Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, in order to pay for the many unforeseen costs in this bill while meeting our fiscal responsibilities, the committee was forced to offset funding with corresponding cuts in programs throughout the Government. In the case of the Department of Defense, that resulted in a $40 million rescission for the THAAD program, a centerpiece for our theater missile defense effort that enjoys broad bipartisan support in this body. It is my understanding that this rescission only affects a portion of fiscal year 1996 program funds which could not be obligated before they expire on September 30 of this year due to an in-depth program review. I also understand that the committee supports efforts to resume testing as soon as feasible after completion of the review, and that there are adequate program funds remaining to accomplish that goal in 1997.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to focus on several major concerns of mine. But let me say at the outset before beginning my discussions that I am of the other party from the gentlemen who just appeared in the well and spoke against NAFTA, but I as a Republican opposed NAFTA, voted against NAFTA, and even more than that, appealed the ruling of the Chair on the bailout of Mexico which the President and the Speaker and the majority leader all had agreed should not come to a floor vote in this House and which we were not given privy to vote on. I think the loss of jobs in this country because of the North American Free Trade Agreement is very pronounced. It has certainly hurt the northeastern Midwestern area, the rust belt area, and it is something that continues. I would grant that the white collar industries have benefited from NAFTA, but by and large our manufacturing industry has, in fact, lost. But, Mr. Speaker, let me kind of move into the topic that I want to focus on tonight, because from the broadest possible context it, too, deals with the jobs issue, and for those Members who may be in their offices listening to the discussion of NAFTA, perhaps there is another segment of the job loss that was not even discussed over the past hour. That relates to the 1 million union men and women who lost their jobs over the past 5 years, Mr. Speaker, as this President cut defense spending to a level that we have not seen since before World War II. Now, we do not hear any talk coming out of the AFL-CIO leadership on this issue, and we do not hear much talk coming out of the mainstream side of the opposition on this issue, because they have largely not been supportive of stabilizing our defense industrial base. But let us talk about that impact, Mr. Speaker, as I start off my 1-hour session this evening. Over the past 5 years, under this administration, over 1 million American workers have lost their jobs, workers who worked for large defense companies, small machine shops, subcontractors, and because of the cuts that this Congress and this administration have imposed, largely through an administration totally unsupportive of adequate defense spending, 1 million union workers have become unemployed. These are not the fat cat CEO's that we heard about being discussed during the previous hour. These are UAW workers, these are IUE workers, these are machinists workers, these are the building trades workers who do in fact the bulk of our construction work at our military sites around the country that are required under Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws to be given a priority in terms of the jobs that are provided through our military construction budget. We have not heard the AFL-CIO issue a peep about the loss of these 1 million jobs nationwide. Yet these workers too, Mr. Speaker, were paying their union dues, these workers too were out there concerned about their families and being able to feed their kids, but nothing came out of the AFL-CIO or this administration to protect those workers and the loss of their jobs. I will grant, Mr. Speaker, that it is a different world today. I would argue that one could make the case that it is actually more destabilized today than it was when we in fact had Communist domination of the former Soviet Union. Then there are those, Mr. Speaker, who would say we are spending so much more on the military today that it is outlandish, that it is outrageous. Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker and talk about defense spending, because I think we have to put things into perspective. For those of our constituents who are thinking that we are spending so much more money on the military today, let me do a very simple and basic comparison. There are two basic ways that a country can compare its level of defense spending or its level of Federal spending in any particular given area. The first is what percentage of our gross national product as a nation is being used to fund our military. Let us take a period of time when we were at relative peace. The 1960's, when John Kennedy was President, we were at peace. It was after the Korean war and yet it was before the Vietnam war. We were not involved in a major international conflict. During those Kennedy years, Mr. Speaker, we were spending 9 percent of our gross national product on the defense budget. In fact, 52 cents of every Federal dollar coming into Washington went back to pay for the military, 52 cents of every Federal dollar. That was during John Kennedy's era. What about today? In today's budget, Mr. Speaker, we are spending less than 3 percent of our gross national product on the military, and we are spending 16 cents of the Federal tax dollar coming into Washington on the military. Anyone who would compare numbers I think would admit that is a substantial decrease in the total amount of Federal revenues that we are spending on the military. As we have drawn down that military, we have in fact drawn down a significant number of jobs. But there are those who say, well, out of that 16 cents that we are spending of the Federal tax dollar on the military, it is providing so much money for these big corporations. Let us look at that issue, also, Mr. Speaker, because back when John Kennedy was the President, we did not have an all-volunteer military. Kids were drafted out of high school, 17, 18, 19 years of age. They were drafted and they served for far less than the minimum wage. In fact, it was 10, 15 cents an hour. They were required to serve their country for a period of 2 years. Today, Mr. Speaker, we no longer pay people peanuts to serve in the military. We have an All-Volunteer Force. Our kids in the service today, Mr. Speaker, in fact our men and women, are very well educated, many of them have college degrees, they have technical training. In fact most of them have families. They have spouses, they have children. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to support the new military we have today, a much larger percentage of that 16 cents goes to pay for education, health care costs, housing costs, benefits and all of those quality of life issues that are important for our new military. So even though we are only spending 16 cents of the Federal tax dollar on the military today as opposed to 52 cents when John Kennedy was President, a much larger portion of that 16 cents goes for the quality of life for the men and women who serve in the military. So when we talk about the defense budget, Mr. Speaker, we need to put things into perspective. When someone says there have been massive increases in defense spending, go tell that to the unemployed UAW worker who lost his or her job 2 years ago. Go tell that to the machinist who lost his or her job 3 years ago, or go tell it to the union member from the IUE who was displaced because his company was consolidated with another major defense company, or tell it to one of the building trades members who had their basic industry sold down the river because we have cut back so far in terms of military construction projects. The cutbacks in defense spending have been real, they have been substantive and they have caused a significant amount of turmoil in the lives of American people, not just a few hundred, not just a few thousand, but over 1 million men and women out of work. That does not include the cutbacks in the Pentagon itself. What I am talking about are the union workers across this country who have negatively been impacted by the cutbacks in defense spending. What can we do about this, Mr. Speaker? The President is driving all of this debate from the bully pulpit at the White House, and I want to end my comments later on this evening talking about how the President is using the bully pulpit to convey the wrong message to America and to our people. But let me talk about some options that we in the Congress are in fact pursuing. The President has some options in terms of defense spending, and I would support any one of these options. First of all, he could raise the top line in terms of the amount of money that we spend on the military, and I would vote for that and I would support it. I do not want a massive increase, but I do want a stable funding level, because the reason we have a strong military is not just to respond in wars but to deter aggression. There has never been a nation that has been attacked or taken down because it was too strong, and so a stable funding base for the military is the key number one priority that we should work for. I would support the President if he asked me to vote for additional money for the military, as this Congress provided in each of the last 2 years. But the President has not yet said he would do that. There is a second alternative, Mr. Speaker, for the President. He could decrease the amount of money coming out of the Defense Department's budget for environmental mitigation. Most people do not realize this, Mr. Speaker, but as we have cut defense spending to 16 cents of the Federal tax dollar collected in Washington, we are currently spending $12 billion of that money not for guns and missiles, not for the salaries of our troops and not for the CEOs of the defense companies; we are spending $12 billion of that DOD money for what is called environmental remediation. In fact, much of that money is going to lawyers who are suing each other over how clean we are going to leave a former military site. What is especially troubling to me, Mr. Speaker, as someone who takes great pride in my pro-environmental voting record is that we have gone too far in this area. What was at one point in time a military base where the children of military personnel lived and played on the playgrounds and went to the schools on that base, as soon as that base has been closed through the base closing process, then we are told that that facility is unacceptable, that it is a danger, it is a toxic site. It was okay when the kids of those military personnel were there, but now all of a sudden it is being closed, we have to take extreme measures because that complex is no longer safe for human beings to be around. We do have to clean up sites, Mr. Speaker. Everyone acknowledges that. But $12 billion out of the DOD budget this year is too much of a price to pay when we have other needs that are currently not being met. So I have said to this President publicly that I will support him if he will work to help us reduce the amount of environmental spending coming out of the DOD bill. That would provide some support for these workers that we have heard about tonight who have been displaced from their jobs. There is a third alternative, also, Mr. Speaker, that I would support, and that is the need for this President to do more than just commit our troops around the world in terms of peacekeeping operations or stabilization operations. There was a huge debate on the floor of this House about whether or not we should commit to the President's decision to put our troops into Bosnia. The debate was not about whether or not we support America's need as the world leader to go into Bosnia with our allies. That was not the concern of most of our colleagues. The debate, Mr. Speaker, was why should the United States put 36,000 troops in the theater of operation of Bosnia when the Germans right next door are only committing 4,000 troops or perhaps the Japanese, who cannot provide troops, are not putting enough in the way of dollars in to support that operation? The problem in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, is that this administration has an internationalist foreign policy with an isolationist defense budget. There have been more deployments by this President in the last 5 years than in the previous 50 years, more deployments in the last 5 years than in the previous 50 years. Every time this President deploys our troops to Haiti, to Bosnia, to Somalia, to Macedonia, the taxpayers foot the bill. Where does that money come from? Since the President did not plan for any of those deployments, he goes into the defense budget and he robs the accounts to pay for the weapons systems that then cause these union workers to lose their jobs. That is unfair, Mr. Speaker, and so the third alternative for this President is to say that he will work with us so that when he commits to deploy our troops that he is willing to go out and get the support of our allies to help pay for that deployment. That is what President Bush did in Desert Storm. In fact, in Desert Storm the total cost of that operation was around $52 billion. The amount of money that we collected from our allies to help pay for that was around $54 billion. It was entirely funded by those people who benefited from our presence. That is not the case in Bosnia, and that is not the case in Haiti. In fact, we are going to be asked to vote in a few short days on a supplemental appropriations bill to provide more money for Bosnia. It is not again a question of paying our fair share, it is a question of why should the U.S. pay the brunt of this cost alone, especially when it has not been programmed in the defense budget and is simply robbing other programs that are important to the security of our kids as they serve around the world on the deployments made by this President. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we need to send a signal that while America will be a vital partner in helping to stabilize these regional conflicts, America cannot and should not go it alone in terms of funding these operations. We should not be the only entity in the world that picks up the tab. In fact, we found out in Haiti that we not only were paying for our troops, we were paying for the housing and food costs of other troops, in one case about 1,000 troops from Bangladesh. We found out in Bosnia that we were paying the housing and food costs of troops coming from other European and Scandinavian countries. Mr. Speaker, that is not what is in the best interests of our country, and that is not helping us maintain our defense industrial base and also these jobs that my colleagues talked about over the past hour that have been lost not just because of a free trade agreement like NAFTA, which I opposed, but also because of the unprecedented cuts in defense spending. There are some things this Congress is doing separate from this administration that I think we can be proud of, and I want to talk about those for a moment. We are looking at every possible opportunity to see where we can take the money that we are spending on the Defense Department and use that to help us solve other problems. In fact, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will have 2,000 of the Nation's emergency responders come to Washington. Many of them are already here this evening in their hotel rooms, perhaps watching our program this evening. They are coming to Washington because tomorrow evening we will have the Ninth Annual Congressional Fire and Emergency Services Caucus dinner. This dinner, Mr. Speaker, brings leaders from every State, from every large city and small community of those people who day in and day out respond to our disasters, not just fires. These are the men and women who respond to the Murrah office building in Oklahoma City, to the World Trade Center that was bombed, to the recent floods in North Dakota and the Midwest floods that occurred, to the Long Island wildlands fires, the California forest fires, the hurricanes in Florida and the Carolinas and the earthquakes in California. These are the men and women who day in and day out respond to every disaster this country has. They represent 1.2 million men and women in 32,000 organized departments across this Nation, in every county and every city. They are here tomorrow so that we can celebrate who they are and what they do. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you will be our keynote speaker tomorrow evening and you will follow the speakers we have had in the past. Last year we had Vice President Al Gore and we had Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. The year before that we had President Clinton, and the year before that we had President Clinton. In previous years to President Clinton, we had President Bush, we had Vice President Quayle, we had Ron Howard and the entire cast of ``Backdraft'' the year that it was unveiled. It is our way of showing our thanks to these men and women who respond to our disasters day in and day out in this country. Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of these people are volunteers. They are not paid for what they do. It is kind of interesting, we just had the volunteerism summit in Philadelphia and up until I raised a lot of stink with the administration the volunteers were not even invited to participate in that event. They are the only group of volunteers that I know of each year in America that lose 80 to 100 of their people, who lose their lives in the course of performing their volunteer activities, because that is how many fire and emergency services personnel are killed each year. On average between 100 and 120 and on average between 80 and 100 of them are volunteer fire and EMS personnel. They will all be here tomorrow as we talk about how we can assist them. What does that have to do with the defense bill? Our military is our international defender. It is the group of people who protect us overseas. The fire and EMS people are our domestic defender. But there are many lessons that could be learned one to the other. So as a major part of our day tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we are going to focus on that interaction, an interaction that began years ago that we continue today. In fact, in the morning we will have a 1\1/2\ hour session where I have the leading research and development people from the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines and the Department of Defense and DARPA coming in, showcasing new technology that we are developing for terrorist incidents that can be made available for fire and EMS people in every city in the country. We are going to be showcasing resources. We are going to be showcasing training so that these men and women who are first responders in this country to every disaster will have the best possible tools and resources as they approach these situations on a day-to-day basis. As 12:45, Mr. Speaker, here in the Capitol, actually outside the Rayburn Office Building, we will showcase the new Marine Corps capability to deal with chemical and biological incidents. We will simulate a gas attack on one of the office buildings, and our Marine Corps special response team that was initiated in Congress last year will be deployed from Camp LeJeune, and they will come up and they will showcase the way they would handle an incident of this type in any city in America. Now that is a beginning of a process of bringing together our military with those domestic responders who have to meet these needs on a daily basis in our cities and our towns. So what are we doing with the military? As we face the threat of terrorism in our cities and our towns, we are beginning to bring together the local emergency response personnel with the professionals and the Defense Department so that they can learn from one another, so that they have access to the resources that will allow them to respond to these situations wherever and whenever they might occur. In fact, we will also be announcing, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow a new series of legislative initiatives to assist the fire service. We will announce the fact that the Federal Communication Commission has decided to set aside the megahertz that are necessary to protect the communications capability of our emergency responders to the 21st century. We will be announcing a plan to allow the use of community development block grant monies, up to 25 percent to be used by local counties and cities to assist in fire and emergency planning and response. We will be announcing an effort to establish a national low- interest loan program not to give money away, but to provide low-cost financing assistance so that local fire and EMS personnel can have the money available to them at a discounted rate to buy the equipment and the materials that we are going to showcase that are being developed through our military today. We are also going to announce efforts to establish an expedited process for excess Federal property so that local fire and EMS personnel across the country can get access to that surplus Defense Department material when it first becomes available. We are also going to be announcing the establishment of an effort to have in place a national urban search and rescue training center and a national chemical biological training center. And finally, Mr. Speaker, we will be announcing plans to complete a study as to what it would take to connect to the Internet all of our emergency response institutions in America, all 32,000 of them. The point here is, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, we are cutting back on the Defense Department's budget, but we are looking at every possible opportunity to showcase defense technology to be used and applied in our inner cities, to be used and applied in our small communities so that where we have training and where we have preparation taking place that can benefit and help us and we have disasters, that is in fact taking place on a regular ongoing basis. That is saving the taxpayers money, and it is making the best possible usage of our Defense Department investment. There is another area, Mr. Speaker, that we are also working on that is giving us a great return as we look to find ways to improve the investment in our Defense Department. In fact, last year in a series of hearings that I chaired as a chairman of the Research and Development Subcommittee, I found out that we had nine separate Federal agencies that were responsible for studying the oceans through oceanographic efforts, nine separate Federal agencies. I learned through our hearings, Mr. Speaker, one hearing in Washington, one up in Rhode Island and one out in California, that these agencies were not coordinating their effort, that each of them was doing oceanographic work, but none of them were sharing information and technology in a real-time way. I also learned, Mr. Speaker, that the largest funding for oceanographic work is done by the Navy. The Navy does this because it is important for our Navy to understand the mapping of the ocean floor. It is important for our Navy to understand sonar for transmitting data and information through the oceans. It is important for our Navy to understand literal waters. And so in convening these hearings we found out the Navy, in fact, through the Office of the Oceanographer, is leading the country in terms of research in the oceans. Yet we found out that we are missing a golden opportunity, because while the Navy was leading that effort dollar-wise, much of that data that is not sensitive was not being transmitted to NOAA or to NASA or to the Fish and Wildlife Service or to other Federal agencies that have similar responsibilities in understanding the ocean ecosystem and understanding why fishing stocks are declining around the world and understanding why coral reefs are being hampered and hurt or understand why we are having extensive pollution of the waters of the world. So with that in mind, last year Congressman Patrick Kennedy and I introduced the Oceans Partnership Act that for the first time would bring together all nine Federal agencies working with the Department of Defense and the Navy. Senator Lott worked the bill on the Senate side, and the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, that bill is now law. The President signed that into law when he signed into law the Defense Authorization Act, and this year we now have a new oceans partnership arrangement. All nine Federal agencies are together under a steering committee chaired by the Secretary of the Navy so that now in this country, through our Federal Government, not only is the military doing what it needs to do to understand the oceans, but wherever and whenever possible they are sharing that technology and data with the environmental movement and with our environmental agencies so that we maximize the return on the taxpayers' dollars. The bottom line is we get more benefit for that. The taxpayers get more out of their dollar. It is not just for the military, for the hard cold facts of what it needs to understand to go to war or to prepare for war, but it also provides us with the resources to better understand and deal with the environment. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, in this city on May 19 and 20 and 21 I am pleased to announce that we will be hosting the world's largest ever conference on the oceans entitled ``Oceans and Security.'' This 3- day conference is being co-hosted by ACOPS, the Advisory Council on Protecting the Seas of which I am the U.S. vice president, COERI which is the Council of Oceanographic and Educational Research Institutions, which represents every major oceanographic and marine science institution in America from Scripts to Woods Hole, and GLOBE which is an organization entitled Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment where legislators from the Japanese Diet, the Russian Duma, the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament come together at least twice a year on common environmental agendas. These three groups are all coming to Washington, and on those 3 days in the House Office Building, the Longworth Building, and in the Senate Office Building and on this Hill, we will have 300 delegates representing 45 nations who are coming here to focus for 3 days on how we can cooperate on oceans and security. Now when we talk about security, we are not just talking about military security. We are talking about food security, we are talking about environmental security, we are talking about research and defense and economic security. So for those 3 days we will have high-level delegations from China, from Russia, from the South American countries, Central American countries, European countries, the Middle East, Canada and Mexico, all coming together to focus on how we can cooperate, how our militaries can cooperate and how we, as nations, can cooperate to protect the oceans. In the end it will be a better investment of the American taxpayers' dollars to further assist us in understanding what we can do collectively with the world community to protect the oceans of the world and provide the security in the four areas that I have mentioned tonight. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Vice President Gore will give the speech on Tuesday evening of the conference right here in Statuary Hall, and on Monday evening at what promises to be one of the most historical events in this city, Woods Hole Laboratory is bringing the newest oceanographic research ship, paid for by U.S. tax dollars through the Navy, to Washington where it will be unveiled in Alexandria. The ship will be tied up here for 3 days, we will be erecting tents, and on those 3 days, especially on Monday evening, we will unveil the Atlantis. We will take Members of Congress and the foreign delegates on board the ship, we will have on board the deep-diving submersible Alvin, we will showcase the technologies that we are working on to better understand and protect the world's oceans. The bottom line of these 3 days, Mr. Speaker, is that you and Senator Lott who will both be keynote speakers of the conference, Vice President Gore representing both parties, about 40 Members of Congress representing both parties, and representatives of 45 nations will come together to talk about how we can cooperate on understanding the oceans of the world, and, Mr. Speaker, the facilitator is the Department of Defense; again, Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose being to provide our security, but showing that we in fact can benefit in a number of areas from that investment that we are making in terms of the military. Now in each of these cases, Mr. Speaker, in the antiterrorism cooperation that we will showcase tomorrow on the Hill and later in May in the environmental context that we will showcase at the oceans conference, this Congress is taking the lead in showing that, yes, we want to find ways to better spend our DOD money. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to have a course that takes us in a direction of cutting back so dramatically the defense resources for this Nation as we have seen over the past 5 years. Mr. Speaker, let me shift for a moment and talk about that spending. I mentioned terrorism is one of our top priorities, and it is. Members on both sides of the aisle feel very strongly that we have to do more to protect our cities and our towns from the threat of a terrorist attack, and we are going to show some of that technology and that cooperation tomorrow. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the second biggest threats that many of us feel that we face is from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and especially the proliferation of missiles. Mr. Speaker, if there has been one area where this Congress has disagreed more fundamentally with the President then any other area, it has been the area of missile defense. Over the past 2 years, Mr. Speaker, I have seen unprecedented votes in this body in disagreement with this President on missile defense spending. In fact, 2 years ago we plused up in our defense bill $1 billion over what the President requested in our missile defense accounts. We did the same thing last year. In the 11 years that I have been here, Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a defense bill, and I do not think we have ever had one in recent history where 301 Members of Congress voted in the affirmative, not just Republicans, but most of our Democrat colleagues, to support a defense bill that made a statement to this administration, and that statement was a very simple one. It was: Mr. President, you are not focusing enough on the threat that is there and emerging in terms of missile proliferation, and you need to understand that. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is an important point that I want to focus on because this President has been driving the debate nationwide that says that we do not need to focus on defense, the world is so much more safer today, There is no longer a threat to the security of the American people. While I do not want to go to the other extreme, Mr. Speaker, and create some kind of a Cold War mentality, because I think that is equally wrong, the President is doing this country a terrible disservice. One hundred forty-five times the President has made speeches where he has included the following phrase. In fact, three of those speeches were right up at the podium right in front of where you stand, Mr. Speaker. In three State of the Union speeches, our President has made this statement. Looking at the American people through national television, he said: You can sleep well tonight because for the first time in the last 50 years there are no Russian missiles pointed at your children. Mr. Speaker, as the Commander in Chief, the President knows he cannot prove that. We have had testimony in our House committees. In fact, the chief of Russian targeting for Russia has testified on national TV that they will not allow us to have access to their targeting processes, just as we will not allow the Russians to have access to ours. But on 145 occasions, three times from the well of this Chamber, the Commander in Chief of this country has said you can sleep well, there are no missiles pointed at our children. Yet, Mr. Speaker, he cannot verify that. He cannot prove it. And, Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if he could prove it, which he cannot, and which his generals including General Shalikashvili have said on the record he cannot prove; if he could prove it, all of our experts on the record have said that you can retarget a long-range ICBM in less than 10 seconds. But do you see, Mr. Speaker, the point is not so much that particular issue, but when the President makes that speech 145 times, 3 times in front of a national audience, on college campuses, in front of national groups, he uses the bully pulpit to create the perception that there is no longer a threat to the American people or allies. And that is so deadly wrong, Mr. Speaker, because it drives the American people into believing that we have a false sense of security. And once again, I do not want to recreate the cold war, but I want the President to be honest in his assessment of what the threat is worldwide. And that is not an honest assessment, Mr. Speaker, at least not according to the key generals who run the Pentagon. When the President makes that speech, he drives all of our constituents into believing that we are doing a disservice when we want to stabilize defense spending, that we are doing the American taxpayers a disservice when we want to protect programs that provide those jobs my colleagues talked about that were lost over the past 5 years. We do not want to dramatically increase defense spending; we want to stabilize it. Mr. Speaker, there is currently a major struggle going on between this Congress and both Members of the Democrat and Republican Parties and this President over how fast and how quickly we should deploy missile defense systems. Now this administration has come out publicly, Mr. Speaker, and they said they are for theater missile defenses. In fact, Mr. Speaker, their new projections are that we will not have a new system in place until at the earliest 2004. Let me recount the importance of this for my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. In 1991, we had the largest loss of life that this country has experienced in recent years in one military incident, when our young, brave soldiers were killed in that desert in Saudi Arabia by that low-quality Scud missile. They were killed because we had no system that could warn them or take out that one Scud missile. When those 28 kids were killed, many of them from my home State of Pennsylvania, Congress was in a state of shock. Congress said, why do we not have a system in place? So the Congress, in a bipartisan move, passed the Missile Defense Act of 1991. Now that act was, rather simply, Mr. Speaker, it said two things: First of all, that the Defense Department shall deploy a highly effective theater missile defense system as soon as possible to protect our troops. The second part of that act said that by the year 1996, America should deploy a national missile defense system. Well, Mr. Speaker, 1996 came and went. We are now in 1997. We are still fighting that battle even though it was the law of the land. Let me tell you what the most recent projections are. The administration is now telling us that they will be lucky to field our first highly effective theater missile defense system in the year 2004. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is, if the administration is right, and they are now hedging on that date, that it will have taken us 13 years from the date those kids were killed in Saudi Arabia until we have a system deployed that can prevent a future killing of our kids from a low-quality Scud missile. Now the missile defense organization, the Pentagon tells us they probably cannot even make 2004, that is probably too optimistic. Now is the threat greater today than it was in 1991? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is our intelligence community that told us a few years ago not to worry, there were no emerging threats coming forward that we have to worry about, we will handle the Scud missiles that are used, we will take them out, even though we did not take out all the Iraqi launchers both during and after the invasion of Kuwait and our response to that invasion. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, about some very troubling events that have occurred over the past several weeks. First of all, the media has been reporting that Iran has now deployed a version of a Russian rocket called a Katyusha rocket that has a range of around 800 to 900 kilometers, which means it could hit Israel and many of our key allies in that part of the world. That was a development that many of us were not expecting, according to what our intelligence committee told us. Even more troubling, Mr. Speaker, are the press accounts that are coming out from Japanese sources and some United States sources that tell us that the newest missile coming out of North Korea, the No Dong missile, that we were told would not be deployed probably until the turn of the century, is now in fact either deployed or ready to be deployed by North Korea after just one test. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That means every one of our 70- some-thousand kids, when I say kids I mean our troops, that are currently stationed in South Korea and Japan and in Okinawa are within the range of that missile that we know can go as far as 1,300 kilometers. That means, Mr. Speaker, that we now have a risk either today or very shortly that we cannot defend against because we have not taken the aggressive steps that this Congress mandated to deploy a theater missile defense system quickly, and we are going to have to wait until, at the earliest, 2004 to have that highly effective system in place. Mr. Speaker, that is the heart of the debate over defense spending in this Congress between this Congress and this administration. Now we are also concerned, Mr. Speaker, because the administration does not want to work with us on a national missile defense system. They told us last year they were pursuing a three-plus-three system, 3 years of development and 3 years to deploy a system that would protect America's mainland. The American people and my constituents back home cannot believe and cannot imagine that America, with all of its might, has no system today that can defend our country against an accidental launch of a long- range ICBM coming from Russia or China or any other rogue nation. You said that is not true currently, we have to have that capability. And I say no. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, I will tell you pointblank, we have no system or capability today to take out any incoming missile. Now the administration would say we do not need it, we have treaties. The ABM Treaty, Mr. Speaker, only applies to the United States and to Russia. Even though the administration is trying to expand it to include other former Russian states, it does not apply to them. So it does not apply to North Korea, to China, it does not apply to the rogue nations that are trying to get missiles that said they would use them if they had them against us; it only applies to us and Russia. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot rely on the ABM Treaty. We need a physical capability to defend our country. Do we need a massive system that the media has trivialized in the past that would protect our entire country. We are not talking about that. We are talking about a very limited system that could protect us perhaps against five incoming missiles, that is all. Two years ago we pulled provisions in the defense bill to require that kind of system to be deployed by the year 2003, and the administration would not buy that. And today we are now looking at a situation we probably will not have a national missile defense capability until perhaps 2005. That is totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Why do I say it is unacceptable? Am I fearful that the Russians are going to attack us? No, I am not. I worked with Russia perhaps as much as any Member of this body, and you know that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I will be taking a delegation of our colleagues, bipartisan delegation to Moscow in May of this year for the second time I have been there this year. It will be my 9th or 10th trip. I share the new initiative with the Russian duma. My counterpart is the deputy speaker Mr. Shokhin. I want Russia to succeed. I am not concerned about Russia attacking us. But Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Russia is an unstable country today. Many of their military has not been paid for months. In fact, they are trying to sell off their hardware and technology. The evidence of the further reliance on their strategic weapons is such that, because their conventional military is suffering and because the Russians are fearful, they rely much more on their offensive strategic weapons than ever before in their history. Now what does that mean? That means a higher potential for risk of an accidental launch. Is there evidence of that? Just 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, in January, the Russians have been notified by the Norwegians that Norway was going to launch a weather rocket to do some weather monitoring. The Russians were told in advance this was going to take place. The Russians, however, are so paranoid because of their conventional force breakdown; and, so, relying on their strategic force that when this weather rocket went off from Norway, the Russian defensive alert system put the entire country on an alert that would have caused within 60 seconds an offensive response. They admitted on the record in Moscow media and media all over the world, Boris Yeltsin admitted that it was one of the first times in recent years that the black box carried around by the President of Russia himself was activated in response to a weather rocket that they had notified the Russians they were going to launch in advance. That meant Russia was within 60 seconds of activating that response that all of us fear would have happened one day. Would it have been deliberate? No. But those are the kinds of concerns that we have in this country. Now there is also an attempt to sell a mobile version of Russia's most sophisticated rocket, called the SS-25, that can be hauled in the back of a trailer. They have over 400 of these launchers in Russia. How long is it going to take before one of those launchers gets in the hands of a Third World nation and then we have a threat that is not covered by the ABM Treaty that we have to be prepared to respond to? Those are the issues that we face, Mr. Speaker, and those are the issues that dominate our defense debate this year. Over the next several weeks, we will be moving into markup of the 1998 defense authorization bill. We are being very up front with the administration, Mr. Speaker; we do not want business as usual. Over the past 6 years, this administration has decimated the defense of our country, it has caused the loss of over a million jobs. We, in the Congress, have tried to make up for that. Each of the past 2 years, Democrats and Republicans alike joined together and plussed up $10 billion 1 year and $5 billion in the other year to put money back into programs that our service chiefs said they could not live without. That is going to be the same battle this year, Mr. Speaker. It is not about parochial issues of weapon systems in Members' directs because 98 percent of the funds that we put in the defense addition last year and years before were items requested by other chiefs. In fact, General Shalikashvili briefed Secretary Perry last year, said to the Secretary, we need $60 billion just to buy replacement equipment for the military. We never saw that briefing in Congress. When Secretary Perry came in and briefed us in the House and the Senate, when he had Shalikashvili sitting next to him, unable to tell what he was really thinking or said, Secretary Perry said, we could live with $40 or $45 billion. What does that mean? That means 1 billion people have been cast out of their positions in this country all over America. But more important, it meant, Mr. Speaker, that we are jeopardizing the lives of our young soldiers. What do I mean by that, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you, as we slip programs out, as this administration does day after day after day, we drive up the cost of those programs and we make it so that they will not be into full production for 5, 10, or 15 years down the road. That is the battle we are facing this year. The administration wants to keep all these major programs alive. They want to build three new tactical aviation programs. They want to build the F-22, the joint strike fighter, the F18F. They want to build a new attack submarine. They want to build another aircraft carrier. They want to build the arsenal ship. They want to build the Comanche, the V- 22. They want to build the battlefield master program of the 21st century. And they want to do all of this with a budget that is impossible to meet the needs of the military today. What we are saying this year, Mr. Speaker, is you cannot do that. This President and this administration has got to say no to some programs. If they are not going to raise top-line defense numbers, if they are not going to cut into the vertical costs, if they are not going to help us get our allies to pay for the cost of our operations when we deploy our troops around the world, then they have got to cut some systems; they cannot keep treading water because we are holding companies' and workers' lives outside there thinking that some day down the road some new administration is going to rapidly increase defense spending. That is where the debate is coming down this year. We are doing our part, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to show ways where we can use defense activities to help us in other areas. I said two of them tonight, in the environmental area and in the area of terrorism. But that is still not enough, Mr. Speaker. We are in an impossible situation; and I would ask our colleagues, as we approach a debate on the defense bill, to understand that we are at a historical crossroads. If we are not going to find other ways to free up some money out of that 16 cents that we spent in this year's Federal tax dollar, then we have got to cut some programs and cause more people to lose their jobs or we have got to transfer more people out of the military because this administration will not address any one of the three areas that I talked about that would help us deal with this budget problem that we are facing this year. Cut the deployment rate or get our allies to pick up more of the cost of it. Cut the environmental costs or raise the top-line number. If you do not do any of those three things, then you have no choice but to cut the troop strength, the end strength, which I know they do not want to do, or cut some big ticket programs. When you cut big ticket programs, I hope all of those AFL-CIO members out there who listened to the hour before me talk about NAFTA's impact will remember the 1 million brothers and sisters of theirs who were laid off over the past 5 years in defense plant after defense plant around this country. These were not people making 15 cents, these were people who were middle income Americans. These were UAW workers, machinist workers, IUE workers, building trades workers, all of them today who are out of a job. The hypocrisy of this administration, Mr. Speaker, scares me. But I want to say to this administration, because Members of both parties in this Congress have been trying to tell the story of what the threat is and what we must do to meet the need that is provided to us as a threat, how we must provide the dollar commitment to our troops to fund these priorities that are identified as being critical to our military and also look for opportunities to share technology. Now I talked about what the impact is when we cut these programs. Well, let me give one example. The workhorse of the Marine Corps is the CH-46 helicopter. It has been the workhorse of the Marine Corps since the Vietnam War. We should have replaced the CH-46 10 years ago. We have now slipped the replacement program to a point where it is going to cost us $5 billion extra dollars. We are going to be flying CH-46 helicopters when they are 55 years old. Now, what does that mean to a Marine? Well, Mr. Speaker, if the constituents that we serve have young sons who are flying Marine helicopters, they need to understand that those young kids flying those 46s during a combat situation have to carry 18 troops. Oh, by the way, they cannot train carrying 18 troops, they only can carry 6 to 8 because of the age of the aircraft. Those young pilots, when they fly this CH-46 in a combat situation, have to be able to do evasive maneuvering. But Mr. Speaker, those young pilots cannot train doing evasive maneuvering because of the age of the aircraft. Mr. Speaker, those young pilots have to be able to fly at night in combat situations. But Mr. Speaker, because of the age of the aircraft, they have to put masking tape over the instrumentation panel so they can fly during evening hours. What does that mean? That means we have more accidents with CH-46s. That means we have more kids killed and more kids injured. So by slipping these programs out, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about CEOs of companies, we are not even talking about jobs. We are talking about threatening the lives of those people who are there to protect our country and our allies. That is the worst possible decision that we could make, to delay a program that directly affects the life of a young person serving our military. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to pay attention to the debate this year on the defense bill. I would encourage my colleagues tomorrow to come out and show their enthusiastic support for the 1.2 million men and women who serve this is country as our domestic defenders, to look at some of the ways that we are involving the military in helping us deal with terrorism incidents. I would encourage our colleagues to come out on May 19, 20 and 21, the largest oceans conference ever, against showcasing our militaries taking a lead in helping to understand environmental problems. I would also encourage our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to get real. The defense spending in this country is at a critical crossroads. We must provide the support against this administration making further cuts in our defense budget. We must provide the bipartisan support we have had over the past 2 years to stand up and say no. Not because it is right for jobs, even though it is, and not because it is right for companies, even though it is, but because it is right for the kids who serve this Nation and who put their lives on the line every day.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to salute my alma mater, West Chester University, on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. On September 25, 1871, Principal Ezekiel Cook welcomed the first class of students to West Chester University, then known as the West Chester Normal School. Since that first year when the Normal School was made up of only 156 students, the principal, and 11 faculty members, West Chester University has blossomed and expanded as a provider of quality education for today's young people. Today, more than 10,000 undergraduate students and nearly 2,000 graduate students are enrolled at West Chester University, receiving an affordable quality education. In fact, West Chester University is now the second largest of the institutions that make up Pennsylvania's State system of higher education. The university offers these students a wide variety of educational opportunities, including degrees in the arts and sciences, teacher training and certification, continuing education classes for adults, and advance study in medicine, law, and education. In fact, I am so convinced of the superior educational offerings of my alma mater that I didn't hesitate when two of my three daughters told me that they wanted to attend West Chester University. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a graduate of this fine institution. I am confident West Chester University will continue to bring a high- quality education experience to the community as well as the entire Delaware Valley. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating West Chester University on 125 years of excellence in education.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a situation that is an ongoing problem in this country, and that is our ability to respond to disasters and life-threatening situations. At this very moment we are witnessing nationally the response to major flooding in the Dakotas. Over the past several years we have seen a number of incidents involving loss of life and property damage caused by hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes and fires of tremendous magnitudes. These incidents are becoming more complicated. Within the last several hours, there has been an incident uptown in Washington, DC, involving an unknown agent where first responders in this city had to respond in special suits because they were not sure whether or not it involved a chemical or biological incident. Mr. Speaker, day in and day out, 1.2 million men and women in this country, our domestic defenders, respond to every disaster and emergency situation that this Congress or that this country and our communities face. On Wednesday of next week, Mr. Speaker, we will in fact host the Ninth Annual Congressional Fire and Emergency Services dinner where 2,000 of the leaders of our domestic defenders across the country from every State will assemble in Washington to again celebrate the work that these brave individuals provide. They are involved in 32,000 organized departments, they are paid and they are volunteers, and they are out there day in and day out as the first responders to America's problems. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to join with us in paying tribute to them. Speaker Gingrich will be our keynote speaker this year. Last year we had Al Gore and we had Bob Dole. The previous 2 years we had President Clinton. Speaker Gingrich will in fact address these individuals and reinforce the commitment of this Congress to work on their priorities. During Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, starting at 12:45 the Marine Corps Chemical and Biological Incident Response Team, which was created by Congress over the past year, will respond to a simulated incident involving a chemical or biological agent in the Rayburn Park. Two hundred forty marines will arrive from Camp LeJeune, and they will demonstrate our country's ability to respond to a life-threatening situation involving an unknown agent. But, Mr. Speaker, even though our marines are the finest in the world and this team is the finest in the world today, the first responders who have to go on these scenes in the first few minutes are those most at risk, and they are the ones that we have to make sure have the proper protection, the proper training, and the resources to meet these threats until reinforcements can in fact be provided by our military and by the marine response unit. On Wednesday during the day and the evening, we will focus on this group of people and we will discuss the key priorities that we in this Congress can focus on to assist these 1.2 million men and women to better serve their communities. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to join with us both during the day at the information sessions, meetings that will be held in Member offices, and finally on Wednesday evening to the Washington Hilton to attend the ninth annual dinner. Mr. Speaker, there are no braver group of people in this country who respond to every type of disaster that we face as a nation, and many of them are not being paid to respond, and it is appropriate that we in the Congress provide the appropriate resources and support to allow them to continue to serve America.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. On April 24, we commemorate the 82d anniversary of the Armenian genocide, a tragic passage in our world history which observed the systematic murder and relocation of 1.5 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. This tragedy, the first genocide of the 20th century, included the torture, starvation, and butchering of peaceful Armenians was a horrid example and foreshadowing of the race extermination of which politically and religiously intolerant regimes are capable. The Ottoman Turks decapitated the Armenian population by removing their religious, political, and intellectual leaders and placing them in exile to later be murdered. With their leadership removed, the Turks next deprived Armenians of 250,000 of their young, able-bodied men who were serving in the Ottoman army at the time. These men were disarmed, placed in forced labor battalions, and either starved or executed. Severed from their leadership and physical protection, the remaining Armenian population were deported from every city, town, and village in Asia Minor and Turkish Armenia. The ensuing march saw the torture, rape, and mutilation of defenseless women, children, and elderly before their subsequent death in the Syrian desert. The Armenian genocide was a carefully executed government plan which effectively eliminated the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. I recommend that in commemoration of this tragedy, we remember not only the many lives lost, but the spirit that lives on in the Armenian people. I have seen this fervor in the many Armenian-Americans that live in my congressional district today and I commend the countless contributions that they have made to America from the national level all the way down to local communities. Although the Ottoman Empire may have successfully executed their sinister plan to eliminate the presence of the Armenian population, they certainly failed to kill the cohesive Armenian community or their spirit with which they continue to bless the United States and other nations fortunate to have their presence.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, once again we are on the floor of the House to discuss the partial birth abortion. Because of the political debate surrounding this important issue, advocates have been able to take a truly horrific procedure and whittle it down to a 5-second soundbite, a paragraph in type, and a few diagrams and charts; none of which can truly capture this gruesome operation. Gruesome as it is, however, the debate should not be about the operation itself, but rather its victim. We are often quick to forget in this age of convenience, that as a result of each one of these procedures, a single, special, unique human life is lost. Each time, a life is stolen along with all of its potential and promise and we will never know how many future astronauts, fathers, teachers, counselors have been lost in the mechanical movement of those metzenbaum scissors. As recent information has shown, most of the lives snuffed out are those of healthy, viable children whose only crime is temporary inconvenience. Each one is a hope, a future, and a promise that is lost and can never be recovered. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to make a difference, to protect the lives and futures of these victims. For their future, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and I will look forward to the Senate and President joining us in our important work.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary conduct the Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. This year more than 109,000 secondary school students participated in the contest competing for the 54 national scholarships which were distributed among the 54 national winners. The contest theme this year was ``Democracy-Above and Beyond.'' I am proud to announce that Ms. Natalie Bucciarelli from my congressional district in Pennsylvania won the 1997 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest for Pennsylvania. Natalie, a resident of Broomall, is a senior at the Academy of Notre Dame de Manur in Villanova, PA. I extend to her my best wishes for success as she continues her education in college next year. Natalie's script is filled with enthusiasm for the spirit and promise that democracy holds for each individual. It is encouraging to see that our young people continue to cherish the gift of democracy. That is essential, because once we take democracy for granted--or begin referring to it as simply a ``slogan''--then democracy will truly become endangered. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share Natalie's award winning script with my colleagues in the Congress. ``Democracy-Above and Beyond''--1996-97 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program (By Natalie Bucciarelli) Mikhail Gorbachev, former General Secretary of the Soviet Union, not too long ago proclaimed that democracy is just a slogan--only a slogan. And he believed then that democracy, like other slogans, was empty and hollow and worthless. He, like other communist leaders before him, believed that our American democracy would eventually and inevitably fall; it would succumb to tensions within our country--tensions: white against black, women against men, rich against poor. But Mikhail Gorbachev misread the real meaning of democracy--the meaning above and beyond. He only looked at the imperfections of democracy--and it is true that democracy, like all political systems, is less than perfect. But Mr. Gorbachev wrongly believed that our democracy would become thin and faded and soon crack and crumble like a rotting wall. But democracy is not a wall. Walls, by their nature, keep people out. As Mikhail Gorbachev learned, such walls do come down. The spirit of our democracy is not about walls, not about barriers. There are no real walls in a democracy--not real walls. Yes, artificial barriers do from time to time appear-- Rosa Parks being forced to the back of a Birmingham bus and store front windows reading ``No Irish or Italian need apply''. But such events have been only temporary periods-- temporary obstacles to the real positive force and direction of our democracy. Our system of government has, above and beyond all others, served to include all people without regard to race, creed, gender, or ethnic background. Democracy has no equal in promoting the free exchange of ideas and in safeguarding the civil liberties of minorities. Democracy is, above and beyond all else, about ``all men (and women) are created equal'' and about those inalienable rights granted to each of us by our creator. This is the spirit--this is the promise and the hope of democracy. Democracy promises to provide hope and opportunity. Democracy does not exclude, it includes. Democracy does not seek to destroy, it seeks to build. Our system of government tolerates and respects the free exchange of ideas. You can dare to dream in a democracy and if you believe in your dreams and work hard to achieve them you will probably succeed. Democracy is not me against you and you against me but each of us in support of the other. There is room for everybody. No walls--Christian against Jew, black against white, young against old, female against male. Democracy is about the promise it holds for everybody--all of us--each one--together working and learning and building and helping each other. This is the fundamental hope of democracy--perhaps the only true flicker of hope in a world too full of brutal despotism and senseless terrorism and violence. No, democracy is not just a slogan. Mikhail Gorbachev may have been sincere when he said it, but he was dead wrong. You know that brave men and women have fought and died for the spirit and the hope and the promise of democracy. They did not sacrifice for some hollow, empty slogan. They sacrificed for you and for me--people like us--and all the generations that will come after us. For we are the spirit and the hope and the promise of democracy. Within our democratic spirit can be found the true meaning to their sacrifices. And so we owe them something--something above and beyond a debt of gratitude. We owe it to them to keep the promise and the flame of democracy alive. And so, in the end, where democracy is concerned, let us remember not the words of Mikhail Gorbachev, but rather the words of Abraham Lincoln: that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I would just add for the record that as I mentioned earlier, we also include nationals from nine other nations who are being held illegally by Iraq. These are not all Kuwaitis, these were people living in Kuwait, but some of them were actually of the nationality of nine other countries which include India, Bahrain, Oman, the Philippines, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. There is a total of nine other nations. And we are not just talking about military personnel, we are talking about 29 people from the private sector, we are talking about 128 students, students that were taken away from Kuwait, their parents have no idea where they are or what happened to them. We are talking about 3 housewives, 18 retired people, and 26 who are unemployed. So it was across the broad spectrum. These are ordinary people. Kuwait's point is and the world community's point should be if these people have been killed, then Iraq should come forward and say they have been killed. They should tell the families the whereabouts of these individuals. But that has not happened. We should not sit still while this atrocity continues. I thank my colleague for joining me and for yielding to me.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of March 25, 1997, the 176th anniversary of Greek independence from oppressive Ottoman rule, I would like to acknowledge and honor the tremendous contributions that the Greek people have made to the world. The invaluable scientific, philosophical, and cultural gifts of the Greek people are countless, and all have come in spite of the historical adversity this determined nation has faced. March 25, 1821, marked the Greek Declaration of Independence, a day ending almost 400 years of subjugation and persecution at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Deprived of civil rights, as well as access to the educational and religious institutions for which they were famous, the Greeks waged a valiant war of independence to reacquire for themselves the vital rights they themselves had established for the rest of the world to enjoy. The hard-won victory for independence has been followed by continuous adversity which the Greeks have repeatedly overcome and still been able to thrive. Greece has been a true friend to America and has aligned with the United States for every major conflict in the 20th century. This loyalty and dedication to the tenets of freedom did not come at a cheap price--over 600,000 Greeks lost their lives in World War II while fighting against the Axis Powers. Since that time, Greece again unflinchingly sided with the forces of democracy by joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] in 1952 in spite of Soviet threats of dire consequences for such action. Greece continues to inspire the rest of the world with its persistent dedication to democracy and freedom, and it has particularly blessed the United States with 1.1 million Americans of Greek ancestry who continue to exemplify the importance of family, education, and hard work. Born right here in our Nation's Capital, Pete Sampras, the No. 1 tennis player in the world, is but one Greek-American whose work-ethic and determination epitomizes the rich heritage for which all Americans should be thankful. I am proud to represent the many Greek-Americans living in the Seventh Congressional District of Pennsylvania and contributing to the diverse culture we enjoy. These hard-working families demonstrate the values and cohesion to which all Americans aspire. As we look to March 25, let us bear in mind the tremendous sacrifices made by Greece and appreciate the democracy that we, as Americans, enjoy in large measure because of Greece's role as the birthplace of democracy.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to highlight a serious issue that still has not been resolved, even though we have, in fact, seen the success of the operation of the United States and a number of other nations of the world in removing the illegal Iraqi Government from the independent nation of Kuwait. While we celebrate that fact that occurred on February 26, 1991, we must remember that the U.N. also passed resolutions 686 and 687 as part of a broad cease-fire agreement which was accepted by Iraq. Now, there are those in this institution and around the country who think that we should begin to normalize, to some degree, relations with Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we in this institution highlight the fact that the government of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi nation still has 608 people that are still unaccounted for. These are prisoners of war that were taken hostage by the Iraqi Government. These include both military personnel and civilians. These are individuals who represent the broad spectrum of the population in Kuwait. They are husbands and wives, they are children, they are people who are not all Kuwaitis, in fact. In fact, there are a number of other nationalities who happened to be in Kuwait and who were taken hostage by Saddam and they still have not been accounted for. My interest in this, Mr. Speaker, dates back to my chairing the Kuwaiti Task Force for the Human Rights Caucus, where we documented the atrocities Saddam perpetrated on the people of Kuwait both before and during the illegal occupation. But I also have one constituent who was, in fact, a POW captured by Saddam and actually was in the control of Iraqis up until we went and did the liberation. This individual, who I took back to Kuwait with me 1 week after the liberation, has documented to me on a number of occasions the illegal actions of the Iraqi Government and the fact that there are these hundreds of people, who are ordinary people in many cases, who were not involved in the conflict itself, who are now being held against their will by the Iraqis. Mr. Speaker, this is violation not only of the U.N. resolutions, it is a violation of every human rights agreement that this world acknowledges between countries. It is about time that America spoke out loudly and strongly that we will not sit idly by and allow these 608 citizens, each of whose cases has been individually documented, each of whose situations has been chronicled, so that this is factual information. In fact, some of these people have been sighted within the territorial limits of Iraq. Yet the international Red Cross has not been able to bring these individuals back to their homeland. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous and this is wrong. This institution needs to go on record on a regular basis, letting Saddam and the Iraqi Government know that we are watching and that we are asking the question why these people are not being allowed to be reunited with their loved ones. The war is over. The conflict has ended. Saddam, in fact, accepted the terms of U.N. resolution 686 and 687, and yet here we are in 1997 in March and we still do not have these people returned to their homeland. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if Saddam Hussein ever expects to have the world community give him the kind of respect and perhaps the cooperation that he has said that he would like to have, and in fact that he says he deserves, he should start by coming to the public, to the world public at large, and explaining why these people are being held; and, in fact, he should take the effort to return these people back to their homeland. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the documentation for these individuals is, in fact, very substantive. The National Committee of Missing and POW Affairs has reported the number to be 608. This committee knows the exact numbers because they have a separate file and a separate computer database established for each of these POWs. What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, I know what my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California, Dana Rohrabacher, who wanted to be here with me this evening. He would say, if he were here, that we want the Iraqi Government to allow these people to go back to their homelands and that we want to have a full accounting for these individuals, and that we expect the United Nations and the world community at large to assist us in making sure that we do not, in fact, allow these people to be kept under the illegal control of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government. There have been concerted efforts through an allied coalition, but these efforts have largely been unsuccessful. We are saying it is about time now that these other nations respectfully demand that which we are demanding, and that is a full accounting and return of these hostages. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, for such time as he may want to use.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a man who has devoted much of his life to helping and improving the lives of others through dedication to police service and his community. After many years of service, George J. Faulkner retired from the Norwood Police Department in late December, 1996. For 30 years officer Faulkner was a key leader in local law enforcement and the surrounding community. George fully committed himself to police service, and received many commendations. In addition, George served as a volunteer fire fighter for over 33 years for the Norwood Fire Fighting Company of Pennsylvania. George is well versed in many different aspects of police procedure, and has attended over 40 courses in police education. George was directly responsible for the training of many officers in the use of police computers. The knowledge George passed on in his years of service were essential to many law enforcement officials, and helped them better serve the community. While on duty as a police officer, George often went above and beyond the call of duty. During his years of duty George was personally involved in rescuing individuals from four separate house fires. He received commendations for all of these rescues, as well as obtaining an Outstanding Community Service award for life saving efforts in Norwood Memorial Park of Pennsylvania. George has often been acclaimed for his exemplary police service and hard work in the community. He received a letter of commendation from the Norwood Boys Club for the arrest of four individuals that burglarized the club's storage facilities. He also obtained a letter of commendation for Cooperation and Assistance in Performing Police Duties from the Norwood American Legion Post. Furthermore, in 3 separate years George received from the Levan-Smith Rabley Veterans of Foreign Wars Post the ``Certificate of Appreciation for Unyielding Adherence to the Highest Ideals of Law Enforcement in Maintaining, Preserving, and Protecting the Lawful Rights of All Citizens.'' George has taken great pride in his years of police and community service. Because of his efforts, and those such as him that are dedicated to service, the communities of Pennsylvania and the United States are better off. Mr. Speaker, I know you and my colleagues join me today in celebrating the many accomplishments and achievements of officer George Faulkner, and wishing him good luck in his retirement.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding American, James W. Gallagher. A resident of Newtown Square, PA, I am proud to call this fine man a resident of the Seventh Congressional District. A tireless servant of his local community and the entire Nation, Jim served his country as a U.S. marine in World War II. Beyond his military service, Jim continued his service to the public. He has been an active member of the American Legion for over two decades, serving in numerous local and State leadership posts. And each Christmas, Jim led a local Toys for Tots effort for the Marine Corps. This important program provides both the toys and the means for the area's poor to give their children a more joyous holiday season. For these and other charitable works, Jim is well-known and respected throughout the community. I rise today to mark a special moment in Jim's life, a passing of the torch, if you will. This past Christmas Day, on the 220th Anniversary of George Washington's crossing of the Delaware River during the American Revolution, Jim portrayed General Washington his 12th and final year in Pennsylvania's annual reenactment of the famous crossing. More than 9,000 individuals were on hand as Jim surveyed his troops for his final time, reciting ``These are the times that try men's souls'' from Thomas Paine's ``The Crisis,'' a work credited with boosting the morale and courage of General Washington's small army. And, quite fittingly, Jim delivered Washington's farewell address upon his retirement from the Army, saying to his troops ``I now take my leave of you.'' Jim will be remembered for years to come for his memorable portrayal of George Washington, not just in the annual reenactment of the Delaware River crossing, but also in parades and even in our Nation's Capitol Building. But even more importantly, Jim will be remembered for embodying the ideals of George Washington through his dedication and service to the country and the entire community. His work and effort will not be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring James Gallagher, a true American.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce a resolution to reform ethics oversight in the House of Representatives. This measure would establish a 14-member Commission on Congressional Ethics composed of private citizens, while eliminating most responsibilities of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The resolution would grant the Commission power to investigate Member and staff ethics violations, sit and hold hearings, subpoena as authorized by the House, and report and recommend actions to enforce ethics to Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Not only will this remove Members' conflict of interest in policing their colleagues, but it will give people a hands on role in shaping all the administrative operations of the House. The best way to reform the People's House is to get more of the people involved. The American people want change and are demanding reform. It is time for us to act. This measure is not a complete solution to the public confidence crises, nor the last word of reform in this body. But it is a positive step in the right direction. The recent investigation of the Speaker by the House Ethics Committee demonstrated the conflict of interest and the difficulties that will arise when Members must police each other. I believe this resolution will enable the process to work more effectively. During the 104th Congress we made great progress in the area of institutional reform. This legislation will enable us to continue that reform and to strengthen America's trust in their elected representatives. I will press for adoption of this proposal in the House. I look forward to the support of all Members in this body.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are continually bombarded by news of disasters in our country. But unfortunately, the disaster that befalls more than 400,000 families each year is fire. While the number of household fires has been reduced, these fires continue to cause more than $4 billion in damage. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the most frequent cause of household fires is something that seems so simple--careless cooking. Recognizing this situation exists, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, representing the producers of kitchen ranges and ovens, has stepped forward to create awareness of this issue and focus educational efforts toward reducing the incidence of these needless fires. The home appliance manufacturers joined with the National Association of State Fire Marshals and conducted an intense survey of careless cooking fires in 10 major jurisdictions in the United States. The survey results tell us some interesting things about careless cooking fires. First, in nearly three-fourths of fires, the person responsible for the cooking was not in the area at the time the fire broke out. Unattended cooking has long been the single greatest cause of these fires. Second, in nearly two-thirds of the fires, the person left the area rather than fight the fire. But in those cases where someone stayed to try and deal with it, nearly half used incorrect methods to do so, often increasing their risk of injury and damage to the home. Third, half of the people responsible for careless cooking fires were between the ages of 30 and 49, not the very old or very young. This number is far larger than the population represented by this age group. Fourth, consistent with other studies of inner-city and disadvantaged populations, a disproportionately high number of careless cooking fires seem to have occurred in minority households. Minority populations appear to be at particular risk for fire and should receive special attention in any education effort. Using this study, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and several other public safety groups, fire departments, and the U.S. Fire Administration are working together to help change the basic behavior. Special projects made possible by the appliance manufacturers are underway. For example, nearly 10 million special teaching brochures are being distributed this year. This includes the manufacturers inserting one in every new range as well as several million being distributed by school teachers, fire educators, and public service groups. In addition, a teaching video is being developed for fire educators. Finally, public service announcements and video news releases have been prepared and special educational grants have been made to fire educators to try new avenues to reach and educate the public. The most important messages are rather simple. Stay focused on your cooking. If you have to leave the kitchen, turn off the range. If you have a fire, get the family out of the house and call 911 or the emergency service number. I commend the appliance manufacturers on this program and urge public service groups and all fire departments across the country to join together to fight careless cooking fires. Together we can reduce the numbers of these fires and the effects of such a disaster on our citizens.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, next month, my friends at the Clifton Heights Fire Department will celebrate their 100th anniversary. Accordingly, I want to pay tribute to these Americans who have put their lives on the line daily to protect the citizens of Clifton Heights, PA. In 1896, by order of the courts, the Clifton Heights Fire Protection Association and the Clifton Heights Hose, Hook, and Ladder Co. received their charters. For nearly 60 years, the two companies operated separately to provide the citizens of Clifton Heights with superb fire protection. In 1956, putting all rivalry aside, the two companies agreed to disband and join together to form one entity--the Clifton Heights Fire Co. Since 1956, the Clifton Heights Fire Co. has been one of the best trained and most aggressive companies in Pennsylvania. With support from local officials and the community, the Clifton Heights Co. has emerged as a model of excellence in fire fighting capability. Over the years, the company has successfully procured only the best state of the art fire fighting apparatus. Modern equipment combined with excellence in training has resulted in a first class company in which we can all take great pride. As a former volunteer fire chief and founder of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I know firsthand the dedication, determination, and hard work associated with the fire fighting profession. Yet, all to often we take for granted our local fire and emergency service personnel. With this in mind, I want to thank the brave men and women of the Clifton Heights Fire Co. for all they have done over the past 100 years in making the community of Clifton Heights a safer place to live. Congratulations and I wish you luck in your next 100 years.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are continually bombarded by news of disasters in our country. But unfortunately, the disaster that befalls more than 400,000 families each year is fire. While the number of household fires has been reduced, these fires continue to cause more than $4 billion in damage. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the most frequent cause of household fires is something that seems so simple--careless cooking. Recognizing this situation exists, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, representing the producers of kitchen ranges and ovens, has stepped forward to create awareness of this issue and focus educational efforts toward reducing the incidence of these needless fires. The home appliance manufacturers joined with the National Association of State Fire Marshals and conducted an intense survey of careless cooking fires in 10 major jurisdictions in the United States. The survey results tell us some interesting things about careless cooking fires. First, in nearly \3/4\ of fires, the person responsible for the cooking was not in the area at the time the fire broke out. Unattended cooking has long been the single greatest cause of these fires. Second, in nearly \2/3\ of the fires, the person left the area rather than fight the fire. But in those cases where someone stayed to try and deal with it, nearly half used incorrect methods to do so, often increasing their risk of injury and damage to the home. Third, half of the people responsible for careless cooking fires were between the ages of 30 and 49, not the very old or very young. This number is far larger than the population represented by this age group. Fourth, consistent with other studies of inner city and disadvantaged populations, a disproportionately high number of careless cooking fires seem to have occurred in minority households. Minority populations appear to be at particular risk for fire and should receive special attention in any education effort. Using this study, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and several other public safety groups, fire departments, and the U.S. Fire Administration are working together to help change the basic behavior. Special projects made possible by the appliance manufacturers are underway. For example, nearly 10 million special teaching brochures are being distributed this year. This includes the manufacturers inserting one in every new range as well as several million being distributed by school teachers, fire educators, and public service groups. In addition, a teaching video is being developed for fire educators. Finally, public service announcements and video news releases have been prepared and special educational grants have been made to fire educators to try new avenues to reach and educate the public. The most important messages are rather simple. Stay focused on your cooking. If you have to leave the kitchen, turn off the range. If you have a fire, get the family out of the house and call 911 or the emergency service number. I commend the appliance manufacturers on this program urge public service groups and all fire departments across the country to join together to fight careless cooking fires. Together we can reduce the numbers of these fires and the effects of such a disaster on our citizens.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, next month, my friends at the Clifton Heights Fire Department will celebrate their 100th anniversary. Accordingly, I want to pay tribute to these Americans who have put their lives on the line daily to protect the citizens of Clifton Heights, PA. In 1896, by order of the courts, the Clifton Heights Fire Protection Association and the Clifton Heights Hose, Hook, and Ladder Company received their charters. For nearly 60 years, the two companies operated separately to provide the citizens of Clifton Heights with superb fire protection. In 1956, putting all rivalry aside, the two companies agreed to disband and join together to form one entity--the Clifton Heights Fire Company. Since 1956, the Clifton Heights Fire Company has been one of the best trained and most aggressive companies in Pennsylvania. With support from local officials and the community, the Clifton Heights Company has emerged as a model of excellence in firefighting capability. Over the years, the company has successfully procured only the best state-of- the-art firefighting apparatus. Modern equipment combined with excellence in training has resulted in a first class company in which we can all take great pride. As a former volunteer fire chief and founder of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I know firsthand the dedication, determination, and hard work associated with the firefighting profession. Yet, all too often we take for granted our local fire and emergency service personnel. With this in mind, I want to thank the brave men and women of the Clifton Heights Fire Company for all they have done over the past 100 years in making the community of Clifton Heights a safer place to live. Congratulations and I wish you luck in your next 100 years.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to an outstanding preservationist and Pennsylvanian, Dr. Henry A. Jordan of Chester County. Dr. Jordan is a great leader on protecting our Nation's heritage. He has made an enormous contribution to this cause. On October 1, 1996, Dr. Jordan will step down as chairman of the board of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the only national preservation organization in the country. As chairman, he has been a forceful and consistent advocate for building a holistic approach through which individuals and organizations work together to preserve our communities and make our neighborhoods better places to live. The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to lead our Nation's efforts to conserve our rich and diverse history. During Dr. Jordan's 9 years service on the trust's board, he has brought the National Trust to new levels of effectiveness. He has worked tirelessly to make preservation relevant and has demonstrated that preservation is an efficient tool for economic development, downtown revitalization, and sustainable, community planning. Dr. Jordan's longstanding contribution to the National Trust is but one significant highlight in his long dedication to our Nation's heritage at the national, State, and local levels. His active involvement in both historic preservation and conservation include his service as a director and president of the Yellow Springs Foundation from 1973 to 1977; as a director of the French and Pickering Creeks Conservation Trust from 1982 to 1989; and as a member of the Chester County Open Space Task Force, which was instrumental in getting voter approval for a $50 million bond issue for open space and historic preservation in 1989. He also served as a director and as president of Preservation Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania's statewide preservation organization, from Dr. Jordan's commitment to our American heritage continues with his current roles as chairman of the Countryside Institute, chairman of the Chester County Planning Commission, chairman of the Chester County Community Foundation, a director of the National Coalition of Heritage Areas, and with his service on the board of advisors for the School of Natural Resources at the University of Vermont. As Dr. Henry Jordan's representative in the U.S. Congress, I salute his commitment and accomplishments in advancing historic preservation and natural resource conservation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my friends and colleagues for appearing here tonight with me. I had originally come here to do a 5-minute special order, but felt the opportunity to take additional time and did so.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No, I do not believe that.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. Just in concluding, Mr. Speaker, once again it was with reluctance that I came over here tonight, but I had to do it. I got involved in the 1970's in public life probably for the same reason the Presidentdid, to serve my constituents. I was outraged at what Richard Nixon did. He was in my party. I was dismayed at my party because of what he had done, in thinking he could be above the law and he could cover up a third-rate burglary. What I saw this past week, Mr. Speaker, and I am not talking about anything that has gone before, what I saw this week in terms of publicly talking about an ongoing investigation, leaving the possibility out there of a Presidential pardon, and then making accusations with no proper backup, has to be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 186 Members of this institution, and perhaps some more who will join us, I, tomorrow, will have this communication delivered to the President of United States. I hope that he takes positive response to the first question, which is, in fact, to say yes, positively, he will not issue a Presidential pardon to any of those who have been convicted in the Whitewater scandal; and, second, I ask him to either provide documentation of political motives or efforts on the part of Mr. Starr or to withdraw the public statements that he has made. I do so in the hopes of keeping this country the freest, the most democratic country in the world, and a country where everyone, including my friends back in Delaware County, who have to go to work every day and abide by the speed limits and the regular laws all of us have to abide by, understand that the man sitting in the White House is no better than they are, and must abide by those same rules and laws.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I know the gentleman will talk for 1 hour. I would just ask the gentleman to let me conclude.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman is very familiar with the case. I am not on the appropriate Committee on House Oversight but I have followed it during my process. As I understand it, that is exactly what happened. It was a looting of a savings and loan. That is why the special prosecutor was set up and comparing it to what happened in the 1970's, it was a bipartisan effort to see whether or not the President, who was of my party and of the gentleman's party, in fact did something that violated the basic trust of the American people, and we found that he did. What bothers me the most is that the President's wife at that time was leading the effort to uncover the President and what he had done. And now we have a situation where the President has gone far beyond, far, far beyond the coverup of a third-rate burglary. Tampering with a Federal witness is a felony. To lay out the possibility of a pardon, while there is a person who is incarcerated because she will not respond to a request by a legitimate judge and special prosecutor in this country, is a felonious act. I am not a lawyer but that is what it is. I have asked people. It is an outrage that this country should not allow to happen. In my mind this action makes Richard Nixon look like a Sunday school teacher in comparison in terms of what has occurred this week.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. I will share my time with my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. This is, if not the last night of this session of the 104th Congress, it certainly is close to it. I should be rising to display a happy sentiment about what has happened because I am proud of what we have done in this Congress. I am proud of the work we have achieved. I am proud that our party has moved forward with a very aggressive agenda. But, unfortunately, I rise to talk about something that to me is very sad, Mr. Speaker, because it gets at the heart of what this country is all about, and it relates back to one of the reasons why I got involved in public life in the first place. In 1972, Mr. Speaker, I was teaching in public schools back in Pennsylvania, and to be very frank, I was somewhat dismayed when the investigation showed here in Washington that the President of my party, Richard Nixon, tried to cover up a third-rate burglary. Now, that was not a major felony, but it was something that no one in fact should be allowed to get away with in this country, and in fact the system worked. That gentleman who served in the White House eventually had to step down because this body did a very thorough job in supporting an independent prosecutor who went in and found out that, yes, the President had in fact tried to cover up a third-rate burglary. And that is exactly what it was, and that is all it was. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States right now is about my age, a little bit older than I am. We are from the same generation. I understand that his wife, the First Lady, was involved in that investigation, was on the team who went after Richard Nixon, as a staff person, an idealist of the sixties generation, as perhaps I would characterize myself. And here, Mr. Speaker, our paths now cross. I am a Republican Member of Congress and President Clinton and his wife are in the White House. And while I have been dismayed at many of the actions of this administration and this President, a President of my generation, nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing has outraged me as much as what I have seen over the past several days. The Attorney General of this country suggested that we needed a special prosecutor to investigate the Whitewater case. Whether you believe the facts in that situation or not, in a bipartisan way we all agree, like we did with those who were in office when Richard Nixon was President, that this should best be handled by a special prosecutor. The majority of the Members in both bodies agreed that that should be handled, especially if it potentially involved the President and First Lady, by a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor has proceeded, Mr. Speaker, and he has gotten some convictions along the way, in fact, some convictions of some formerly very high ranking people in this administration. Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 month before the election, the heat is starting to be turned up on the White House. And what really offends me, Mr. Speaker, is that while we have an investigation being conducted by an independent prosecutor, as we saw during Richard Nixon's era, we have a President for the first time in the history of this country come out and make public statements leading to the possibility of pardon for those people who, first of all, have been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers. Now, for those who say, well, it is the right of the President to pardon those who have done wrong, I would say I do not disagree with that. But, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is something that has never happened before in the history of this country, a sitting President making public statements about a case where the investigator is trying to bring in witnesses who have refused to testify, who have gone on national television, who have been jailed because they have not cooperated with the Grand Jury and the special prosecutor, and a President who has said publicly that he has not yet thought about whether or not a pardon would be considered. Now, if you were one of those individuals who has been convicted by a jury of your peers for wrongdoing, and in each of the cases of the convictions they are for multiple counts, they are not for one count, you would, I would think, be very enlightened and heartened by the comments of the President of the United States that he thinks justice should prevail. But then he goes on to say he has not even thought about whether or not a pardon should be considered. But even worse than that, Mr. Speaker, he comes out publicly and says that it is commonly understood that the special prosecutor is, in fact, pursuing politics in his investigation of this situation. Mr. Speaker, now I am not a lawyer. I am one of the few Members of this Congress that got here as a public school teacher, as someone who got involved in my community as a mayor and then county commissioner and now as a Member of Congress. But let me tell you one thing I have learned about our legal system, Mr. Speaker, and that is when you attempt to affect someone who is involved as a witness or a potential witness in a criminal investigation, for every citizen in America that is called tampering with a witness. Mr. Speaker, as a layperson and not an attorney, that is a felony far more grave than covering up a third- rate burglary. Mr. Speaker, if you or I or my fellow citizens back in Delaware County or across Pennsylvania were being charged with something and had some way of affecting a potential witness to that case against us, and said that publicly and tried to influence what that individual may or may not say, they could be charged with tampering with a witness. Mr. Speaker, that is illegal. That is not allowed in this country. And for the President of the United States to lay out the possibility of a pardon for someone who was making herself to be a national folk hero, after she was convicted by a jury of her peers for having done wrong, along with her husband who was convicted of many more counts, and who currently is in prison because she is saying she does not want to cooperate, is tampering with a witness. Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous, and that is why I got involved in public life in the first place back in my county, back in the 1970's, when I first ran for mayor of my town. I was upset with the way the system was working. I was upset that a President could think that he could be above the law and that he could cover up any third-rate burglary and get away with it. But President Nixon did not do that during the course of the investigation. His crime was covering up. It was Gerald Ford, the next President who, in fact, gave a pardon which caused him to be defeated. Now, Mr. Speaker, some would say this is sour grapes, you are just a Republican and all you want to do is beat up on the President because it is so close to the election. Mr. Speaker, that is not my reason for being here. In fact, let me read you some quotes that appeared in the national media this past week in response to what this President has done. First of all, let me quote Richard Cohen. Richard Cohen is a columnist for the Washington Post, and anyone who reads the Washington Post knows that Richard Cohen is not exactly what you would call a conservative columnist. In fact, he is thought to be rather to the left in terms of his positions on issues. Mr. Cohen, in an article this past week, likened Mr. Clinton's anti- Starr campaign to the Watergate era when Richard Nixon fired his nemesis, Archibald Cox. This is the quote from Richard Cohen. ``Personal attacks on the independent counsel or appeals to partisan chauvinism hardly reassure me,'' Mr. Cohen wrote in a column this week. To go on and quote him further, ``It seems to me I have heard this song before, in 1972 to be exact.'' Now, this is not the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon, Republican. This is not the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, Speaker. This is not the gentleman from New York, Bill Paxon, chairman of the congressional committee, or even Bob Dole, Republican candidate. This is Richard Cohen, columnist in the Washington Post, likening the President's actions, Mr. Speaker, to those of 1972 when Richard Nixon was, in fact, in office. But let us go beyond Richard Cohen Mr. Speaker. How about the New York Times? The New York Times is not exactly the Washington Times. It is not known for its conservative principles, its conservative thinking, or its conservative editorials. What did the New York Times editorial page say this week in response to what this leader of our country did in terms of his public statements in regard to the Whitewater situation and Special Prosecutor Starr? The Times blasted the President for his verbal shots at Mr. Starr this past Monday during a PBS interview when the President was being interviewed and for his discussion of the pardon process while ex- Whatewater partner Susan McDougal refuse to testify before a Federal Grand Jury. And this is what the New York Times said, Mr. Speaker. ``Both comments create the impression that it is the White House that wants to use partisan thrusts to disrupt the legal process, not Mr. Starr and others, who remain legitimately curious about the full story of Whitewater.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, this was not Republicans in this body, this was not Bob Dole or Jack Kemp. This was the New York Times in an editorial this week, Mr. Speaker. Let us go further, Mr. Speaker, and let us talk about Daniel Schorr. Daniel Schorr, who covered Watergate for CBS News and now does commentary on National Public Radio, said, ``The President's answers to PBS anchor Jim Lehrer were designed to put Mr. Starr on the defensive and keep McDougal hopeful. His game is to keep Starr on the defense. I think he is having some success in doing that,'' said Mr. Schorr. ``What serves Clinton's purpose very well,'' and I am quoting him, ``is to just leave open the possibility of a pardon,'' he said. ``It leaves the defendants some incentive not to give away the Clintons.'' Which I think the President perhaps knows could happen. That is not the quote, by the way, I am adding my own editorial comment. I will get back to the quote. ``When you look at the words, you can't have a problem with it. It's not what he said, it's what he didn't say.'' Mr. Speaker, this President is very clever sometimes at not necessarily saying or conveying directly what he means, but using whatever he says to convey some other meaning, and that is exactly what Daniel Schorr is saying the President is doing in this particular situation. We could go on to the Wall Street Journal, and some would say, well, the Wall Street Journal is more conservative, and I would agree with that publicly, but I will still quote Paul Gigot, a Wall Street Journal columnist, who said, and I quote, ``It sure wasn't appropriate.'' Continuing the quote, ``It seemed to me that he was holding out hope to Susan McDougal about the prospect of a pardon, which is an interference with the Starr investigation.'' Mr. Speaker, what we have seen happen in this country this past week may not sway the election. It may not help or hurt this President in his efforts to be reelected to a second term. But I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, as a child of the 1960's, close to this President's age, as someone who got involved in public life because I was fed up when I saw a sitting President try to cover up a third-rate burglary and who was offended that he was from my party, so I got involved, that I am outraged. I am incensed that this individual would think that he has the ability to so blatantly in the public process leave the option open for a pardon. Mr. Speaker, when this happened this week, even though I am not on the appropriate committees, I felt that I had to do something, and so I did. I am here tonight, Mr. Speaker, to announce what I have done. I drafted a letter, Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago. I would like to read the letter which will go to this President tomorrow. ``Dear Mr. President. We are shocked and alarmed by several of your recent statements about the ongoing investigation of independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, and the possibility that several of the figures involved in the Whitewater affair might receive Presidential pardons. ``Accordingly, we write to ask for your assistance with two very specific issues. First, we ask for your assurance that Jim and Susan McDougal, Jim Guy Tucker and other individuals associated with the Whitewater affair will not receive presidential pardons of any sort. This is particularly important in the case of Susan McDougal, who remains in jail on contempt charges. Even the hint of a possible pardon smacks of interference on your part in the important work of the independent counsel. Leaving the door open for a pardon at some point represents, as Richard Cohen in a recent Washington Post column correctly observes, `a whisper of an offer,' of a pardon. ``Second, we request that you make public the evidence which supports your contention that Susan McDougal is being held in jail on contempt because she refuses to lie about the First Lady and you. This is an extremely serious charge about the integrity of Kenneth Starr. If there is even a grain of truth to support this charge, you should produce that `evidence' immediately or withdraw your claim. ``These are issues of the gravest importance that speak directly to the integrity of the independent counsel and the investigation he is undertaking. We look forward to your response on these two critical issues. Sincerely.'' Mr. Speaker, when I drafted the letter on Wednesday I thought I would bring it over and get some of my friends who I thought would be concerned about this to sign this letter with me, but I was prepared to sign it myself. Mr. Speaker, in 2 hours on the floor of this House, and I had not talked and still have not talked to anyone in the leadership, including the Speaker or the other leaders who are not involved and aware of what I am doing, I was able to collect 185 signatures, from 185 representatives all across this country, from every State in this Union. And that was in 2 hours yesterday and a half-hour on the floor today. And during that time period, 185 elected officials, representing almost one-half of the population of this Nation agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this has got to be stopped. No one is above the law in America, even someone who can look in the camera and with a straight face say that he will wait until the process is over and that, in fact, it is political, without providing any bit of evidence to support that claim. Mr. Speaker, some would say, well, you are just a Republican and all you got were those conservative Republicans to support you in signing that letter. Mr. Speaker, I will admit the overwhelming majority of these signatures are Republican. I can tell you one month before an election it would be extremely difficult to get any member of the President's party to sign a letter of this type that basically confronts him directly and asks him to respond. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a bipartisan letter. In fact, three Democrats joined with us in saying to this President, put up or shut up. If you have no evidence of political involvement on the part of the special prosecutor, then shut your mouth. And stop going around the country attempting to provide support for someone who has been convicted by her peers and who sits in jail on contempt charges because you are fearful that she might say something that will implicate you and your wife. Mr. Speaker, 185 Members of this body signed this letter. The letter is still open and my colleagues and our colleagues, I would hope, who want to sign this letter can do so by calling my office this evening, I will be there; as well as calling tomorrow, I will be in there again. And I will let them sign the letter there or on the House floor, because I think we have to make a statement, Mr. Speaker. Back to my days in 1972, when I got involved because the leader of my party tried to cover up a third-rate burglary, and now we have a situation where our sitting President flaunts his ability to do what every citizen in this country cannot do and that is intimidate or somehow affect what a witness will say in a grand jury proceeding and make allegations about political implications of Special Prosecutor Starr with no evidence presented to back what he is saying publicly. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans who signed this letter are no conservatives. They are moderates, and many of them would be considered to the left in our party, Members who supported this President on issues as I have. I have voted with this President on family and medical leave and voted with him on anti-strike breaker and voted with him on environmental issues and voted with him on more funding for the poor, $100 million plus up in the community action agency program and supported him when he has been right. But I will not stand in this body and allow anyone to think that because of their office they can manipulate the system in such a way that he will hope that through the next 5 weeks that this woman will just stay quiet and not be involved because there is that possibility out there of a presidential pardon. Mr. Speaker, I would say that we need to have this President come before the American people and do what he has not done very well, and that is be honest with the people about his intentions. All he has to say publicly is, I will not issue a pardon for Jim or Susan McDougal, for Jim Guy Tucker or anyone else. I will let the process work. If he says that, he has solved our problem and we will let the process work as it did with Richard Nixon. Mr. President, again, as a child of the 1960's, as someone who is very close in age to this President, I am absolutely outraged at what is occurring. I think that this body has got to take action and this letter will help accomplish that. With that I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rochrabacher].