Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will further yield, I will tell you what I said to Secretary Perry in very emphatic words in our hearing last week. I said, ``Mr. Secretary,'' he asked me what do we tell the troops if this Congress were to vote against the President's policy, and I said, ``Mr. Secretary, let me say this to you, you go back and tell those troops that this Congress and our national security committee supports those troops with every ounce of energy in our bodies to the core and bone of our bodies.'' In fact, if I have my way, we will have a vote this week, as my good friend and colleague knows, and that vote will be on having this Congress go on record to say that we will give the theater command officer in Bosnia with the President sending our troops there, General Joulwan, every resource, piece of equipment and support that he feels he needs to protect our troops. Secretary Perry said, ``We do not need that. I will do that.'' I said to the Secretary we were told that three years ago, and because the Secretary of Defense said the climate was not right, politically, in Washington, he denied the support that was requested of him by the commanding officer in charge of the Somalia theater that led to not only the deaths of 18, actually 19, young Americans, but had their bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. So we are going to support the troops, and we are going to support them most emphatically, because we are not going to let this administration repeat Somalia.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. As you know, the President, I voted with my colleague from California on three occasions to say we do not want ground troops in Bosnia; unfortunately, again, the President is not listening. He has told the American people it is going to be between 20,000 and 25,000. They are not the numbers. The numbers are 32,000 ground troops, with about 20,000 support troops, for a total of somewhere over 50,000 American kids. Here we are sending 50,000 American kids into a region that borders Germany where they are sending 4,000 Germans. To me, it is not just unfair, it is outrageous.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield further, absolutely. As a matter of fact, as he knows, last week, I believe it was on Monday or Tuesday, I did a 45-minute special order on Bosnia where I expressed my outrage at portions of the President's speech. The gentleman from California just acknowledged the atrocities that have occurred against human beings, and what offended me most was when President Clinton went before the American people and made the case of how kids and women have been abused and tortured in ethnic cleansing. In a bipartisan manner on this House floor, we have been saying that for 3 years, and in bipartisan votes on three separate occasions this body and the other body voted to have the administration lift the arms embargo so that there at least would be a leveling of the playing field so people could defend themselves. All of those three times over the past 3 years, the administration failed to listen to us. But now, all of a sudden, they want to put American sons and daughters in between these warring factions. I would say to my colleague from California, as he knows, I have developed legislation which I will be back on the House floor tomorrow to present to this body which, in fact, will call for a vote.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. There were three specific articles from Russia, all three quoted Dr. Yablokov by name. One of them was highlighting the fact Dr. Yablokov has stated on the record that Russia has as much as 100,000 tons of chemical weapons despite the fact the military leadership only says they have 40,000 tons. Dr. Yablokov has come out publicly in Moscow and said that cannot be correct. Dr. Yablokov has also come out and publicly criticized the leadership over the small nuclear weapons that Russia, in fact, has accessible to it. So he is not afraid to speak his mind. He is someone for whom I have the highest respect. He is with us. He will be with us tomorrow at the hearing. He will be very candid and tell us what he feels are the problems of his country. But I also expect him to be very candid about problems we, in fact, have in [[Page H 13979]] our country. We are not totally without blame. In fact, part of our hearing tomorrow, I expect, will focus on the 30,000 barrels of nuclear waste that were dumped off the San Francisco coast a few years ago and what we are doing to monitor that. We, in this country, have been very critical of the Russians because of their lack of control over the Komsmolensk when it went down off of Norway, yet we have not been willing to discuss openly the fact that we have two nuclear subs on the bottom of the ocean floor, the Thresher and Scorpion. We are saying we must join together to understand the problems created through the use of nuclear technology. This will be a first step tomorrow. I am looking forward to having the gentleman whose special order I am infringing on to be there, as he so eloquently is on all of our national security issues, to help us understand what is happening in the former Soviet states as relates to these and other issues involving nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. That is the foreign intelligence reports that we get summarizing all the foreign media.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Yes.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The problem is so extensive that the security forces of Russia went into the headquarters of this Norwegian nongovernment organization, Ballona, which was about ready to release a report, confiscated all of their computers, all of their software, all of their data and their photographs. They were able to save a significant portion of that which we will release tomorrow at 12:30 which in fact show photographs of spent nuclear fuel that have been exposed in the outdoors for 30 years, of nuclear waste on land that is sitting with no protection. The situation is so severe in the area of the Northern Fleet up in the area of Murmansk and the ports where the Northern Fleet is headquartered--Severodmorsk is the other port--that Dr. Yablokov and the Yablokov Commission report estimated that perhaps as much as 10 million curies of radioactive nuclear waste is currently being stored because the Russians have no capacity to safely dispose of it. By comparison, Three Mile Island at its worst only gave off a few curies, relatively speaking, to the Russian threat that is there. So there is a terrible problem as the Russians downsize their military, as there are nuclear-powered submarines that are being decommissioned. They do not have any way to deal with this. The point that we have to understand is, as we look at those nuclear weapons that are still in Russia, and we are concerned about the command and control of those nuclear weapons, certainly when you look at the way they are treating the waste gives you some indication that there are serious problems in the way that Russia deals with its nuclear power as well as its nuclear waste, and, as you know, I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], and as a member of our subcommittee, we have been extensively looking at Russian command and control. In January of next year, our subcommittee will have a hearing that will be the conclusion of a 4-month investigation where we have interviewed over 40 witnesses on the issue of intelligence gathered and provided to Congress on command and control of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Some of the results of those interviews are startling in terms of the lack of security and the concerns that many of us had which now, in fact, may be verified that Russia does not have adequate control and that perhaps the potential for an accidental or a rogue launch, or even worse, a sale of one of those systems to a rogue nation is, in fact, something we have to look at in a serious vein. That hearing we will hold in January will even consist of people who have worked in the administration.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield on that point, that was the second major problem I had with President Clinton's speech. He said that those who oppose his policy are isolationists. Nothing could be further from the truth. He knows that this Congress has gone on record three times saying to lift the arms embargo over the past three years. He knows that since August this Congress has gone on record three times. The most recent vote garnered 315 in favor, Democrats and Republicans alike, saying do not send ground troops in. This Congress has said America should not be asked to do it all alone. When you add up the amount of troops that you have just outlined, and you total in the ground troops, we are talking in excess of 50,000 American troops, costing the taxpayers between $2 and $3 billion, that we are going to incur for this Bosnian operation. The question that made me so upset as I thought through this whole situation, was why are the Germans only putting in 4,000 and why does the Bundestag have to approve that before they can go? Why are the Italians putting in 2,100, and why does the Italian parliament have to approve that before those 2,100 can go? Why are the Scandinavians only putting in a collective total of 2,000, and certain of the Scandinavian countries have said we will come, but you have to pay for our travel, our food and our lodging? Why are these other countries in Europe putting all of these conditions and providing so few troops, when America is putting again 50,000 young American sons and daughters on the line. And the French, who I will admit are putting 7,500 in, are the same French that denied us access to their air space when we wanted to go down to Libya to pay Quadafi back for the terrorism he caused. The same people we are now joining with, because they feel it is important for America to be there, denied us that air space. Let me just say that is what we are concerned about. And this President, as he usually does, twists that around and convolutes it to say we are isolationists who do not care about human rights abuses. It is outrageous. The real mistake here was when this President 3 years ago opened his mouth and said, ``If need be, I will put American ground troops on the ground for a peace agreement.'' Long before the negotiations began we all knew that was a given. That is what we all found so offensive, that we never had a chance to play a role in this process, because the President committed the ground troops long before any leader in the Balkans decided they were going to come to terms for a peace agreement. Unfortunatley, young kids are going to lose their lives over that. That is why you and I, as chairman of appropriate defense subcommittees, have got to use every ounce of energy in our body to protect those kids. And we will do that.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, I rise to highlight a series of hearings that will begin tomorrow in our main hearing room that I think are of landmark significance not just to this country but to the entire world community. One of the byproducts of the military buildup of the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and into the 1990's has been the huge amount of nuclear waste that has been generated from our nuclear material, equipment, and the ships and technologies that we have had available to our military establishments throughout the world. The problem that we now face is what do we do with this waste that has been generated, especially as both America and in the case of the officially Soviet Union, Russia, dispose of this nuclear waste, and how do we deal with that. The hearing that we will be holding tomorrow, both for the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development in cooperation with the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans of the Committee on Resources, will for the first time focus on what is in fact a worldwide problem. The hearing will be international in scope. Beginning at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon in hearing room 2118, we will hear from the distinguished environmental activist from Russia, Dr. Aleksai Yablokov. Dr. Yablokov is a member of the Russian National Security Council. He is a key adviser to President Yeltsin, and he has traveled to America to tell us about his findings in terms of the problem the Russians have been having in disposal of their nuclear waste and their spent nuclear fuel. Dr. Yablokov was a chairman of the Yablokov Commission, which for the first time in Russia's history documented extensively 30 years of deliberate dumping of nuclear waste into the Arctic Ocean, the Sea of Japan, and other bodies that border the former Soviet states. Dr. Yablokov is an outspoken critic of those policies in the former Soviet Union that have led to environmental degradation. He will share with us his work and the work of others like him in Russia in attempting to understand and deal with these international environmental problems. Joining with Dr. Yablokov on our first panel will be Kaare Bryn, the director general and ambassador of the resources department from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He will testify before us as to the concerns that the Norwegian people have with the problems internationally of dumping nuclear waste in our oceans. Following that, we will have our Government respond to highlight some of the things that we are doing to assist in more fully understanding the problem of nuclear waste around the world, not just off of Russia but even off of our own shores, and what we are doing through the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency to provide protection for the American people and cooperation with other nations who have similar concerns. Then, finally, we will have an assessment panel of technical experts who will highlight for us the specific technologies and efforts that are now under way to deal with this potentially devastating situation around the world. This is a landmark hearing, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to have assembled what I think will be an expert panel of witnesses to fully highlight this worldwide problem and to show that we are in fact working with the world community to find solutions. Bringing together Russia, the European Community, and also working with the Japanese Diet and the United States Congress, we are trying to find solutions that allow us to come to grips with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Preceding the hearing at 12:30, Dr. Yablokov and I will join with the Ballona Foundation, a Norwegian nonprofit organization that just recently documented land-based nuclear pollution extensively at Russian military facilities. The information that has been accumulated by the Ballona Foundation is so devastating that the Russian security apparatus invaded Ballona's headquarters in Moscow and 1 month ago confiscated photographs and all of their documentation. Together, Dr. Yablokov and I will work to assure the American people and our media that we are outraged that these actions have occurred, and that we in fact should be working with the Ballona Foundation and Russian leaders like Dr. Yablokov to assist Russia in understanding the complexity of their environmental nuclear problem and, more importantly, how we can work together to solve it. It is a problem that is monumental, that needs immediate attention, and that potentially could cause a threat to the entire population of this earth. I invite my colleagues to participate in that hearing, and welcome the support of Vice President Al Gore. At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record his letter to me supporting this series of hearings by Subcommittee on Research and Development on ways that we can assist the environmental community, working with our military, to understand and deal with these international environmental problems. The Vice President, Washington, DC, December 6, 1995. Hon. Curt Weldon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the topics on which the Committee will focus during this series of hearings have been of interest to me for some time, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to share my perspective. As President Lyndon Baines Johnson said during his tenure, ``The waters which flow between the banks belong to all the people.'' While the President was speaking about a domestic issue at the time, his message resonates today. Oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface, and we face a common threat to this precious resource. In this time of lean budgets, creative efforts to exploit existing research and technology efforts for dual purposes are not only sensible but essential. The [[Page H 13978]] United States has tremendous resources which only have to be harnessed, and the Committee's hearings represent a significant step in that direction. As we approach the 21st Century, I welcome efforts to ensure that our country is well prepared to act on the basis of the very best data. I particularly want to thank you for your efforts in this regard. Your ideas and insight on these issues are important to me, and your continued support is essential. Again, please accept my very best wishes for a productive series of hearings. Sincerely, Al Gore.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to a gentleman who provided great service to his family, his community, and his country. I was greatly saddened to learn of the passing of Matthew J. Hayes, a constituent of my congressional district and someone for whom I had a great deal of admiration. Matt Hayes began his public-service career with the Delaware County government in 1977 when he became director of budget management. His outstanding abilities were recognized 2 years later when he was appointed executive director of Delaware County, a post he held for 13 years. I worked closely with Matt in my capacity as chairman of the Delaware County Council. No public servant brought more vigor to a position than Matt, nor did anyone more capacity protect the interests of taxpayers. In 1992, Matt became chief executive officer of the Delaware County Solid Waste Authority. Again, he approached his position with commitment and determination. His knowledge and negotiating skills helped save the county millions of dollars. Matt was a certified public accountant and a graduate of Villanova University, where he also served as an adjunct professor of accounting for 8 years. Before joining county government, he had 20 years experience in the private sector in accounting and management, including international financing with a major accounting firm. Matt was also dedicated to serving his community. He served as treasurer of the Haverford Township Republican Party and was a member of the Haverford Township Parks and Recreation Board. He also served on the finance committee of St. Denis Roman Catholic Church, his home parish in Havertown. He was a board member of the Ardmore Manor Civic Association and a member of the Merwood Civic Association. He was a U.S. Army veteran. Matt was devoted to his family. He cared deeply about his wife, Marie Purcell Hayes; his children, Matthew, Marie, James, William, and Joseph; and his three grandchildren. I offer my condolences to each to them. Matt will be greatly missed by all of us.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss an issue that is going to confront us for the next several weeks in regard to the President's intention to send 20,000 to 25,000 of America's sons and daughters to the Balkans to participate in living up to the terms of the agreement just recently initialed in Dayton, OH. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans across the country, I sat before my television set last evening and listened intently as President Clinton gave his justification to the American people for sending ground troops into Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks from tomorrow I was invited to the Pentagon, where I had breakfast with Secretary Perry and the leadership of the Joint Chiefs, including General Shalikashvili, where they made a personal case to me and other Members of the Committee on National Security as to why we should commit our troops to Bosnia in light of the pending peace agreement, which had not yet been initialed. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to respond, first of all, to President Clinton's speech, because parts of it bothered me greatly, and to lay the foundation for a hearing which our committee will hold on Thursday when again Secretary Perry, General Shalikashvili, and Secretary Christopher will come before the House Committee on National Security and again make the case to us to support the President's efforts. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has been on the Committee on National Security for 9 years and who chairs the Research and Development Subcommittee, I am vitally interested in any place or any time that we send our troops into harm's way, whether it be the time that we sent them to Desert Storm, or Haiti, or other operations around the world. Mr. Speaker, I was taken aback by some of the comments President Clinton made in the speech yesterday evening and I have to respond to them, and this is the only opportunity where I can deal with them in a lengthy and involved format. I want to respond to three specific points that the President made to the American people and to Members of this body. I want to, first of all, respond to his assertion that those who disagree with him are isolationists and want us to come back into our own borders and not be a part of the world community. The second issue I want to take exception to is the way that he characterized the moral argument involved in getting involved in Bosnia. And the third is the President's comparison of Bosnia and our potential involvement there to Haiti and Somalia as well as Desert Storm. Then I want to get into my own specific concerns relative to a potential vote that we may take in this body a week or two from now. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the contention made by President Clinton that those who may oppose his policy here are isolationists. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that for the past 3 years, a strong bipartisan voice in this body and the other body have voted repeatedly, have signed letters, have sent messages to the White House and the administration that we want to be a part of the process of helping achieve peace in the Balkans. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I, like many of my colleagues in this body today, would support the presence of the United States in a somewhat limited way in the Balkans, as we have done repeatedly over the last 3 years. After all, Mr. Speaker, there were many Members of both the majority and minority parties that supported the President's use of our Air Force in terms of the air strikes. Many of us have supported logistical support to provide food and clothing and humanitarian support and relief to the people of the Balkans. So time and again over the past 3 years Members of this body and the other body have made it clear that we want to be involved. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Secretary of Defense 2- weeks ago, I am prepared to support American troops in Bosnia tomorrow, but not on the ground. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the key issue that President Clinton completely ignored last evening. He made it appear as if we are in disagreement with him on his policy; that, therefore, we must not want the United States to be involved at all, and that is absolutely totally wrong. I think it was really shortsighted of the President to make that statement to the American people. In fact, what I proposed to Secretary Perry, I think, would be supported by many of our colleagues in this body; and that is, why should America have to put 20,000 to 25,000 ground troops in between three warring factions that have been at war not for 4 years and not for one decade but for decades and decades and centuries and centuries? Why should the European countries, who are the bordering nations to Bosnia, not step up with that ground support force and let the United States involvement be what we do very well; airlift, sealift, air strikes, command and control, intelligence gathering and monitoring, and all the other ancillary support to make this mission a success? In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the President talks about a U.S. commitment of 20,000 to 25,000 troops, he is not being realistic with the American people nor is he being realistic with our colleagues in this body. As a matter of fact, right now, Mr. Speaker, we have an estimated 15,000 troops who are providing support services in the theater around Bosnia. These services range from airlift and sealift to intelligence gathering, to all kinds of functions that they have been assigned by the Pentagon, just to name a few of the assignments that our military is currently involved in in the European theater, and this is, by the way, not complete. We have Operation Able Sentry going on right now. We have Operation Deny Flight. We have Operation Provide Province, Operation Sharp Guard, and Operation Provide Comfort. All of those operations are, today, involving American troops in the theater that the President is talking about sending ground troops in. In fact, along with the ground troops that President Clinton is proposing, we are going to have a carrier, the America, off the coast. We are going to have Navy pilots and Navy personnel available. So our total support forces, besides the 20,000 to 25,000 ground troops, is going to be somewhere between 13,000 and 17,000. When I met with the Secretary 2 weeks ago, I tried to pin he and General Shalikashvili to a specific number, and I will do that again this Thursday. I asked them, how many other U.S. troops will be involved in this effort? They would not give me a specific answer. To the best of my ability, I have determined that number will be somewhere above 15,000. So when the President goes before the American people as he did last night and says, I want to send 20,000 troops in, that is our commitment, what he should have said is, I want to have 35,000 or perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops involved in the theater of operation that includes, as our overall mission, Bosnia and the maintaining of the peace agreement that was initiated in Dayton. Now, many of us in this body feel that what the President should have done is said we will provide that support in the form of airlift and sealift and use of our aircraft for attacks, if necessary, on selected sites, and command and control and intelligence gathering, but should not have had American troops placed in harm's way in an area of the world so far away from our shore and which many of us feel that we do not have a direct national interest. Many of us feel that it [[Page H 13726]] is unconscionable that those countries that directly surround the Balkans are only putting in small tokens of troops. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to get exact counts. These numbers have varied. But I went through the foreign media, through our FBIS reports we get, that we can request in our offices, to try to get a feel for what other countries are committing in the way of troops to this operation. I think it is important for our colleagues and for the American public to understand exactly what those commitments are and what, if any, strings are being attached, so that, when the President speaks about 25 nations being involved, we know really what he means and what these countries are actually saying. Great Britain, the United Kingdom, always our staunch ally, is in fact going to put up the largest complement of troops besides the United States. The Most recent number we have is about 13,000 troops compared to our 20,000. Now, Great Britain is very close to the Balkans, certainly much closer than the United States, and is obviously a part of the European theater. So you would expect them to put in place a large presence of military forces. Let us go to Germany. Here I have a problem, Mr. Speaker. The United States and the President are committing 20,000 ground troops and the ancillary support troops that I have just talked about numbering at least 15,000. The Germans have said that, and get this, Mr. Speaker, subject to the Bundestag's approval. In other words, we do not have to approve what the President wants to do in our Congress. He can send the troops on his own, which he said he would do with or without our vote of approval. But in Germany their commitment to send their troops will be predicated upon the support of the Bundestag. And how many troops are the Germans going to send in? Not 13,000, not 10,000, not 5,000, but 4,000. So Germany, right next to the Balkans, is going to send a total of 4,000 troops to the Balkans as their part of this operation. Now, quoting the minister in a German publication, the defense minister, who spoke on November 22, he went on to say that these 4,000 troops would be involved, and I quote, in terms of being logistical units, engineers, medical orderlies, transport units, helicopters, and aircraft to secure the airspace. Where is the commitment for the ground troops in the middle of the hostile parties? This is Germany's commitment. Then we go on to France. I remind our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that France has a very real threat from the spread of the Bosnian operation, and France is very near and close to the proximity of the Balkan conflict and you would expect would be willing to put up a sizable amount of soldiers for this operation. France's commitment is currently listed in a most recent French publication of November 22 as 7,500 soldiers. This would be a part of the overall NATO deployment, but 7,500 soldiers. This is the same France that is only putting up 7,500 soldiers to our 20,000 that denied the United States the ability to fly our planes over France when we were going after Mu'ammar Qadhafi when Ronald Reagan was the President, in response to attacks he had made on American citizens. So France's commitment right now is listed at 7,500. Let us go to Spain, another European country. Let us see what Spain is talking about committing. This is from a radio network in Spanish in Madrid. Mr. Suarez Pertierra said it would be a tactical group of some 1,250 soldiers. So, while America is putting in 20,000 to 25,000 ground troops, Spain in talking about sending 1,250 soldiers to this operation. Let us look at Sweden. Sweden, another European country that obviously has an interest in seeing peace in that part of the world, has said that it will be part of a Nordic brigade that would have 900 Swedes. Now, Sweden also has a condition placed on its commitment. And that condition is that the United Nations shall be financially responsible for this operation. So, Sweden is saying, ``Yes, we will go, but you pay our bill.'' I did not hear that said on the part of our commitment. We are going to pay the entire bill. Mr. Speaker, my guess is that this will end up much like Haiti. We not only paid for our expenses, but we will end up paying for the housing costs, the feeding, and logistical support for a number of other countries, all of which will be borne by the American taxpayers. But Sweden's troop commitment is right now 900. Then we go to Austria, and I will quote a news source from Vienna Television Network, November 21, where there is a quotation from the leadership of Austria about their commitment. Their consideration is for sending a force of 200 to 250 men. It goes on to say, quote, ``Volunteers, of course. No one is going to be forced to go into this.'' Mr. Speaker, 200 to 250 are going to be volunteers and they will not serve as combat troops. They will be there as a transport unit. Let us go on and talk about Italy, another European country that is expected to be a part of this operation. Look at what Italy's contribution will be. Initially, Italy balked when the press said that they heard rumors that 2,100 men would be sent, but now there is confirmation that the form will be 2,100. But Italian news media sources also go on to say that actually, and I quote, ``Parliament still has to give its approval to send out Italian troops.'' So, the United States Congress will not have the ability to approve the President's sending of not 20,000, but perhaps 35,000 troops into that theater; we will have the German Bundestag approve the German troops going in, and the Italian Parliament approve the Italian troops going in, but we will not have that ability in this country. The total commitment of Italy will be 2,100 men. The Netherlands, another European country. The Netherlands, according to its population, is perhaps contributing a larger element that we would expect. The Netherlands Cabinet wants to make a decision about sending 2,000 troops to help with the peace accord. Then we have Denmark. A Danish battalion is set to leave on January 8 as part of the NATO operation and they are talking about 807 men going from Denmark. Mr. Speaker, these are not my reports. These are all sources that I will provide to anyone in this body in terms of what our European allies in NATO are going to commit to this operation. Our point, Mr. Speaker, is not one of isolation. We want to be the leader of NATO, and we know we are. We continue to help our NATO allies every day. We have a strong presence in the European countries I have just mentioned. We have military bases there and Navy units deployed in the vicinity of those countries. We will be there for them. But, Mr. Speaker, Bosnia is largely a European problem and many of us in this body feel that while the United States must play a role, and that role can be air strikes, air support, sea life support, command and control, intelligence gatherings, and all the other logistical help that we should not have to go beyond that and put 20,000 young American sons and daughters in the middle of what could be a very hostile environment; what certainly has been a very hostile environment. So when the President talks, as he did last night, about isolationism, the President is totally, absolutely wrong. It is a slap in the face to every Member of this body that he would say his opponents are isolationists. In fact, many of us have said all along that we want us to be involved; we just do not want the United States to go it alone. That is what we think this President has gotten us into. My opinion is the President, to some extent, put his foot in his mouth earlier their year when he said to the NATO allied leaders, ``I will put ground troops in Bosnia if we get a peace agreement.'' What he should have said is, ``I will make a commitment,'' and left that up to the final negotiations in Dayton. He did not do that. Mr. Speaker, while the negotiations were going on, all of us in this body knew what was going to come out of those negotiations, and that was going to be taking the President up on his word, and that is to send 20,000 ground troops into Bosnia. That should never have been the negotiating position of this country in terms of our NATO involvement. [[Page H 13727]] It certainly is not the position of this Member, and I know many of my colleagues, that we should not be involved, nor should we be isolationists. The second issue I want to take up with the President is the way he characterized the morality argument here. He somehow tries to make the case that the Members of Congress who perhaps question what he wants to do here are not concerned about babies being killed, about ethnic cleaning, and about women being raped. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. As a member of the Human Rights Caucus since I have been in this body, I have tirelessly, again and again, spoken out on behalf of human rights abuses. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in at least three votes in this body over the past 2 years, we have overwhelmingly told the President to lift the arms embargo so that the Bosnian people could defend themselves, so that they, in fact, could have a level playing field, so that we could stop the abuses and stop the ethnic cleaning and stop the rape and torturing. Every time this Congress, in a strong bipartisan manner, told the President to lift the embargo, the President said, ``no.'' Yet last night on national TV, the President tells the American people that he is really that one concerned about these kids being killed and these women being raped and the ethic cleaning. Well, Mr. Speaker, what were we doing the past 2 or 3 years with all of these votes and these letters and these issues where we came forward and said, ``You have got to do something, Mr. President, about what is happening in the Balkans,'' and he did nothing. Now, all of a sudden the solution to all of these problems is to spend 20,000 of our kids into the Balkans on the ground in the middle of this controversy. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no justification for the President to make the statement that he made last night that he is the only one concerned with the moral issue of why we should be involved. There are steps that we could have and should have taken over the last 2 years to help even the playing field in the Balkans and we did not do it. Not because the Congress would not act, but because the President would not listen. These were not just Republicans speaking. These were Republicans and Democrats. Some of the most eloquent leaders on lifting the arms sanctions and the arms embargo were on the minority side of the aisle; not just on the Republican side. What really bothered me about the speech that the President made last night, at the end, Mr. Speaker, was when he alluded to a conversation that he had with the Pope. I really though it was grasping for straws when President Clinton basically said, The Pope told me to do it. Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for the Vatican and for the Holy Father and for the leadership he provides for the world's Catholics. But, Mr. Speaker, to use a comment that supposedly have been attributed to the Pope as the political justification boggles my mind. As one of our colleagues on the House floor said today, perhaps the President will tell us that he is going to change his stand on abortion, because I am sure the Holy Father talked to him about the sanctity of life, but I do not see President Clinton following the advice of the Pope on that issue, yet quoting the Pope in terms of taking this action in the Balkans. The third issue I want to take exception with the President last night, Mr. Speaker, deals with his trying to compare the Balkans to what happened in Desert Storm and what happened in Haiti and Somalia. First of all, Mr. Speaker, there are few, if any, similarities. In Desert Storm we have a figure who was destined to take over a major part of the world and threaten the security of not just one country but a freedom-loving people in the Middle East, including the State of Israel, and threatening to create anarchy in that part of the world. President Bush went to great lengths to line up allied support. Mr. Speaker, remember, that the cost of Desert Storm was not just in American lives and dollars, because as every Member, every one of our colleagues knows, the entire cost of Desert Storm, over $52 billion, was borne by those nations that benefited from our involvement. It was not a case where the United States went over and paid the bill and enticed people to come in by saying, ``We will pay your soldiers and provide them food and give them shelter, just be a part of the team.'' Mr. Speaker, in Desert Storm the parties who benefited most provided the dollars. And, yes, we did have an interest and, yes, we responded. And, yes, President Bush came to this Congress and asked for us to have an up-or-down vote in both bodies. I might add, Mr. Speaker, not one Member of the Democratic leadership at that time stood up and spoke for nor voted for the effort to send our troops into Desert Storm. Not one. Yet I am sure when we have a debate on this floor, every one of those Members will get up and support President Clinton's actions. There is irony in that statement. The President compared it to Haiti. Mr. Speaker, Haiti is not turning out to be the success that he promised. What has happened is we have spent about $2 billion of the U.S. taxpayers' dollars, and while the President has boasted about the other countries being involved, when he fails to tell the American people is that we paid for the bulk of their housing, their food, and their allowance support, subsistence support, to come to Haiti to be a part of that operation. So basically they were brought in because America agreed to foot the bill. The U.S. taxpayers agreed to foot the bill. And whether or not we have been successful in Haiti is still undetermined. There have been killings and assassinations down there on a regular basis. And many of us predict Haiti will go right back to the way it was once we have our presence totally removed from that country. Let us talk about Somalia, because perhaps here is what scares me the most, Mr. Speaker. Somalia is probably that area where we have been involved militarily that I think causes certainly me and many of our colleagues to feel most uncertain and concerned about what President Clinton wants to do in Bosnia. I remember well, Mr. Speaker, a meeting in mid-September, held in one of the largest meeting rooms in the basement of this building, when Secretary of Defense Aspin and Secretary Warren Christopher came into a meeting room filled with Members of Congress only. There were about 300 House and Senate Members there, after we had lost 18 young Americans who had been shot down over Mogadishu and had their bodies dragged through the streets because we did not have the backup troop support to go in and rescue them. When Les Aspin was asked why this happened, he eventually acknowledged that the commanding officer of the Somalian operation had in August requested additional backup support for our troops in that theater but that he and the administration denied that support. When asked why, Secretary Aspin said it was because of the hostile political environment inside the beltway, the first time since Vietnam that a political armchair decision in Washington affected military action in another part of the world. Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you this, as a member of the Committee on National Security, President Clinton is not going to repeat what he did in Somalia. If he, in fact, is successful in sending 20,000 ground troops into Bosnia, which I am certain he will be, whether or not we have a vote, he has already said he is sending the troops in, we are going to be very careful and we are going to be strident that this President is not going to call the political shots of what our military officers do in that theater. Because if our troops are committed by this Commander in Chief, then those calls have to be made by the commanding officer in charge of the theater of operation in Europe. Commander Joulwon who has the highest respect of most every Member of this body who knows him and the military leadership who serves under him should and will be making those calls. And the one thing that we will be focusing on, since we will probably not be able to stop the President from asserting troops in Bosnia, will be to make sure that General Joulwon gets [[Page H 13728]] every bit of support that he needs to maintain the safety of our troops. We want to make sure that there is no second guessing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as there was in Somalia, saying, General Joulwon, we cannot send in more troops, we cannot send you more equipment because it is not the right political climate in Washington. If this President follows through on his commitment to send 20,000 ground troops into Bosnia, then this President better be prepared to let General Joulwon call the shots in terms of what support he needs to protect our troops, even though many of us in this body, including myself, have great hesitation with any ground troops going into Bosnia whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, most of us have resigned ourselves to the fact that we cannot stop the troops from being sent over there. The President is in fact the Commander in chief of our military. I acknowledge that. He has that function. He has the ability to commit our troops to any part of the world, even though twice in my lifetime, it has been this Congress, under Democrats, who have cut off funding for our military as a way to bring our troops back home from Vietnam and from Somalia. So this President will in fact send our troops. Whether we have a vote or not here will not matter. He has already ignored the will of the Congress in terms of lifting the arms embargo over the past 2 years, and he has already ignored the will of the Congress three times in the last 2 months. Because three times since August, Mr. Speaker, this body and the other body have taken specific votes to say to the President, do not commit ground troops. Aerial support, logistical support, other types of aerial attacks and other types of support that we can provide, okay, but do not commit ground troops. And those votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. They were not Republicans. There were Democrats and Republicans together. What did President Clinton do? For the past 3 months he has ignored those votes. Even last week, the week before, before the agreement was initialed in Dayton, OH, this body again went on record saying, Mr. President, do not commit ground troops. He is going to send ground troops whether we have another vote or not. But what we will do in this body is, we will make sure that we do not have a repeat of the Clinton Somalia debacle where American kids who were sent to a foreign country are allowed to be put at risk and, in the case of Somalia, 18 of them coming home in body bags after their bodies were dragged through the streets of downtown Mogadishu. With every ounce of energy in my body, Mr. Speaker, that is not going to happen this time. The President may have his way in sending the troops in, but we who are on the Committee on National Security and those of us in the bipartisan manner in this Congress will work to make sure that our troops are given every possible means of support that they need with no second-guessing coming from the bureaucracy inside the Beltway here, letting our military leadership that has been assigned to this operation, in this case General Joulwon, make those decisions and have the full support he needs. Mr. Speaker, there are many other articles that I want to put in the Record and will do so either tonight or in special orders I will be taking out this week from news sources around the world where those people inside of the Balkans are questioning this agreement. We have to be aware of what the leadership in those countries are saying, not just what the three signatories to that agreement out in Dayton said, because they are three individuals. The question is, do they in fact represent the majority of the people in the Balkans? Are the people going to adhere? Are they going to cooperate with this peacekeeping force? If you read some of the FBIS articles that have come out over the past several days, I have grave concerns. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to enter into the Record an article that was printed in the Belgrade Nasa Borba in Serbo-Croatian, its November 22 edition, relative to the political parties and the peace accord and statements specifically that Serbian Radical Party President Vojislav Seselj exclaimed, and I quote, ``The biggest betrayal of the Serbian nation has just been committed.'' In stark opposition to the prevailing positive reactions to the agreement, Serbian Radical Party President Vojislav Seselj, according to BETA, exclaimed that ``the biggest betrayal of the Serbian nation has just been committed.'' I ask to include in the Record articles, again from FBIS reports, quoting a leading Bosnian Serb official Momcilo Krajisnik in terms of his refusal to sign on to the accord and explaining his opposition and how this agreement is a sellout of the Serbs. [FBIS Transcribed Text, Nov. 21, 1995] Plan ``Not Accepted'' by Serbs Sarajevo (AFP).--A senior Bosnian Serb official warned late Tuesday [21 November] that the peace accord agreed in Dayton, Ohio does not satisfy ``even a minimum'' of their demands. Quoted by the Bosnian Serb official media, ``parliamentary speaker'' Momcilo Krajisnik said: ``The agreement that has been reached does not satisfy even a minimum of our interests. Our delegation has not accepted the plan and we were unanimous on that.'' I also ask to include articles, again from the FBIS reports, from the Banja Luka Srpska Televizija, a TV station in Banja Luka, relative to the explanation of the accord and saying that, ``The people, the Serbs are not intimidated by the Dayton agreement, they are not intimidated by the Dayton agreement in terms of what it is going to do to their nation.'' Further go on to quote in the same article, we will never give up Sarajevo, dead or alive, let everyone know that. If I were able to talk to both Clinton and Christopher like our delegation that went to negotiate, I would tell them not to play with the Serbs. It goes on to further say, there is no Serb who would leave this and leave the Serb land behind. And it further goes on to say, they will not be frightened of the signatures from Dayton, speaking of the Serbs in Bosnia. [FBIS Translated Text, Nov. 23, 1995] Serbs in Sarajevo Await ``Explanation'' of Accord (Report by Draga Grubic) The signing of the Dayton peace agreement has recently engrossed the citizens of Serb Sarajevo as the event on which they pinned their hope and survival. Now that the results of the talks have been revealed, the people of Sarajevo expect official explanation of the agreement that is to determine their destiny as well as the future of the second largest Serb town in former Yugoslavia. Neither the joint Croat- Muslim enemy, NATO jets, nor rapid reaction mortars managed to send the locals into exile and they are not intimidated by the Dayton agreement either.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am not here to use my vote to undermine our President. I am an ardent supporter of our military, and I am a strong supporter of humanitarian aid to the people in Bosnia. For the past 3 years I have worked with the gentleman who is here in the room with us tonight, John Jordan, and a volunteer firefighter from Rhode Island, who went to Sarajevo to help provide emergency relief to the citizens of all factions, the Serbs, Croats, and Moslems. He spent 3 years, was recognized by ABC News as their person of the week because of his unselfish efforts on the part of peace. The United Nations eventually canceled their support of him after 2\1/2\ years, and our State Department refused to pick it up. But we did provide that assistance, tons of relief, and John Jordan was key in that process. I am concerned like everyone else about the cost, but the key concern here is the troops, the boys and the girls, the men and the women, the sons and the daughters of America who are going to be sent to this region without the support of this Congress on the ground. I would support the use of aircraft, sealift, and air strikes, but we will not have that chance to vote on when the President comes back to us, because the decision will have already been made for us. When I had to make up my mind this morning about what to do on this issue, I did not seek Warren Christopher and his armchair estimates or the President or any of my colleagues. I went to John Jordan. John Jordan was shot twice directly in Sarajevo. John Jordan has had concussions. In fact, he has been wounded by shrapnel, had his chest beaten in by the butt of a rifle trying to rescue citizens in Sarajevo. In an AP interview, this is what John Jordan had to say, and I encourage every one of my colleagues on both sides to read this quote in its entirety. This is not someone from Washington sending our boys over there and our girls over there, and this is the only chance you are going to get to vote on this. Read what John Jordan had to say about the Serb commander saying to him, ``I really wish the U.S., instead of the French, were running the airport,'' they said to him many times. ``If we can just get enough of you in one place at one time, we can kill 200 or 300 of you. You will be out of this war forever, and you will not be a problem anymore. You will leave just like you left Beirut.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about, and, my colleagues, you will not have a chance to vote on ground troops again, because the President will come back already committed to it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Hefley amendment. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following letter for the Record. November 17, 1995. Hon. Curt Weldon, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Weldon: Congress and the President each have their own criteria regarding deployment of American troops to Bosnia. All these criteria ignore one important fact. The war in Bosnia is not about Bosnia. It is in fact about one man, Slobodan Milosevic, turning neighbor on neighbor via his control of the media long before the first shot was fired. To those of us who have fought fire and war in Bosnia, the thought of American troops sitting between victims and aggressors is a living nightmare. The picture of American troops deployed to ensure ``only half'' of Bosnia is stolen is too ugly to contemplate. Our troops will become casualties of both the aggressors and those who thought they were about to be saved. Time and time again during my team's stay in Bosnia, we were warned by Serb commanders, ``If we could just get enough Americans here and kill them, America would leave like they did in Beirut and Somalia.'' At that point, the Serbs believe they will be able to finish off Bosnia. There is no peace process worth the paper it is printed on if it is signed by Mr. Milosevic. Our troops should not be deployed on the basis of goodwill with a mass murderer. Speaking for myself and those who have fought to see that Bosnia was not exterminated, we would rather see no deployment at all, to the choice of seeing U.S. troops supervising an honorless plea-bargain with the perpetrators of genocide. I urge you to do all in your power to prevent this deployment from proceeding. Sincerely, John Jordan Chief, Global Operation Fire Rescue Services.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. Bill Clinton was elected with a minority of voters, 43 percent, fewer votes than Michael Dukakis got when he lost to George Bush in a rout. Bill Clinton had his policies overwhelmingly rejected nationwide 2 years later when both the House and Senate went Republican for the first time in 40 years. Bill Clinton has been rejected by over 150 elected officials, elected with a minority of 150 of voters, officials, including six Members of Congress who have left his own party since he has taken office. Bill Clinton has said publicly in a variety of occasions that he would balance the Federal budget in 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years. Bill Clinton, in his first State of the Union Address, pointedly chided House Republicans by saying he would force truth in budgeting by using CBO scoring numbers. Now he would have us and the people of this country believe and trust him and believe that he represents what the people of America want. Absolutely amazing.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I want to commend Chairman Young and Vice Chairman Murtha. It is a good bill, in an impossible situation. I did not support every weapons system in this bill, but this is the best bill that we could come up with and one that I strongly support. I want to thank the committee for supporting military personnel, especially our health care system. I can personally attest to its excellence. I want to thank the committee for its emphasis on missile defense. Contrary to what we have heard on this floor, the threat has not gone away. When Russia goes all the way to the top, when the Norwegians launch a missile, a satellite missile, and activate their entire missile defense system to the point of almost launching an attack against this country, there is something we have to be on the alert for. When the Russians are offering to sell their SS-25 technology to Third World nations, we have to be prepared. When the North Koreans and the Chinese are building missiles that can hit our mainland, we have got to be able to increase missile defense funding, and this bill does that. [[Page H 13061]] I want to thank the committee, also, and I want to say to my colleagues who say we have not cut defense, would you please tell the 1 million members of the UAW, the machinists union, the electrical workers union, that we have not cut their jobs? Would you be the one to tell them? For those who want to support sending our troops to Bosnia, tell us where we are going to get the $1.5 billion that you do not want to support in this bill. This is a good bill. Let us vote ``yes.''

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening for a brief period of time to say thank you. Today is my first day back in the session after approximately 3 weeks of recovering, becoming a member of what is known as the zipper club. Never would I have thought that at the age of 48 I would have to undergo open heart surgery, but I did. And I am here to say thank you to a lot of people who made my past 3 weeks very worthwhile and profitable and who certainly helped me in a period of need. Let me first of all say, Mr. Speaker, that it was 3 weeks ago last Friday, after I had gone to the House Physician, Dr. John Eisold, who I have the highest respect for, and told him that I thought I had a fullness in my chest and sought some advice from him, that he suggested I go to the Bethesda Naval Hospital even though I reside in Pennsylvania. I took his advice that night after taking a stress test under his supervision and the supervision of Dr. David Ferguson, a Navy officer and physician at the Bethesda, and they realized a very abnormal EKG, and therefore the next day should undergo a catheterization process. I did that, Mr. Speaker, on that Friday morning and by 12 noon was under the surgeon's knife because of the need to conduct a surgery immediately. It turned out that I had 95- percent blockage of my main artery. Doctor Edward Zeck actually performed the surgery, and he also was a Navy physician and someone who I also hold with the highest respect. Mr. Speaker, here I am 3\1/2\ weeks later, able to come to the House floor and carry on the business of representing my constituents, and here I am in full health again, on the road to recovery, in fact 15 pounds lighter, although I would not suggest to any of my colleagues that this be a way that you lose weight. But the reason I take the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to thank some people; first of all to thank the Navy personnel who day in and day out provide health care for our enlisted personnel. I, as a Member of Congress stuck in Washington, had no place to go, and because of the recommendation of Dr. Eisold, I was referred to Bethesda. I received outstanding treatment, the same type of treatment that the people in the rooms next to me received, all of whom were enlisted personnel. There is nothing that I can say or do to make the case for the support for the medical services of our military personnel because they were just phenomenal. I also want to thank God, Mr. Speaker, because without his counsel and guidance and without the prayer of many of my constituents and colleagues in this body perhaps I would not have been able to avoid what the surgeons referred to as the widowmaker, the widowmaker being a 95-percent blockage that I had in my main descending artery. I want to thank my colleagues from this body who called, sent letters and cards, and who made their wishes known from both sides of the aisle. It certainly helped in my recovery. I want to thank my staff, my friends. I want to thank my family, my wife and five children, who put up with my past 3 weeks at home while watching C-SPAN, day and night, wishing I could be here getting involved in the issues of the day. I also want to thank my constituents who I think understand that I had to take some time off to recover to be able to be back here today to vote on the very important things that are coming before us in this session of Congress. But, Mr. Speaker, I also rise today, besides thanking many people including the good Navy folks at Bethesda, I rise to encourage my colleagues who sometimes, oftentimes, get caught up in the business of representing their constituents, to make sure they take time to look out for their own health. I did not. I never thought at 48 years old that I would be a prime candidate for open heart surgery. But because of all that fast food, all of those 18-hour days, all of those 7-day-a- week efforts, I did not take time to watch out for myself. So I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to take time out to check their own medical condition, to make sure that they take advantage of the medical technology that is out there today to have the kinds of success that I had in avoiding what would have been a catastrophic heart attack if I had not taken preventive efforts 3\1/2\ weeks ago. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heart filled with thanks and a heart that is filled with energy, ready to go and take on the battles, and I take time out from this heavy debate here on the [[Page H 12179]] floor to say thank you to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their thoughts, their cards, their prayers, and for being my friends.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we have heard in this debate on the floor today and over the past few months an unrelenting barrage of denial, disinformation, distortion, and demagoguery from the Democratic Party on the subject of Medicare. That's why it is no wonder so many senior citizens have expressed concerns about this bill. Denial, because the nonpartisan Medicare Board of Trustees, which includes three members of President Clinton's own Cabinet, issued a report in April stating that the Hospital Insurance trust fund will be able to pay benefits for only about 7 more years. The trustees said that even under the best estimates, if nothing is done, the trust fund will be exhausted by 2002. Yet the Democrats deny there is a problem and say do nothing. Disinformation, because the Democrats speak falsely of massive cuts in Medicare, when it can plainly be demonstrated that Medicare spending goes up each year under the Medicare Preservation Act, that we will spend almost $2,000 more per Medicare beneficiary by 2002 under this plan, and that there are no cuts. Distortion, because the Democrats want you to believe that these supposed cuts, which don't exist, will pay for Republican tax cuts for the rich, another figment of the Democrats' imaginations. Yet this bill contains a lock-box provision that puts all savings back into Medicare. Furthermore, the Republican tax cuts for the middle class--including a $500 a year credit per child for working families--has already been paid for by other savings in the Republican budget. We did that months ago. The Democrats choose to ignore that inconvenient fact. Demagoguery, because Democrats have engaged in a conscious effort to frighten senior citizens, to scare them into thinking someone is trying to take away their benefits. It is absolutely outrageous. They are sending videos to senior centers claiming that this bill will ``destroy Medicare, not save it.'' This prompted the dean of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer, to state, ``It's inappropriate to target a vulnerable population with that kind of information.'' It's far worse than inappropriate. It's offensive to suggest that Republicans don't care about seniors, that we want to harm seniors. My 85-year-old mother relies on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and I resent having anyone on the other side suggest that I don't care about my mother. That my party doesn't care about seniors. Despite the distortions, despite the demagogues, despite the bitterly partisan rhetoric, it is Republicans who are facing up to the problem and taking action to save Medicare. The Medicare Preservation Act does just what its name says. It preserves Medicare for seniors. It saves Medicare for the next generations. It strengthens Medicare for all of us. This bill will attack waste, fraud, and abuse. It will give [[Page H 10372]] seniors more health care choices. It does not raise copayments, deductibles, or premium rates. The Medicare Preservation Act ensures that Medicare will be there well into the future. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to join in support of this bill. It is our responsibility to act. We have to step up to the plate. No one else can. We must have the courage to act. Let us do the right thing and save Medicare.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is in support of the sea-grant program. As the former ranking member of the Oceanography Subcommittee and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and now a member of the Committee on Science, I support the program in its entirety. I am here today to offer an amendment which I understand Chairman Walker has agreed to accept, which would in fact raise the authorization level up to the amount that is being offered by my friend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. This removes the dispute in terms of the dollar amount, and also I think takes away what is I think the most egregious item in the Saxton amendment, which is the deauthorization of the whole program. If the Saxton amendment were to pass today as a part of our science bill, in effect the entire authorization for sea grant would be removed. They are telling us that it would be restored at some future time. That may or may not happen. What I am proposing is to raise the authorization level up to the exact same amount that my friend from New Jersey is offering today, because I support the program. The chairman has agreed to accept that funding level and to continue the program, and even to work with the Members and the committee individuals who have other changes they would like to make and perhaps would like to see come on a future authorization, which I am prepared to also support as the author of this amendment. The key thing I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman, and all of our colleagues should be concerned about here today is if the Saxton amendment passes today, the entire program is deauthorized. It is removed from the bill and there is in fact no sea-grant program in the science legislation. That I think would be a mistake. We have the commitment from Chairman Walker to work with us. We have the commitment from me, as the author of this perfecting amendment, to work with the members of the Committee on Resources on other concerns [[Page H 9927]] in two areas that they feel are important. I am committing to work with them publicly and to help them bring an authorization bill to the floor to deal with those other concerns. I would hope that our colleagues on the other side would support this effort, because it also allows us in this bill, where we consider the issue in the Committee on Science, to allow this program to be kept intact and increase the dollar amount. I would have offered this amendment to increase the dollar amount in committee, but the chairman wanted to keep the dollar amount in line with the budgetary number that was given to him, and therefore I did not offer that amendment. I am offering it today, and the chairman has graciously agreed to work with us. I think for the benefit of this program we ought to put aside the petty politics of the staff members who cannot agree on a common solution, and Members ought to come together and realize that those Members who support the program have a chance to keep the program intact, raise the dollar amount up and to work with the Committee on Resources on the concerns they have raised relative to two other specific parts of the program that they feel are not included in this bill. I would hope our colleagues would support it.