Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as we move ahead into the post-cold-war world, we find ourselves increasingly challenged to better understand the People's Republic of China which remained for so long closed to us, and to foster new relationships that will enable us to ensure our economic and national security. The United States has greatly enhanced its trade, cultural ties, and influence on this once closed society. In fact, United States trade with China has increased from $4.8 billion in 1980--when we first extended most favored nation trading status to China--to $57.3 billion in 1995. These numbers reflect growing American economic influence on China--a stabilizing factor to a nation whose government has frequently demonstrated erratic, extreme, and inexcusable behavior. It is in our interest to build on our relationship with PRC. We want to encourage increased trade for our own economic benefit, and we want to bring the benefits of our thriving and open society to the Chinese people. While we should strive to foster stronger relations, we should never do so at the expense of our own national interests. There is no need to provoke disputes just for the sake of flexing national muscle, but we cannot continue to ignore China's egregious violations in the area of arms control and basic human rights. If we want agreements and accepted international standards to have any teeth, we must be willing to risk dispute when our resolve is tested. In the case of China, that has unfortunately happened on too many occasions. Perhaps the most compelling example of this is the repeated transfer of M-11 missiles and technology to Pakistan, despite China's repeated pledge to adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime. China has also sold cruise missile technology to Iran in violation of MTCR and transferred chemical weapons production equipment there in violation of its commitments to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Then there's the transfer of ring magnets to Pakistan for the purpose of uranium enrichment, which is a violation of the Nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty. Compounding the problems posed by these transfers, the administration refuses to sanction China for the violations. Each time China pledges not to sell missile technology, the administration claims credit for a breakthrough. Then, China again proceeds to sell the forbidden items. And the administration ignores--or when too much evidence piles up. downplays--the transfer and refuses to sanction China. And what does China learn? That arms control agreements can be violated with impunity. Sadly, this administration's arms control policy is like a movie set facade: It looks great from afar, but once you get behind it there's nothing inside to back it up. While the bill before us today will not ensure arms control compliance and enforcement, we would be remiss if we did not note the violations and insist on accountability from China and when necessary, the administration. Fortunately, there are appropriate mechanisms outside of the MFN process that allow the administration to deal with the violations, and we must insist that they do so. As we proceed with MFN, we must raise these concerns. House Resolution 461 recognizes the flaws in current United States-China policy and it seeks to adjust them by developing the precise legislation needed to influence China's inadequacies in trade practices, its terrible human rights record, its erratic military policy, and its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. House Resolution 461 calls on the House Committees on Banking and Financial Services, International Relations, Ways and Means, and National Security to commence hearings and report appropriate legislation by September 30, 1996 to address these concerns. In the past, I have consistently opposed extending MFN for China because I did not agree with Chinese policy on many different fronts. While I am still committed to changing China's ways, I believe MFN is not the best tool to influence Chinese policy. I feel that with the guidance of House Resolution 461, legislation can be tailor-made to bring about these long sought-after changes in Chinese policy. As Chairman of the House National Security Subcommittee on Research and Development, and as cochairman of the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus, I will be diligent in formulating ways that we can make China comply with international nuclear test-ban and nonproliferation agreements. Meanwhile, we must continue to foster new economic opportunities that will give them the tools and resources that support alternative export opportunities for China. I believe that passage of MFN will do just that, and I urge others to join me in support of its passage.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness to join in the sorrow of this institution at the loss of our dear friend and colleague, Bill Emerson. As our friend and leader from Missouri stated so aptly, Bill was one of our colleagues who was always there to work in a bipartisan way on the priorities of this country. Whether it would be the problem of hunger in the world or in this country, or agricultural problems that affect so many districts, or whether it be our relations with Germany, where Bill was so instrumental in starting the Bundestag, the congressional effort to strengthen ties, Bill Emerson was in fact this institution's leader. However, I knew Bill Emerson in a different light, Mr. Speaker. In the last session of Congress he was named to be a bipartisan cochair of a task force dealing with disaster issues with our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. Having had the pleasure of serving with both of them, we worked for 6 months on looking at ways that we could improve the response to handle those disasters that affect all of our districts, and in Bill's case the terrible floods that ravaged the people of Missouri and the central part of this great Nation. Again, Bill Emerson rose to the task and was a leader in this institution and helped us craft a bipartisan bill that now enjoys the support of over 260 of our colleagues. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, last month Bill Emerson was recognized by the 1.5 million men and women of this Nation's fire and emergency services as the 1995-1996 legislator of the year. That is because of Bill Emerson's tireless efforts on behalf of those people who have to face the problems and tragedies associated with disasters in this great Nation. On behalf of all of those people who have suffered and all of those 1.5 million people who day in and day out respond to disasters, I rise to pay tribute to our friend and colleague. I can think of no more fitting tribute, Mr. Speaker, than if this body would take up the Natural Disaster Protection Partnership Act, Bill Emerson's bill, in this session to pay tribute and homage to this great American leader.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would make this point to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Is he aware that the administration has yet to request one dollar of funding for the Nautilus program, that he has told the Israelis is the highest priority for their national security? Is the gentleman aware there has been no request for that funding, yet we in this bill and the authorization bill are taking the lead to provide that funding?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I object. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend for yielding. I do not know whether this amendment applies to, for instance, the $200 million that we have put in the bill, the defense bill in the past, for breast cancer research. Is that part of the documentation for job creation that the gentleman is trying to get at? Is that one of the items we will use this criteria against in terms of jobs? And my second point is what do we mean by job creation? Does that mean subcontracting job and sub-subcontracting job? There is so much ambiguity here it is very difficult to understand what we are voting on.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important piece of legislation, and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] for offering this legislation. I join in the outrage that is being expressed by Members of both parties, liberals and conservatives, those from rural areas and those from urban areas, about the devastation caused by these terrible and outrageous fires. As someone who got involved in public life first of all in the fire service, when I served as volunteer five chief, I understand perhaps in a way that many of us do not the impact of anyone suffering through the tragedy of fire. It is especially outrageous when it hits a place of worship, and all of us must come together in this country and condemn it. We are here to acknowledge that there has been a special focus on African-American churches in the South, and that is especially outrageous. I would also acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, there have been 80 churches burned since January of this year, 30 that we know of in the South and in black areas. But a number of them have not gone reported, but yet have been turned in to the insurance corporation which services and provides insurance for churches and synagogues across America. Today we announced a major initiative, supported by a bipartisan group of Members who are part of the Congressional Fire and Emergency Services Caucus, to attack this problem in a different light. The focus up until now has been on catching those hardened criminals who have committed these acts, or those vandals, or those outrageous individuals. The problem we have, Mr. Speaker, is that that is very difficult. In fact, the conviction rate for arson in this country is less than 2 percent. It is the toughest crime to convict someone unless someone actually sees them lighting the match. So while it is important that we look for the perpetrators, we must also realize it is especially difficult. What we announce today is the establishment of a trust fund that would provide reward money for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone that is convicted of the act of arson. But that is not enough, because that is extremely difficult. What we announce today, Mr. Chairman, is the ability for us to have a proactive effort focusing on how to help churches across America prevent arsons from occurring. To that end we brought together the insurance industry, all the major fire service groups: the International Association of Arson Investigators, the paid firefighters, the volunteer firefighters, the Black Professional Firefighters, the National Fire Protection Association, the insurance industry, the American Insurance Association, and the Insurance Committee for Arson Control, and we announced a 3-part initiative that is declaring war on arson as it relates to churches in this country, especially our black churches. The initiative will take place through the offices of Members of Congress and it is in three parts. First of all, it provides arson prevention kits for every church in every Member's district that that Member wants to send that packet to, any church or synagogue. It will outline specific steps that can be taken locally to help reduce the possibility for arson. Secondarily, we will be offering free half-day seminars to any Member of Congress that wants to establish a seminar for one half day for clergymen, for deacons, for ministers, for rabbis to come together with professionals who will be provided for free, to give those people direct insight into arson and how they can prevent it. The third part of this initiative, Mr. Speaker, allows for a proactive effort to allow any church that so desires the contact their Member, and they will be provided a free professional survey of their church with specific recommendations that they can take to reduce the likelihood of an arson fire occurring, at no cost to that church or its congregation. None of this is being funded by the Government. All of this is being provided by those individuals in the arson investigation community and the insurance industry who want to take proactive steps. It is in our hands now as Members of Congress to implement these recommendations, to coordinate these efforts, and to make sure there is follow through. There is much that can be done to reduce the potential for arson, and we must take the lead to make sure that that education is provided to every church and synagogue in this country. Together, Mr. Speaker, as Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives, as those representing rural and urban areas, we will solve this problem, and we will send a signal that anyone who ever contemplates the act of arson, especially at a religious institution, is going to face the most severe consequences that this country can bring to bear. We are going to mobilize the communities of this country in a way they have not been mobilized before to stop these despicable acts. I thank my colleagues, and I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the military will lose one of its most stellar leaders. After 24 years of outstanding service to the Nation, Gen. Malcolm O'Neill will be retiring. While we wish General O'Neill and his family the best, we will personally regret his retirement and sorely miss his leadership. It was only 2 years ago that I came to personally know and closely work with General O'Neill. As Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization [BMDO], General O'Neill was one of the first Department officials to meet with me after I took the helm as chairman of the House Research and Development Subcommittee. As the administration's spokesperson on missile defense matters, General O'Neill was not in a position to support all of the missile defense initiatives supported by the Republican majority--but that never deterred him from remaining accessible, providing us with the facts and most important, from sharing his candid thoughts on proposals from both sides of the aisle. His technical expertise and impartiality are unparalleled. I very quickly came to rely on his judgment, and routinely sought his input on program and policy issues. While there are major differences remaining between the administration and Congress on missile defense, it is a real tribute to General O'Neill that we were able to reach the level of consensus that we did on this issue. We are no longer talking about if we should have missile defenses, but when we will have missile defenses. We are no longer arguing whether it is prudent to defend against missile threats, but whether we should prioritize theater defenses at the expense of national defense. We are no longer arguing whether it is feasible to defend against incoming missiles, but what option we should pursue. I have developed a close working relationship with General O'Neill, and perhaps more than any Member of Congress, I will regret his retirement from military service. He has served with integrity, dedication, valor and distinction as an officer in the U.S. Army. Although he has served in numerous and varied posts in his career, his extraordinary performance in one of the toughest department posts shows his true mettle. In fact, I thought so highly of Mal that I drafted a letter--signed by many House Members, including the leadership, urging the Department to discourage his retirement and to retain him as Director of BMDO. Members understand all too well his decision to spend well-earned time with his family, but we selfishly regret his decision. I know I speak for all who have ever worked with Mal in saying it has been an honor and a pleasure working with him. I would urge him to get at least a good week or two of rest and relaxation, because I know many of us in Congress will still be relying on his continued advice and input. Mal, we wish you and your family the best in retirement and continued success in the future.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this story should be in Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Lawyers for the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, who has been sued by a former Arkansas State employee, have now asked to postpone the lawsuit claiming that the President, who is the commander in chief, should be covered by the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act of 1940, which means they are claiming that Bill Clinton should be protected as a uniformed service member. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. On the eve of Memorial Day, this man, to avoid a lawsuit, would claim he is protected because he really is wearing the uniform of this country. Mr. Speaker, how outrageous can we get? Only in Ripley's could we find such a story. Please join me and sign the letter authored by our colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], to this President asking for some civil decency.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairman and friend for yielding me the time, and I want to commend both the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their outstanding leadership on intelligence matters. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the chairman of the Committee on National Security's Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. My subcommittee has joint jurisdiction over at least $9 billion of funding in this intelligence effort, and so I have a real and genuine interest in the fine work that is being carried forth by this committee. I applaud both Members for their bipartisan efforts to support and enhance the intelligence operations that are so vital to decisions that we make in the defense community, especially as they relate to missile to missile technology and those new R&D initiatives that are so important to allow America to maintain its leadership role. Mr. Chairman, I will be, however, offering an amendment under title I today dealing with a shortfall in terms of the funding amount in the bill for the Environmental Intelligence and Applications Program, formerly known as the Environmental Task Force. This funding has been cut to about one-third to only $6 million. Several of our colleagues have spoken to the issue. I had been intimately involved in a firsthand way with this program and think it would be an absolute travesty if we were to allow this program to be cut to this level. In December of last year, Mr. Chairman, my subcommittee held a hearing, where I had as one of my witnesses Alexei Yablakov. Mr. Yablakov is a member of the Yeltsin National Security Council for Environmental Issues. He is a recognized world expert on the 30-year historical track record of the Soviet Union illegally dumping its nuclear waste in the Bering Sea, the Sea of Japan, and the Arctic Ocean. Only because of Yablakov's openness and his advocacy have we in the West been able to deal with this environmental tragedy. When Mr. Yablakov came before my subcommittee last December, he in great detail outlined the specifics of what occurred. Much of the efforts of Mr. Yablakov and numerous other scientists of the same caliber is directly attributable to this program, established under the guise of the Environmental Task Force. This program has been supported by the administration, specifically by Vice President Al Gore, who sees it as a top priority, and a cut of this magnitude in this bill would be devastating. This program also allows us to pursue an initiative known as MEDEA, the Measurement of Earth Data for Environmental Assessment, an extremely important program. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the Record pages 41 and 42 of the document dealing with the scientific utility of naval environmental data, which goes into great detail with the kinds of initiatives and projects currently funded through the MEDEA Program. It has the highest support of Navy and in fact helped lay the foundation for a major new initiative we were able to place in this year's Defense Authorization Act which passed last week, a $30 million initiative calling for new partnerships and oceanographic efforts with the Navy in the lead role. This partnership effort will also allow us to share technology where available with other nations, and in particular Russia. Mr. Chairman, this an important amendment. I would hope that our colleagues would in fact support the amendment to restore the funding. Mr. Chairman, one important point of this amendment is that it pays for itself. In fact, we cut another account, and that is the $25 million for declassifying documents, we cut that by 50 percent. I know there will be some objections to that cut, Mr. Chairman, but I stand before this body offering to pay for the increase that in fact I think is so important and the administration thinks is so important. I also in the end will have to oppose an effort to not have the decrease in the declassification program, because if we do not have a bill payer, that means another $12.5 million will have to come someplace out of my overall R&D budget, which passed on the House floor last week. I have no idea where that money would come from. I have not been given any indications as to where those who oppose the decrease in the declassification accounts would take that money. Therefore, I have to oppose that as the chairman of the R&D subcommittee. Even though that is not my main fight, it is critically important that we not establish this increase which has bipartisan support for the environmental initiative that is so vitally important, at the same time decreasing or not having a bill payer, a way to pay for that. My amendment will have a bill payer, it will have a method for paying for this initiative, and I would hope that our colleagues will in fact support the amendment and also would support the bill paying mechanism that I have identified with the committee staff as an appropriate way to pay for this initiative. Mr. Chairman, I thank both my distinguished chairman and ranking member, and include for the Record the data referred to earlier.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and the subcommittee, the ranking member, for agreeing to work with me on this amendment, which is an extremely important amendment that has been discussed by Members of both sides of the aisle. The amendment would restore significant cuts that were made in the bill to the Environmental Intelligence Applications Program, formerly known as the Environmental Task Force. The funding level in the bill has been cut to about one-third of the request, or only $6 million, and, to me, that is really totally unacceptable for a program that is providing not only information for the public good but having tremendous benefits for our national security as well. I mentioned during earlier discussion, Mr. Chairman, that last year I had a leading scientist from Boris Yeltsin's National Security Council come to America to testify on the problem of the Russian nuclear waste disposal. I have worked with Mr. Yablakov over the past 2 years, and he is one of the outstanding scientists who has been very candid in helping us assess the environmental problems and security implications of those problems and how we can address them. In fact, because of the revelations of Mr. Yablakov and the Yablakov report that was produced for Mr. Yeltsin 3 years ago, we were able to put money into DOD's bill to actually work with the Russians up in the North Sea and the Bering Sea to help them find ways to deal with their nuclear waste storage and disposal problem. So this program is of vital interest for our security as well as our relationship with Russia. It has tremendous environmental implications. This program, which is operated by the intelligence community, has also been the leading driving force behind the MEDEA Program, which is a program that has paid tremendous dividends to our defense establishment in understanding data relative to the oceans of the world, but also allowing us to take information that up until now has been classified and use that for environmental purposes. In fact, we have a group of some 60 leading scientists who have been working both with the Russian side and with our side on some of the environmental problems relative to the oceans; and we have also, through the MEDEA Program, we have allowed American scientists access to high level information which not only protects our national security but has paid tremendous dividends in helping us more fully understand the environmental implications of those decisions that we make. These programs are vital. Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the Record the President's message on this bill, the paragraph that refers specifically to the administration's concern with the reduction in this program. I appreciate the support of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and the comments of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs]. I understand there is some concern about the bill paying portion of this. My understanding is that the two leaders of this committee have agreed to work this out. I have no problem with that. As chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee, I am concerned about an action that we take that would have a negative impact on the R&D overall budget, but I am certainly willing to let these gentlemen work that issue out and have confidence that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] can work the funding issue out in a way that would not disrupt our R&D portion of the defense bill that we passed last week. So, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage our colleagues to support this amendment. It is vital. And I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and everyone else for their support of this important environmental initiative. I think it is vital not just for our national security but it is also vital for a better understanding of environmental implications relative to classified data.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is an amazing motion. We heard one of our colleagues from Texas get up and say we need money for impact aid. I have his letter from April 10 asking us to put $58 million in the bill. That is what is in the bill. What are we talking about? Mr. Speaker, I have heard from the colleagues on the other side saying we are spending too much money on missile defense, we have too many programs, and we need more burden sharing. What do they want to do with the motion to recommit? They want to reestablish another missile defense program that we have eliminated, and they want to do it for Europe, not for the United States, even though France has opted out of the program. Mr. Speaker, this is amazing, it is absolutely amazing. We have heard that we want to cut programs, we have done that. We heard we want to not fund our European allies, and we have done that. So here we are being asked to support a motion to recommit to reestablish another missile defense program to protect not the United States, but the Europeans, even though one of the four partners, France, decided to opt out. It is amazing, and I urge our colleagues do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and support the bill.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], for his leadership. I encourage our colleagues to vote for this important piece of legislation, I think an historic piece of legislation that deals with the quality of life issues so important to our men and women serving around the country; that ensures we protect their pay increases, their housing, their quality of life priorities. This bill also deals, Mr. Chairman, with our priorities in terms of rebuilding our acquisition and getting on to those platforms that can replace those aging items that need to be replaced. I applaud the chairman for his leadership in allowing us to expand out and to put in a new innovative approach with the Russians in the area of missile defense, something we have never done before and which is a formal part of this bill. I applaud the chairman for allowing us to expand from an environmental standpoint to allow the Navy to take a leadership role in more fully understanding the oceans, to allow the CNO to coordinate efforts among the nine Federal agencies doing oceanographic work into one effort headed up by the CNO of the Navy, supported by all the major environmental groups and the 45 major oceanographic institutions nationwide. The bill is a good bill. It is a bill every Member of this body can support, just as in our committee, and I would encourage my colleagues to look at the vote out of committee. Forty-nine to two, Mr. Chairman was the vote. Overwhelming bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats who have made the statement that we have reached a fair compromise. Some of us might have liked to have had more money here or more money there, but we have covered all the major requirements, from impact aid to quality of life, to modernization, to missile defense, and we have done it in a bipartisan manner. The best evidence that we can show in terms of our support of this bill is now to take this piece of legislation that passed out of our committee 49 to 2 and have an overwhelming vote to send it to the Senate so that we can reach a fair compromise and send a bill to the President that he can support. We can clean up some of the areas that Members have concern with, but, overall, we have an outstanding bill, one that I am proud to support and one I hope my colleagues will join with us in voting ``yes'' on.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the balance of his time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee chairman and I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] for her leadership on this vital issue and program. The Nautilus program is critical, critical to our overall missile defense program and critical to the security of Israel. I pledge to her what she has said today we will fully support. The gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, and I assume the gentleman from California, Mr. Dellums, also support this vital initiative. But I have to again mention to all of our colleagues that this administration, which talked about the importance of the high energy laser program, the Nautilus, for the past 3 years has tried to zero out the entire program. In fact, I have to correct, Mr. Chairman, a statement I made yesterday. I said the President requested $3 million this year for the high energy laser program. What he did was requested $3 million to terminate the program; to zero it out; to end it. Thank goodness this Congress has been there to make sure the funding is in place so that we can protect Israel. Finally, this President is seeing the light and joining with this Congress and enlightened people like the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] in making sure that Israel's security is guaranteed by programs like the high energy laser program and missile defense technology. I applaud her, I look forward to working with her, and thank goodness, Mr. Chairman, the President has seen the light as well.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with the gentlewoman more. This is an innovative proposal we have worked together on. I applaud her for her leadership and look forward to fully funding this new initiative, which I am very excited about, and thank her for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in our bill about a program called Joint Advanced Strike Technology, also known to industry as the joint strike fighter, that very few Members of this body have any knowledge of. Our committee recommendation in this bill on the Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program restricts funding and asks for further justification for the program. This action has been viewed as controversial by some because it is seen as directed at one particular military service. Others find our action controversial because they claim that the committee's action came as a surprise and without sufficient debate. I appreciate these views, however this body needs to more fully understand the basis for the committee's action on JAST. First, let me say that while most of you have never heard of this program called JAST, CBO estimates it is a $300 billion program. Yes, I said $300 billion. That is more than 7 B-2 programs and is well over the total amount of the entire DOD budget that we are debating. DOD wants to spend $300 billion of your money, but the Pentagon refuses to classify JAST as an acquisition program--for reasons only Pentagon lawyers can seek to justify. Section 2430 and 2432 of title 10, United States Code that govern Defense Department major acquisition programs, define what constitutes a major defense acquisition program and require that the Pentagon provide the Congress certain reports detailing overall costs and schedules for major acquisition programs so we can meet our oversight responsibilities. However, while the Pentagon intends to spend $300 billion of taxpayer money, it refuses to comply with the law. The Pentagon has spent $400 million already and plans to spend nearly $4 billion more during the next 6 years and ultimately $300 billion for what the Pentagon continues to call a nonacquisition program. No one should be surprised by our committee's action. In 1993 the committee zeroed the funding for the Navy's request for the predecessor program to JAST, called advanced short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft. In 1994, the committee again zeroed the funding request for this program. In 1995, the committee authorized the DOD request. However, in its report on the bill the committee stated it did so ``more out of concern for the industrial base than as an endorsement of the requirement for such an aircraft.'' So no one should be surprised by the committee's recommendation. The committee's views have been consistent through 4 years of Democrat and Republican leadership. Now that more Members have expressed an interest in pursuing the details of this $300 billion program, I intend to recommend to the chairman that we come out of conference with a requirement that first, the Pentagon comply with the law and that they meet the reporting requirements of a major defense acquisition program. Second, that an independent analysis be done regarding the so-called joint requirement for this program, and finally, that we restrict obligation of funding for JAST until the Pentagon complies with these two requirements.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the National Fire Protection Association [NFPA] as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. Organized in 1896, the NFPA is an international nonprofit organization with headquarters in Quincy, MA. Over 68,000 members and 300 employees are dedicated to helping all Americans reduce the burden of fire on the quality of life by advocating scientifically based consensus codes and standards, research and education for fire and related safety issues. The NFPA's national consensus codes and standards are respected worldwide. Over 5,300 individuals serve voluntarily on technical committees that develop over 300 safety codes and standards which are widely adopted and enforced throughout the land. Among the most widely used codes are the ``National Electric Code,'' the ``Life Safety Code,'' the ``Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code,'' the ``Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems,'' the ``Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases,'' ``National Fire Alarm Code,'' and the ``Standard for Health Care Facilities.'' These documents, when adopted by Federal, State, or local government make our daily lives safer. From the buildings we live in to the training of the firefighters who dedicate themselves to protecting lives and preserving property, the NFPA has been the leader in advocating fire safety throughout its 100 years. NFPA presents its public education programs about fire safety in a positive, nonthreatening manner to children. The ``Learn Not to Burn [LNTB]'' curriculum stresses how to prevent fires and teaches basic fire safety behavior. This successful program is used by schools in all 50 States and is credited with saving over 300 lives. At the Eighth Annual Fire and Emergency Services Dinner on April 30, NFPA was honored with the Congressional Fire Services Institute's Partnership Award. This award recognizes NFPA's outstanding commitment to the fire service community and its many contributions to fire safety. I would like to invite the U.S. Congress to join me in congratulating NFPA on this historic anniversary. As the association enters its second century, its dedicated membership will continue to make the United States a safe place for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating NFPA on its 100th anniversary.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished chairman of the full committee for yielding me the time to talk in general about this bill and one of the major problems that I have with this administration when it comes to defense spending. There have been a number of evidences, Mr. Chairman, of hypocrisy as we walk through the defense process that I want to talk about today. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, it started last year when in a combined conference of the House and the Senate, we added approximately $7 billion to the authorization bill in the authorization process. We were severely criticized by the President and by Secretary Perry for putting money in that they said was not necessary, even though we put money in for such things as cruise missile defense, money in for pay raises for the military personnel, improving housing, qualify of housing initiatives for military personnel around the country, including money for countermine measures. What really aggravated me, Mr. Chairman, was when Secretary Perry came before our committee, and I respect the gentleman and respect the position that he took last year that the add-ons that we made were unnecessary. But in presenting to use the flow charts that talked about how much money the Clinton administration was requesting for acquisition, what was interesting is that the line was bottomed out. Secretary Perry said to us in the committee, as you can see, there are no further cuts requested in terms of acquisition. In fact, the bottoming out has occurred and we are actually starting to increase. Mr. Chairman, what the Secretary was doing was taking credit for money that we put in last year that he criticized us for. Mr. Chairman, we cannot have it both ways. If we really feel that we added too much money in, that is fine. I respect the gentleman if that is in fact his position. But do not come back this year and then take credit for that and say we have really done the service well in terms of maintaining the acquisition levels. Now more specifically, Mr. Chairman, unlike many of my colleagues on this side, I opposed the B-2 bomber. I felt it was a technology that I like but we just cannot afford. The President railed about the B-2 bomber, said it was unnecessary. The conference put money in for the B- 2, and what did the President do? He goes out to southern California to the areas where the B-2 bomber is built and he stands up and says, I am going to build one more B-2 bomber. I am going to use the technology available to reconfigure one that we have left, one more platform to go to 20. Obviously that is well received by all those workers. But then he goes on to say, and I am going to commission a study of deep-strike bomber capabilities. And oh, by the way, that study probably will not be out until after the November election. Mr. Chairman, that is outrageous. If we are against the B-2 bomber, then we are against the B-2 bomber in Pennsylvania and in California, regardless of who we are talking to. Now, Mr. Chairman, we added $7 billion last year. Much of that money has gone to pay for the missions that this President has assigned our troops, to Somalia, to Haiti, around the world. But what really aggravates me, Mr. Chairman, is that here is a President criticizing us for putting more money in but not willing to tell the American people that some of the money that is being asked to be reprogrammed is going to be used to train the Haitian police force. And it is going to be used for travel costs for the Haitian police force. Now, I have got some police in Philadelphia who could use some training, and I have got some police who could use some travel expenses. But the President does not want to talk about that because he asked for that money. He wants to use the money for those purposes that he feels are priorities that in my mind are not militarily significant. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good bill. We take the priorities that the Joint Chiefs have given us in terms of adding on additional dollars for key issues. Our troops in Bosnia need more money for countermine measures. Our troops around the world need more money and support for understanding a threat from chemical and biological weapons. Mr. Chairman, let me really get to the heart of what this debate is all about. I read the veto message put out by the President where in the end, after saying he is going to veto the bill, he talks about the Nautilus program, the program that we are doing to help Israel. Mr. Chairman, I want our colleagues to listen to this, because this President went before AIPAC and he told AIPAC at their national convention, I urge my colleagues to read his statement, that he is committed to an agreement to expand our theater missile defense program so that we will have the ability to detect and destroy incoming missiles. That way Israel will not only have the advantage it needs today, but will be able to defeat the threats of tomorrow, which is basically the Nautilus program. This President is all for it and so is Secretary Perry. But like every other defense priority, what did this President do, Mr. Chairman? When the funding requests were made, what we are talking about, the high energy laser program, which is in fact the Nautilus program, in fiscal year 1994, the Clinton budget was $4.8 million. This Congress put in $24.8 million. In fiscal year 1995, this President, who had the audacity to go before AIPAC and say I support you and the high energy laser program must go forward, asked for zero money. He zeroed the program out. Not one dime of money. Yet he is taking credit for that initiative in front of every person concerned about Israel's security across the world. What did they ask for it this year before there was an incident of the Katyusha rockets being fired? They asked for $3 million, starvation of the program. Mr. Chairman, the time for the demagoguery of this administration on defense spending has got to come to an end. This President can no longer get away with saying one thing and doing something else, whether it is the Nautilus program, whether it is the B-2 bomber or whether it is missile defense. Mr. Chairman, let me say we are not about tweaking Russia in this bill. In my conversations with key Russian leaders over the weekend with Senator Bill Bradley, we did not hear one word about missile defense. What do we hear in terms of jeopardizing the START II talks? We heard about this administration's plan to expand NATO. But we never hear the President talk about that, because that is a key priority. That is the only thing the Russians talked about the entire time we were there. In fact, I said to them, I have heard more about NATO expansion in 2 days than I have heard on the floor of the Congress in 2 years. But this administration does not talk about that, because it is not consistent with their position. In fact, Mr. Chairman, under the leadership of this full committee chairman, we have reached out to the Russians in a way that has never been done before; $20 million of joint missile defense initiatives with the Russians so that we can continue the Ramos project, the Skipper project and do joint technology work. Under the leadership of this chairman, we have reached out to the Russians to show them that we want to work together. Mr. Chairman, let me also say we are not going to be shortchanged by looking at a military leadership in Russia that was the same when it was the former Soviet Union. While democracy is occurring over there and economic reform and stability and hopefully the elections will turn out well next month, the military leadership is the same. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues if they would get a copy of what is called the Sirikov document, an internal document circulated among the Russian Ministry of Defense that shows some of the military thought about what their posture should be with the United States. This is not my document, Mr. Chairman. This was circulated in the Russian media 2 short months ago. I had it translated. What does it say? It says that Russia should look at the United States militarily as a long-term adversary. That Russia should look at the United States in a way that allows them, if they are backed into a corner, to share technology and missile defense capability and offensive missile technology with Iraq, Iran, and Syria. It further states that the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are rogue nations run by mafiosi. Mr. Chairman, that is the problem. We are not talking about Boris Yelstin. We are not talking about those leaders like Mr. Lukin who definitely want better relations. We are talking about a military that we still have to be prepared to deal with. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Mr. Chairman, we are committed to work with Russia. We are committed to work with the leaders. The current efforts that are being put forth by the Utah Russian Institute to establish a working relationship with those members of the Russian Duma who want us to work together cooperatively. Under Speaker Gingrich's leadership we have established a new landmark process that will allow us for the first time to have the Speaker of the Russian Duma, Mr. Seleznyov and the Speaker of this Congress to come together twice a year where our Members who are interested in key issues can get to know their colleagues, both in the Russian Duma and in this American Congress. Mr. Chairman, what we are saying is we want to work with the Russians, we want to reach out to them, we want to share technology. But in the end we do not want to shortchange the American people. This administration will have us believe that arms control agreements are the end all and the cure all. I do not disagree with arms control agreements, but when I see the administration ignore a violation of the missile control technology regime, as they did in December, and not even call the Russians for it, when I see not even calling the Russians on a nuclear test that occurred in Nove Zamky, I wonder how we can say we base our relationship on arms control agreements when we do not want to call the Russians when they violate those same agreements. What we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is we have a solid approach to work with the Russians, to show that we no longer live in a bipolar world, that we must, first of all, protect and defend the American people. It is so ironic, Mr. Chairman, with all the rhetoric of the administration that both the Air Force and the Army have said they can give us an ABM Treaty compliant missile defense capability, not for the tens of billions of dollars that President Clinton cites in his veto message, but for between $2 and $5 billion. These are the administration's leaders in the Pentagon who are telling us we can give the American people something they do not now have, and that is a protection against what? Five incoming missiles. What is so outrageous is that while we try to give the American people this protection, the Russians have had an operational ABM system for the past 20 years that protects 80 percent of their population. Mr. Chairman, I ask our colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise and thank the distinguished chairman of our full committee and the ranking member, two fine gentlemen who have worked together with us to achieve this piece of legislation. While we may disagree in certain elements, we certainly come together and respect each other's views. In the end, hopefully we will have a bill that all of us can support. In terms of the Subcommittee on Research and Development, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for his cooperation and support. The request by the administration was $34.7 billion, $1.5 billion less than the fiscal year 1996 request. Because of the request by the service chiefs, which amounted to $20 billion of additional funding in the R&D area alone, we increase slightly the R&D account to a level of $35.5 billion. As I said, Mr. Chairman, the service chiefs asked us for an additional $20 billion that we just could not provide. It is somewhat discouraging, Mr. Chairman, that we were criticized very heavily last year by both the White House and the Secretary of Defense's office for plusing up the defense budget, but then in this year's hearings, the Secretary came in and showed us charts taking credit for flattening out the acquisition downturn; in effect, taking credit for funds that we were criticized for putting in last year. The same thing is happening this year, Mr. Chairman. That is somewhat disheartening to me, as someone who tries to support the administration and their defense requests, and the requests of the service chiefs. In particular, we have plused up some specific priorities that were raised in our hearings, and by the members of our subcommittee, including chemical biological defense, $44 million to address shortfalls as a result of the General Accounting Office report, a very needed effort in the area of chem-bio defense that all of us feel strongly about; $43 million of additional money for the countermine program, especially important for our troops on the ground in Bosnia and around the world. This Congress has taken a leadership role in plusing up funding to find solutions to protect our troops from the threat of mines in any hostile environment. Dual use technology. We reinvigorated a program that will allow the Defense Department and the services to control where dual use applications can occur. There will be no outside agency interference. We have funded it to the level of $350 million, including a special allocation at the office of the Secretary and at Dr. Kaminski's level to oversee as aggressively as possible the efforts toward dual use technology and off-the-shelf acquisition. We have also added an initiative that we are currently working on with two other committees, the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Science, in terms of consolidating oceanographic efforts. The Navy has been the lead agency in this area, and we in fact give them a further coordinating role with a $30 million allocation to expand partnerships that first of all have a defense implication, but secondarily have an implication for both the environment and for economic opportunities with the oceans. Mr. Chairman, the real change here in R&D is in missile defense. We will debate that this week. Mr. Chairman, the key difference between this administration and this Congress was and will be this year, the area of missile defense. After a robust series of hearings, after a detailed analysis of what is occurring throughout the world, including those countries that are trying to get missile technology, we have crafted very carefully, with the full cooperation of General O'Neill, a missile defense program that we feel very confident with. We have plused up national missile defense, theater missile defense, brillian eyes, so we have a space-based sensor program as well as our cruise missile defense. All of these initiatives, Mr. Chairman, we feel are vitally important. We have even put $20 million in this year's bill for joint Russian-United States missile defense initiatives, so we can show that we are not about just sticking it in the eye of the Russians; that we in fact want to work with them in jointly exploring missile defense capabilities. We no longer live in a biopolar world. We know the North Koreans and the Chinese are developing capabilities. We know Iraq has achieved some technologies from Russia. We know the threat is there, and it is there now. We must meet that threat. This bill does that.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Barbara Gibilisco, a student a Neumann College in Aston, PA, Ms. Gibilisco is the recipient of the Pennsylvania Association for Adult and Continuing Education 1996 Award Recognizing Outstanding Adult Students in Higher Education. Criteria for judging undergraduate nominees are: contributions to institution and community; clearly defined goals; grades; innovative approaches to meeting educational needs; overcoming difficult circumstances in order to pursue higher education; sensitizing the institution to the needs of adult students; success in coping with numerous roles; support of others returning to school; and strength of nomination material. Those criteria, while impressive and difficult to meet, do not capture the courage, the commitment, nor the generosity of this woman. Barbara Gibilisco is a wheelchair mobile student graduating from Neumann College in May 1996, with a bachelor's degree in liberal studies. Even though Barbara lives independently with her mother, she attends classes at Inglis House, a wheelchair community in West Philadelphia which serves as an extension site campus for Neumann College. She has maintained a perfect 4.0 grade point average throughout her career. In addition to being a student, Barbara Gibilisco owns and operates a home-based answering service; tutors the residents of Inglis House on the pre-GED and adult basic education level in reading, math, and computer literacy; is a certified Gateway tutor for the mayor's commission on literacy; is a party-time learning therapist for the Department of Education; and acts as a spokesperson for the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the Orleans Vocational Center. As a hobby, she is a licensed class amateur radio operator. After graduation, Barbara Gibilisco plans to work full-time to support herself and her mother. Her personal objectives are to design computer software programs related to compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act; to serve as a consultant to small businesses and firms that seek to comply with the mandates of the Americans With Disabilities Act; and to work in an educational setting as a mentor, teacher, or small group leader with students in need of adult basic literacy education. Obviously, Barbara Gibilisco is deserving of this award. The courage and commitment she has brought to fulfilling her goals for a college education combined with a generosity of spirit reflected in her efforts to bring education to others makes Barbara Gibilisco a role model for all.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a man who devoted much of his life to helping and improving the lives of others through his dedication to the fire service. Andrew P. Hogan, a lifelong member of the fire service, passed away recently in his home in Woodlyn, PA on April 20, 1996. A member of the fire service for over 40 years, Andy was a key leader in the State and national effort to improve the public's recognition of the fire community. Andy served as a lifetime member of the Woodlyn and Milmont fire companies, belonged to the board of directors of the Milmont fire company, and was active in the Pennsylvania State Firemen's Association, the Pennsylvania State Fire Police Association, the Keystone State Fire Chief's Association, and the Delaware County Fire Police Association. During his many years of service, Andy was honored for his dedication and work on numerous occasions. In 1980, he was named Fireman of the Year by Ridley Township. Andy was also honored in 1991 by the Pennsylvania State Firemen's Association who awarded him first place in their Fire Prevention Awards. Andy took great pride in his involvement in the fire community. Because of his efforts, the fire service in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States is better off. Mr. Speaker, I know you and my colleagues join me today in celebrating the many accomplishments and achievements of Andrew Hogan and in honoring his memory.