Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentlewoman support the President's plan?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentlewoman from California support the President's plan?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentlewoman from California, does she have a plan? Excuse me.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. OK, so the gentlewoman does not have to have a plan. Reclaiming my time. Moving on to the gentlewoman from California

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Well, whose plan is it?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Is there a plan?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No, which plan is it? Identify it by name.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, a very dear friend of the American fire service underwent bypass surgery this past week. On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus and the Congressional Fire Services Institute, I want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to Bob Barraclough for a speedy recovery. I have known Bob for many years. A native of Pennsylvania like myself, Bob got his start in the fire service as a youth spending time at the station house with his father who was a firefighter. For the past 15 years, Bob, himself, has served as a volunteer firefighter. Presently, he divides his time between business, Class 1, public speaking, and involvement with a number of fire-related associations. A strong supporter of CFSI, Bob is a major contributor to the institute's internship program. The program gives future leaders of the fire service invaluable Washington experience that will serve them well in the years ahead. I look forward to seeing Bob on his feet again soon. Until then, we in Washington send our best wishes to you, Bob, for a full recovery.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So if a State wants to designate a scenic byway and ban billboards even along those sections of the roadway passing through commercial or industrial areas, section 325 would not limit the State's ability to do that? Is that correct?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for that clarification, for his interest, and I also want to acknowledge the work of our State senate majority leader, Joe Loper, the speaker of the State house, Nat Ryan, whose district this road goes through, as well as our colleagues from Montgomery County, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], and from [[Page H 9294]] Delaware County and Philadelphia, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my good friend and distinguished leader, who has done a great job on this legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. I would like to ask the chairman for a clarification of the intent of section 325 of this bill, relating to the Federal ban on new billboards on scenic byways. My concern is over the effect of this section on roadways previously designated by States as scenic byways and which pass through industrial or commercial areas.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Where a State has previously designated a roadway as a scenic byway and has already exercised its discretion to ban billboards in commercial and industrial areas, as Pennsylvania has done in the case of the Blue Route, enactment of section 325 would not in any way disturb or invalidate the State's decision and no further action would be required by the State to maintain that ban?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 1883.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have been here 9 years, my third term, and I take great pride in working in a bipartisanship manner on a number of issues. On the Committee on National Security on defense; on environmental issues, through the GLOBE organization; on energy issues; labor issues; and issues affecting working people as well as natural and man-made disasters, reaching out to both sides of the aisle to reach common consensus. Mr. Speaker, after listening to what I heard for this past hour, and what I heard last night, I have to change the tone of my speech tonight. I would hope perhaps that some of my colleagues who are rushing out the doors will stick around for 5 minutes to hear what I have to say. We have heard the story about Chicken Little, that the sky is falling. We heard that from the Democrats when they said, under Ronald Reagan, that Republicans were going to end the Social Security system. We heard that from the Democrats and from the President when we announced our child nutrition program, and they were proven wrong again. And then we heard the same argument from the Democrats on the student aid debate, and then we found that there are, in fact, no cuts being proposed for student aid. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the same tired, worn out arguments on Medicare. Mr. Speaker, even senior Democrats nationally understand what is going on here. Let me quote, for instance, Democratic Mayor of Chicago, Bill Daley. He recently told The New York Times, and I quote Democrat Mayor Daley, ``The only message we have got is the same one we had in November: The Republicans are going to cut Social Security and Medicare. People look at it and say, Forget it. We do not buy that. The sky is not falling.'' Mr. Speaker, this is Democrat Mayor Bill Daley of Chicago saying that this is nothing more than the same old tired message attempting to scare people. The same thing we heard against seniors 4 years ago, against students and kids earlier this year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the people of America are listening to what we are doing and they are responding in overwhelming numbers. Let me give you some facts and statistics, and I will be happy to provide them to any of our colleagues who would like to come forth and ask for them. Since the Democratic convention in New York City 3 years ago, the Democrat party has lost a total of 685 Senators, House Members, Governors, State Senators and Representatives. That is 685 in just 3 years. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, last Friday, September 15, in Vice President Gore's home State of Tennessee, 2 Democrat Senators switched parties. Senator Milton Hamilton, Jr., and Rusty Crowe. When they switched to the Republican Party, they turned the Tennessee State Senate Republican for the first time since Reconstruction. Now, is this an exception? Mr. Speaker, since Bill Clinton took office, 132 publicly elected officials have switched parties. Zero have switched from Republican to Democrat, and yet 132 have switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. None have switched the other way. In fact, 37 Members of Congress who were Democrats since Bill Clinton took office have either resigned or announced their retirements to date, and more will follow. Another five, 2 U.S. Senators and 3 House Representatives, have switched to the Republican Party. An average of almost 1 Democrat U.S. Senator per month since Bill Clinton took office has either retired, resigned, or switched parties. Mr. Speaker the American people are listening and when we get beyond the Beltway, the breeze that is blowing across America is unbelievable. The American people are seeing beyond the type of demagoguery and rhetoric that we heard tonight and last night on the House Floor. In fact, in Georgia just 2 weeks ago, the first female district attorney switched parties. Lone rising star in Georgia, Cheryl Fisher Custer, switched to the Republican party. She said, ``There is a growing sentiment in this country that there must be a fundamental change in government. I believe that the Republican party offers the best opportunity to effect that change and bring about responsible, common sense government.'' Custer was the seventh Georgia Democrat elected official to switch to the Republican Party this year alone. Let us go beyond. It is not just the South, Mr. Speaker. Let us go up to Maine and look what happened in Maine back in August. Maine Representative Edgar Wheeler switched parties. He became the 113th Democrat to switch since Bill Clinton took office. Mr. Speaker, this is what he said: ``For several years, I have felt out of tune with the Democratic Party, and during my first year as a legislator I recognized how far apart I really am from the party.'' Mr. Speaker, all across America, beyond the Beltway, the people are speaking loud and clear. They are rejecting the Chicken Little story of the Democrats and they are understanding what we are doing and that is bringing some common sense back to this hallowed.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a tribute to a great Revolutionary War Hero, Commodore John Barry. This year we celebrate the 250th anniversary of Commodore Barry's birth. Born in 1745 in Ireland, he moved to Philadelphia approximately 15 years later, where he prospered as a shipmaster and owner. While in Philadelphia, he became a strong supporter of the Revolution, fervently espousing the doctrine of independence from the British Government. When the Revolution broke out, he enthusiastically offered his services to the Continental Congress, which gave him an independent command as captain of the brig Lexington. Less than 1 month after his commission, Captain Barry captured the first British warship to be taken under Continental Congress authority. Recognizing his great service in the fight for independence, the Continental Congress issued him another commission, as captain of the Effingham. Despite his eagerness to serve the cause, he was unable to launch the 32 gun vessel owing to the British occupation of Philadelphia. Nevertheless, using his ingenuity, resolve, and dedication to the Colonies, Captain Barry, with four small boats, captured two transports and a schooner during a daring raid in lower Delaware. This gallant effort brought the due praise of General Washington. Receiving another command aboard the Raleigh, Barry stubbornly defended the vessel against superior forces when confronted by the British on September 28, 1778. Outgunned, he was forced to beach the ship, but managed to save most of his crew. In 1781, Barry took command of the Alliance, and defeated the sloops H.M.S. Atalanta and H.M.S. Trepassey. In the last sea battle of the Revolution, Barry defeated the H.M.S. Sybil, adding this final victory of his list of successes in fighting for our young Nation. After the Revolution, in 1794, Barry was named the senior captain of the U.S. Navy. Four years latter, President George Washington recognized Barry's enormous contribution to our independence, appointing him commodore. He served as the head of the U.S. Navy until his death, on September 12, 1803. Commodore Barry's distinguished service to our country reminds us of the challenges that we, as a young nation, faced during our struggle for independence. Now, as we approach the 21st century, we should reflect back upon the heros of our past, to remind ourselves of their efforts to improve our great Nation. By following their example, we can prosper in this new era. Indeed, we face a promising future if we conduct ourselves with the same honor, courage, and dedication as did Commodore John Barry.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the resolution and to ask our colleagues to support the recommendations of the BRAC Commission. I cannot help but note the irony of today's debate. Where are our colleagues who yesterday were on the House floor saying that we have not cut defense; where are they today? Are they hiding in their offices? We heard all of these Members stand up and say we are not doing enough to cut defense. We need to the defense budget more and more. Where are they today as we are about to decide to close a number of additional installations that will affect ultimately over 1 million American people in both the services, the uniforms, [[Page H 8694]] and the industrial segment of our community and society who supports the military? Why are these cuts occurring? They are occurring because we have been on a dramatic downsizing of the military, unlike any other period in the history of this country, down to 3 percent of our GNP, and 16 cents of every Federal dollar, when you compare it to John Kennedy's tenure where we were spending 9 percent of our GNP and 55 cents of every Federal dollar on the military. We have made dramatic cuts. You are seeing the results of those cuts partially today. I think the BRAC Commission did a commendable job. I am not happy with everything they did. I have been trying for 8 years to close a facility in my old hometown. I testified three times before the commission, ``Close this Army facility down. We don't want it. The town doesn't want it. The county doesn't want it.'' Again, it is not on the list for closure. So I do not like that, and I will be happy to be back again next year either legislatively or before the BRAC Commission to close it again. I can tell you this Commission accepted a higher percentage of Pentagon recommendations than any other commission, and despite what President Clinton said, this Commission came up with more savings than what the administration had. But what really outrages me, what really outrages me as a member of the Committee on National Security and as someone who is going to, at the end of this month, see the last of 13,000 workers leave the Philadelphia Navy Yard, the Philadelphia Navy Base, and before that, the Philadelphia naval hospital, is to see this President play partisan politics with the lives of people in the military. It is an absolutely disgusting outrage. Again, this President wants to have it both ways. He does not have the backbone or the guts to stand up and disapprove the list and send it back for a reconsideration of McClellan or Kelly. What does he do? He signs it and then sends a letter down saying, ``I really don't want to sign it.'' Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. But that is what this President did. I would like to, at this point in time, ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, is it your distinguished interpretation that that letter has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever in this process?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for that comment. I would add it is the feeling of this committee that that letter has no standing whatsoever. It is a political document. But I would say to the President, Where is your letter for the 13,000 Philadelphia, PA, tri-State workers that are going to be laid off at the end of this month? Where is your letter of concern for them? Where is your letter of concern for all of those other bases, or are we just pandering to one State because of the electoral votes there? Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely outraged at, again, the lowness of the depths that this President would take in this process. He has demeaned the Commission. He has demeaned the process. But somehow that does not surprise me. Vote ``no.''

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I think the easiest course to take perhaps on this bill would be to support an amendment that would cut the intelligence funding that is so vital for our national security in a time when we are making tough decisions. But our job here in Washington is to look beyond what is the superficially easy answer and decision and to look at what in fact substantively is needed. I spent the greater part of the break updating myself on what is happening in the former Soviet republics, and I hope my colleagues did the same. I would encourage my colleagues who may not have read what has been called perhaps the most important foreign policy book of this year, to read the book called Zhirinovsky. This book came out in the end of June 1995, and is a very intensely researched document by two leading Russian writers on Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is leading the National Liberal Democratic Party. Zhirinovsky, as most of our colleagues know, his party won a majority of the seats in the Duma elections last year and stands to make significant gains in the elections in Russia this coming year. For those who would argue that the threat from the former Soviet Union no longer exists, I would say take some time to read and update yourselves, whether it is through this particular book, which is a factual documentation, or perhaps the daily FIBUS reports which all of you have access to, which I read every day, on what is happening inside the former Soviet republics. I take great pride in reaching out to the former Soviet Union. I cochair the energy caucus with the Russian Duma members, I cochair the environmental effort, and I work with them regularly. But we have to understand, the military leadership in Russia today is the same military leadership that was there when it was the Soviet Union. They have not gone away. They have not run off and converted themselves. The generals in charge are the same generals who were in charge when it was a Communist state, and if you look at what is happening with the intelligence reports that we have access to as Members, they are planning on playing a major role in the upcoming Duma elections this December. For those who say we can ignore all of this and that we can somehow put our heads in the sand and think that all is rosy, you are just not being honest with yourself or with the American people, because that is not factually borne out by what is happening in that country. There is tremendous turmoil in Russia. There is turmoil in Ukraine. We had the President of Belarus, just 1 month ago, say he was no longer going to allow the return of the SS-25 missiles. He said he is going to keep them on his own soil, because Russia was not giving enough money to assist in dismantling those missiles. Those are the same missiles, by the way, that have a range of 5,500 kilometers, that can hit any city in America. Mr. Chairman, I am not here as an alarmist, but what I am asking our colleagues to do is to read factual information. If my colleagues would like to read the book on Zhirinovsky if they have the time, I will provide a copy to them. If they would like to read the FIBUS reports, I will summarize them for them. If you would like to meet with some of the 100 Duma members I met with this year, I will arrange for that. You can laugh all you want. We are talking about a serious issue. The point is, Mr. Chairman, that what we are doing here I think could really shortchange not just our military but the security of the free world. It might sound good to make a 10-percent cut in the intelligence budget. That is absolutely the wrong decision to be making on this bill, and I would encourage our colleagues to reject this amendment and support efforts to beef up our understanding of what is happening in the former Soviet republics.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I would just like to say I cannot believe the discussion here. I would like for our colleagues to tell the 1 million men and women in this country who lost their jobs in the defense industry over the past 2 years that there are no cuts being made. I would like my colleagues to tell them what they have said on the floor today, that we have not been tough with defense spending. And where do we get this dollar amount from? We are giving the President all this new money. I was President Clinton's bottom-up review who laid out the scenario for how much money we are going to need over the next 5 years. We have heard the chairman of the full committee mention the General Accounting Office. It was the General Accounting Office who said that we are $150 billion short just to meet the President's bottom-up review, and the Congressional Budget Office said we are at least $60 billion short, and we are only increasing it by a very small amount. In fact, all we are doing is stabilizing defense spending. I would urge our colleagues to reject this amendment and to support this very tough defense budget that I think has been crafted very wisely by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this resolution lifting the embargo. And in coming up with my reasoning in terms of my decision, I sought the support and input of that one person who perhaps is the most well-versed American in terms of what our policy should be. John Jordan is a volunteer firefighter from Rhode Island. As my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Hoyer], on the other side knows, John Jordan went over to Sarajevo 3 years ago as a volunteer to work with the Sarajevo fire brigade, to establish emergency response service for the people in that country, be they Serbs, Muslims, Croats, whatever they might be. John Jordan has been there every day for the last 3 years. I called John Jordan on the phone, as I caught him on the way back to Sarajevo today. He said, ``Curt, we have to lift the arms embargo.'' Two years ago he brought Kenan Slinic over here, a 31-year-old fire chief from Sarajevo who was protecting the lives of the people in Sarajevo. Kenan Slinic met with the Vice President; he met with us at our dinner and spoke to us. He pleaded with us, I have his original notes from his speech, his handwritten notes, he pleaded with us to allow his people to defend themselves 2 years ago. Because he spoke out, when he went back to his homeland, he was shot in the back of the head and killed and his six-year-old child today does not have a father. Mr. Chairman, this has gone on too long. The policy is not working. We have to create a level playing field. John Jordan also said to me, ``Curt, you have got to provide some support to bring your relief workers out.'' I agree with that. He said, ``We have got to provide support until the arms can reach the appropriate groups inside of the afflicted area.'' I agree with that. Mr. Chairman, in the end we have to lift the embargo to give these people a chance, to give them the opportunity to defend themselves. We have heard story after story about the atrocities occurring in that country. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the resolution in honor of those people who have suffered so much.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the entire hour, but rise this evening to focus on an issue that will be heavily discussed tomorrow and later this week as we vote on the next fiscal year Defense appropriation bill. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we approach defense spending in this day and age with a very cautious eye to what is happening, not just in the Soviet Union, but around the world. To that extent, I will be entering some documents into the Record this evening. I think Members should especially focus on, not just for the votes that will occur tomorrow and the rest of the week, but also for debate that we will be having further on in this session of Congress, during the conference process and as we begin to debate the relative importance of continuing within the confines of the ABM Treaty. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say I rise as a 9-year member of the National Security Committee and the current chairman of the Research and Development Subcommittee, and as someone who is not just a self-proclaimed hardliner when it comes to dealing with the former Soviet Union and now Russia, as well as those rogue nations around the world, but as someone who spent the bulk of my last 20 years working on building bridges with the Russian people. My approach to Russia is one of pragmatism. Reach out to the Russian people, work with them, build relationships on trust and mutual cooperation, but hold them accountable when they violate treaties on defense and foreign policy issues. My background is in Russian studies, my undergraduate degree is in that area. Twenty years ago I spoke the language fluently. I have traveled throughout the country, stayed in Russian people's homes, and I have this year hosted well over 100 members of the Duma in various meetings and sessions. Mr. Speaker, currently I am the cochair of the Russian-American Energy Caucus with my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, Greg Laughlin, on the Republican side, and the gentleman from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, and the gentleman from Illinois, Glenn Poshard, on the Democratic side. Working with the 16 multinational energy corporations, we attempt to foster relationships that build bridges between our energy corporations and joint venture opportunities in Russia to allow them to bring in the hard currency they need. Most recently, this past year, we worked with our administration and the Yeltsin administration and members of the Duma to complete the final support and approval within the Duma for the Sakhalin project, a project that is in fact the largest energy project in the history of not just Russia, but the entire world, that will ultimately see approximately $10 to $15 billion of western investment through companies like McDermott Marathon go into the Sakhalin area for development of Russian energy resources. Mr. Speaker, we are also working on the Caspian Sea project, which we hope will provide a force to unify some of the warring factions down in the Caspian Sea area, and also further help stabilize the Russian economy through development of their energy resources. Mr. Speaker, I also cochair an effort working with the Duma members on environmental issues. Just last year I led a delegation of Members to Murmansk, the North Sea fleet, to talk about how we could work with them in finding ways of disposing of the Russian nuclear waste that is coming from the dismantlement of their ships and their submarines, as well as to try to help the Russians stop what has been a recurring practice over the past two decades of dumping nuclear reactors and nuclear waste into the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, and even out in the East, in the Sea of Japan. That effort is paying tremendous dividends, and there is an ongoing effort right now among members of the parliaments of not just Russia, but the European Parliament, the Japanese Diet, and our Congress to focus on this as one of our major priorities, the stopping of all dumping of waste, especially nuclear waste, in the oceans of the world. To that extent we held a conference here in Washington just a month ago where we had attendees from Russia, Japan, Europe, and the United States in trying to form a cooperative relationship in dealing with these problems. Mr. Speaker, we are currently working with the Russian shipyard at St. Petersburg, the Baltic shipyard, to convert it to an environmental remediation center, where Russian workers who formerly built warships can be trained to dismantle old rusty vessels where the steel can be melted down and reused to benefit the Russian economy. Mr. Speaker, we are working in Siberia, Nizhneyansk, in a joint venture to establish environmental opportunities with American firms and Russian firms to create jobs and economic opportunity and to also help stabilize environmental problems in Russia. Third, Mr. Speaker, we are working on an effort to establish a joint Duma-Congress relationship between members of the Duma Defense Committee and members of our National Security Committee. Two months ago, the gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, chairman of the Committee on National Security, the gentleman from Louisiana, Bob Livingston, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from California, Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and I met for 3 hours with five members of the Russian Duma Defense Committee. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that meeting was to reach out to them and say look, we are not out to establish some kind of a dominant relationship over your people or your country, we are out to work with you, to change the whole notion of the way that we focus our efforts in the world, so that instead of building up more and more nuclear weapons and continuing this ridiculous posture of mutually assured destruction, to move toward a defensive posture where we asked the Russians and their leadership and their technical experts to work with us in developing defensive capabilities, much like Ronald Reagan first proposed some 10 years ago. In fact, we had that meeting, which was very successful, and we are currently planning on taking a group of similar leaders to Russia to continue that dialog with members of the Russia Duma Defense Committee. Mr. Speaker, all of these efforts are designed to show that yes, we must reach out to the Russian people, to their government, to their leaders, to show them that we sincerely want to work with them to bring about the economic reforms that they want, the political reforms, the freedoms that they long for. But at the same time, we must not underestimate what is happening within the former Soviet Union, and now Russian, military. Many of those military leaders there today were in power during the Soviet regime. Many of the ideals and goals of those leaders are similar today to what they were then, and we must understand that. We must deal with the Russian leadership from a position of understanding while showing compassion and willingness to work with them to help stabilize their economy and their country. Mr. Speaker, before continuing, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].