GLOBE, Russia; Colonel Viktor Sheremetyev, Ministry of Defence, Russian Federation; Senator Ted Stevens, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman, Alaska, USA; Congressman Curt Weldon, Chairman, Sub-Committee of Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, Congress of the USA, and ACOPS' Vice President from the USA; Dr. Leslie Whitby, Director of Environment and Renewable Resources in the Northern Affairs Programme, Canada; and Congressman Don Young, House Resources Chairman, Alaska, USA. The panel discussed ------ H. Presentation of recommendations and the Potomac Declaration Congressman Curt Weldon, Dr. Jeftic, Prof. Per Wramner, and Dr. Sebek chaired this session which was devoted to the presentation of the draft recommendations. The Recommendations are attached to this report as Annex II. The draft of the Potomac Declaration was prepared on the basis of presentations and statements made during the meeting and on the basis of position papers distributed at the Conference and other relevant materials. The draft of the Potomac Declaration was discussed in detail and numerous amendments were agreed upon. The Potomac Declaration is presented in Annex IV of this report. H. Closing of the conference The closing session, at which short statements were made by

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. I thank the committee and the full committee chairman.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's assurances that this rescission will not hamper the fiscal year 1997 THAAD effort, and of the committee's continued commitment to the program. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, I will work with the gentleman to ensure there are no program setbacks after 1997 due to inadequate funding. It has been 6 years, Mr. Chairman, since we lost 28 service members to a Scud attack in Dhahran, and there is still no system in place to prevent a similar attack in theater. It is absolutely essential that we provide the funding to get this system in the field for our troops at the earliest possible date, especially with North Korea's deployment of the No Dong missile. I am confident that nothing we are doing in this bill will prevent us from moving forward at this time. We will have opportunities in fiscal year 1998 and in future years to restore funds, if necessary, to keep the program on track. I am, however, concerned that the committee's actions may be interpreted outside Congress as a sign that support for the program is waning, or that we are no longer supporting an aggressive schedule. I say that because I am told the administration may propose reducing THAAD over future year defense plans by as much as $2 billion. Such a move would kill the program, and is unacceptable.

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