Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], but to enthusiastically endorse the amendment being offered here today. Mr. Chairman, I consider myself a pragmatist and someone who tries to look for the middle ground on issues, whether it is environmental safety versus job creation, or worker rights versus the rights of the company management. In this case, I ask my colleagues on the Republican side to look carefully at what we are doing here. Mr. Chairman, some of these riders may, in fact, be very valid. I am not here to speak against all of the provisions, but I can tell my colleagues that some of them, to me, on the surface and substantively are very egregious. We should move very carefully on this amendment. I say to my colleagues on the Republican side, everyone is watching this vote, their Governors, their local officials. In my State, it is going to devastate some positive impacts being made on clean water, on sewage discharge. I would urge my Republican colleagues, please look carefully at this vote, and support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to praise the good work of our chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their cooperation in bringing about this bipartisan compromise. As a member of the Committee on Science and chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development for the Committee on National Security, I am very concerned about the cuts that are being made to the NOAA accounts and the cuts that are being made in ocean research and ocean programs. While I am not totally pleased with the amount of money this puts back in, I think this does make a statement that we want to keep our ocean research programs in place, that we want to place additional funds into the coastal zone management program, that we want to support the marine fisheries programs, all of which are extremely important. This is a necessary compromise. I wish we could go further, but in this tough budget environment it is the best we could get. I want to thank both sides for working this agreement out, and hopefully we can continue to work in a bipartisan manner for the good of our world oceans and world cooperation in these issues in the future.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the leadership of the other side and the chairman of the authorizing committee [Mr. Young of Alaska], for their work on behalf of resolving this issue which is extremely important to all of us in this country, especially the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and I, who serve as representatives of this body on the Migratory Bird Commission. This will allow us to continue to voluntarily set aside land to be used for our refuge system and for the migratory bird flyways of this country and throughout North America. In fact, if this amendment had not been ruled in order and accepted by the chairman, we could have seen 3,500 to 5,000 less acres set aside voluntarily in the next fiscal year. I might add for my colleagues on both sides, this is a total voluntary program; no condemnation, no taking. This is done through voluntary purchases and setting aside of land to be used for the flyways of our migratory birds. Since the existence of this program, over 4 million acres of land have been set aside for this purpose. It is supported by groups as diverse as the NRA to Ducks Unlimited to the Nature Conservancy. I applaud the leaders on both sides for this amendment, for accepting it, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and certainly the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, when an American flag flies on the stern of a Merchant Marine ship for several years, that flag becomes a symbol of the values and ideals for which the Merchant Marine has fought to preserve and protect in both war and peace. But just as important, that same flag becomes a symbol for the pride, dedication, and sentiments of the seaman who served on that ship's crew for so many years. To scrap the ship, and thus to never let that flag fly again, would be a tragic dishonor to the American colors and to the patriotism of those servicemen who worked under them. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what is happening to the SS John Lykes. William Steadman, a constituent from my district, recently sent me a copy of a letter to President Clinton from the captain, officers, and crew of this Merchant Marine ship which was scrapped along with 14 others in 1994. Mr. Speaker, that ship represents the culmination of 35 years of service from 87 seamen a year in the Merchant Marines. And it is only one of many in the Merchant Marine fleet that is suffering this fate. This letter from the captain and crew of the SS John Lykes makes a passionate plea to save the Merchant Marines. Our servicemen are pleading to us for help, and they cannot be ignored. As a member of the former Merchant Marine Committee and of the current Merchant Marine panel, I fully understand the implications of this terrible process by which the Merchant Marine, which has so faithfully served our country in war and peace, is becoming extinct. Our Federal Government is making a big mistake, and it must be stopped. The following letter from the captain and crew of the SS John Lykes explains their sentiments very clearly and boldly. I urge President Clinton to listen to their message. Though it may be too late to save the SS John Lykes, it is our duty to our service members to keep its sister ships in the Merchant Marine faithfully serving our country, and along with them, the American flag flying proudly. Mr. President: Enclosed is the last American flag flown from the stern of the SS John Lykes. One of the 15 Lykes ships scrapped since 1994. This American flag last flew on March 12, 1995, Port of New Orleans. It will never fly at a U.S. port again. This flag represents 35 years of U.S. citizen income taxes paid to the U.S. Government. For every tax dollar spent on cargo preference and subsidies the U.S. Government received back their investment plus 15 percent profit. For 35 years, 87 seamen a year were employed on this ship. Countless mortgages and children's tuition were paid by these seamen during those years, which would not have been possible without the flag you are now holding Mr. President. This flag has made possible the American dream for thousands of merchant seamen and their families. Now the U.S. Government and its agencies are in the process of destroying the U.S. flag fleet. Since 1776 the U.S. Government has treated American seamen with indifference in peacetime, and as a vital resource during war and conflict. Since 1776 countless abuses have been heaped on American seamen. But the American seaman has been there for his country for every conflict since then. Now the U.S. Government is on the verge of eliminating the American flag because of corporate greed, putting thousands of seamen out of work. Mr. President, we men of the U.S. merchant marine love our country and love our flag. We also know that patriotism and love of country are not emotions you are born with. They are instilled in you through the years with love from family and faith in God and Country. Mr. President, a flag that is not worth working under, is not worth fighting for, and a flag that is not worth fighting for, is not worth dying for. Mr. President, you have the bridge. You are not responsible for the incompetent policies of the past but you must fight for the American flag just as we do. The American flag will either sink or continue flying proudly on your watch. Signed, Master, Officers and Crew, SS John Lykes.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I do rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], my good friend, and in support of the compromise offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and modified by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen]. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was on the floor of the House perhaps leading the fight on increasing funds for missile defense and for putting some limitations on Nunn-Lugar money so that we could get some cooperation from the Russians on their chemical and biological weapons. But, Mr. Chairman, this amendment I think sends a totally wrong signal. It is important for us, I think, to let the Russian military know that we are going to deal with them from a position of strength and that we are going to take what steps we have to take to protect our people. But it is equally important for us to send a signal to the Russian people, and the citizens of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and Tadzhikistan, and all [[Page H 6359]] those other former Soviet republics, that we are going to work with them to help them move away from a military-industrial economy, move toward a free market system. That is what this money does, Mr. Chairman. I think that this amendment sends the wrong signal. Let us look at some of the specific programs that have benefited from this funding. I will just give some examples of ones that I have been working with. Our good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] and I for the last 2\1/2\ years have cochaired the Former Soviet Union-American Energy Caucus. We have worked with the 16 largest energy corporations in the world, most of them American corporations, to develop energy initiatives inside the former Soviet republics. The assistance from programs like those funded today made possible the single largest energy deal in the world. The Sakhalin project deal was just concluded this past year. It will see $10 billion of western investment that will allow Mobil and Marathon Corp. to work with the Russians in developing what we think is one of the world's largest energy resources. That will directly benefit this country, private sector money, western capital, and help stabilize the Russian economy. The same thing is happening right now in the Caspian Sea where we are working with a group that wants to develop a project and a pipeline that may help us bring together the Armenians and the Azeris in a way that will allow then to see economic benefits from a project developing energy resources in the Caspian Sea. Why are these projects so important? The alternative for the Russian people, and those people of the other former Soviet republics, is to sell off their nuclear technology; that is unacceptable to us. To sell off their conventional arms to raise capital; that is unacceptable to us. We have seen them do it with the submarine sales to Iran with the efforts to sell off their technology. Therefore, we must work in a positive way to develop joint economic opportunities and to help the Russians realize their full economic potential. Just last year a delegation of the Members of this Congress, bipartisan, went over to Murmansk, and we came back and worked with the Trade Development Administration. We have heard criticism about consultants. The Trade Development Administration awarded a $300,000 grant to the MacKinnon Searle Group of Virginia to begin the study of the conversion of the largest shipyard in St. Petersburg. The Baltic shipyards in St. Petersburg is where the Russians built the Kirov-class warships, where they have potential to build nuclear warships, 8,500 workers. Money that will be cut in this amendment was used to begin the process of converting that shipyard to an environmental remediation center where instead of building warships, those 8,500 workers can help dismantle old Russian warships and deal with PCB's and lead-based paints and the other problems inherent in naval warships. In addition, we have seen from the funding that would be cut in this amendment the development of an Biz-net program. And I urge my colleagues to do down to the Department of Commerce and see the tremendous strides made in working to encourage American businesses to do joint ventures in Russia and the other republics. That is creating American jobs and American economic opportunity, but it is having a direct positive impact on the Russian economy and the economy of the other republics. Mr. Chairman, I am as concerned about what is happening in Chechnya as any of my colleagues in this body. But, Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment sends the wrong signal. I think we have to be aggressive with the Russian Government, as we did on the defense bill. But I think we also have to show that we want to be supportive; we want to nurture the free enterprise developments that are occurring there; we want to encourage the kind of positive economic opportunities that are developing throughout the former Soviet states today. So I would urge my colleagues, despite my friendship with the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], to oppose this amendment and to support the efforts of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and also the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] in this amending process.

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. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to applaud the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking member, for doing a fantastic job in an extremely difficult situation. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to one issue during the brief time that I have here today, and that is the issue of the elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment. As a senior member of the Committee on Science and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, it is extremely important that we not take this short-sighted approach to eliminate what amounts to approximately a $22 million item in our legislative branch appropriations bill. The Office of Technology Assessment touches the acts of this Congress in ways that none of us really are aware of or understand. In the area of defense, the subcommittee that I chair [[Page H 6175]] oversees approximately $35 billion of expenditures. That is more than five Cabinet-level agencies. Much of the research that we do is dependent upon the long-term work that has been done by the Office of Technology Assessment. Just last week we marked up the 1996 authorization bill for the military and we plussed up the national missile defense accounts and theater missile defense accounts by $800 million. Much of the documentation and the arguments to justify that plus-up came from reports and studies done by the Office of Technology Assessment; their study on missile proliferation around the world, their work on the development of arms and the need for arms control and the needs of defending the American people. All of that factual investigative work that took in some cases months and years was done by OTA. It would be extremely short-sighted for us to eliminate this agency. And, in fact, we and the taxpayers would be the losers in the end. And there is no other agency that can do that work. I know there are going to be amendments offered by our colleagues. And I would say to our colleagues here, support those amendments, whether it is by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] or by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], who I am here to help today. Even if you are not satisfied with where the money will come from, we can send a message to the conference committee that we want OTA to be saved. It is important for this Congress and it is important to the issues that we deal with.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, one of the responsibilities that we in the Congress have is to take the recommendations of the administration and then act to authorize and appropriate various levels of dollars. That is our fundamental responsibility. If the sponsor of this amendment thinks that we should not fund anything except what the administration asks for, then in fact this year he will be opposing $9.7 billion of items that this Congress added in to defense spending, both in the bill that we passed last year and in the MILCON bill that we are about to act on today. What I find a little bit disingenuous here is that the gentleman who offered this amendment last week voted in favor of the B-2 bomber, which I happen to oppose, by the way, despite the support of my party. He voted in favor of a $533 million add-on that the administration did not request. If you are going to be consistent, be consistent across the board. In addition, my good friend and colleague came into my office on May 23 at 4 in the afternoon bringing in some constituents from California, and asked me as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development to put in $34 million this year for the DAGGRS program, which would cost $25 million next year, $25 million in 1998 and $50 million in 1999. So here is a gentleman offering an amendment to eliminate $16 million that has been authorized and is about to be appropriated, when he himself came into my office and said, Well, Mr. Chairman, this hasn't been approved yet, and it's not been requested by the Pentagon, but could you see your way fit to put $34 million in this year's bill because it will really help me out back in my district. Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with that. I have a problem with Members of Congress who want to have two standards. I have fought long and hard as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development to take out items that were not justified by the military. That is not the case here. Anyone who works with our Navy knows that the advantage of our Navy over the former Soviet fleet and Russian fleet is our quietness, the ability to go through the oceans of the world and operate in a quiet manner. That is almost totally due to our propellers. Our propellers are only made in one shop, owned by the Government, in the entire country. That one shop, with a foundry, is in Philadelphia. As a matter of fact, the Russians have stolen the technology for our propeller operations, sold it to the Chinese, and are now competing with us in terms of quietness. What we have on the floor today is an amendment that takes $6 million away from improving that capability. This is not some pork project for some company. This is not some add-on. This is to improve a facility that today is costing American lives, in working to give our Navy the best technology available in terms of quite submarines and quiet ships. Mr. Chairman, I have a real problem with this. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to budget cutting. I will invite our colleagues to my office to show them my ``Golden Bulldogs'' which I too take great pride in receiving from Citizens Against Government Waste and the other watchdog groups. But we have to look beyond simplistic answers in trying to control spending. That is what this is. It is a simplistic notion that is not based on fact. The Navy has stated on the record that this facility is vital for our national security interests. It is vital for our Navy and our submarines to be the quietest in the world. This $6 million item is to improve the safety of those workers who work at that shipyard facility. It has nothing to do with base closing. The Philadelphia Navy Shipyard and the Philadelphia Naval Base, as my colleague said earlier, is in fact closing this September. But the Navy has never recommended closing the propeller shop because it is the only Government-owned and operated facility of its kind in the entire country. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage our colleagues to stand up and do the right thing here and to vote against this amendment because it is wrongheaded. It is not in the best interests of our country, it is not in the best interests of our Navy. And if we want to be consistent, perhaps I would ask the authors if they are going to stand up and oppose all $9.7 billion that this Congress last week put in, above and beyond what President Clinton's administration requested for defense spending. Because if you are going to be consistent, then that is exactly what you should do, and that is not in fact what the responsibility of this body and the other body is. Our responsibility is to take the recommendations, the requests of the administration, to hold hearings and to finally act on those. In this case, we have projects that the administration says are warranted but just those that were not originally requested. I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and to vote ``yes'' for what is important, as determined by the distinguished chairwoman of this subcommittee and the ranking member of this subcommittee, who have both done such an admirable job with the minimal amount of defense dollars that we have available to spend in this fiscal year.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the innovative approach being used in the DC-X project to demonstrate reusable rocket technology overcame bureaucratic as well as technical challenges. The success of the DC-X is one of the reasons this committee believes that the Department of Defense should continue to play a strong role in reusable launch vehicle research.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. That is correct. This is pursuant to three administration policy plans: First, the President's space launch policy, which calls for the Department of Defense to cooperate with NASA in its Reusable Launch Vehicle Program; second, DOD's implementation plan for the President's policy, which calls for developing ``space launch technologies which support * * * DOD-unique interests in reusable launch vehicles;'' and third, General Moorman's space launch modernization plan, which calls for at least $120 million per year for a core space launch technology effort.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman from California is indeed correct. The committee is funding DOD's cooperative involvement in the NASA-led X-33 reusable launch vehicle program first and foremost because of national security goals and requirements. The committee believes that the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory team brings unique expertise and talent to the challenge of reusable launch vehicle research generally, and to the NASA-led X-33 program specifically, a fact recognized by NASA in naming the Phillips Laboratory team as the X-33 deputy for flight testing and operations. The committee is not attempting to use DOD funds to subsidize a NASA program, but rather to fund DOD personnel to strengthen and improve a NASA-led national effort which is vital to DOD as well as commercial launch interests.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. This bill, according to General O'Neill of our administration, maintains there is no violation of the ABM Treaty.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this is a feel good amendment. It is a feel good amendment because who back home could be against you wanting to bring our troops back home? Let us bring them all back home. Let us bring everybody back to America. Let us not just stop here. Let us bring them all home. Let us about burden sharing around the world. Where were the colleagues on the floor here when we wanted to bring the troops home from Haiti, which costs the taxpayers $1.5 billion? Where was the burden sharing there? Where were our colleagues when we had the Somalia vote and we said bring our troops home from Somalia. Where were the burden sharing concerns then? How about our colleagues on Israel? And I support the Arrow program. Should we have Israel fund 75 percent of the costs of the Arrow program to defend their country, like we are paying? Mr. Chairman, the ability for us to deter aggression around the world is directly dependent upon our ability to stop regional conflicts. We are there not just to defend our allies. We are there to protect our troops from being involved in war. All of us in this body are for burdensharing. Let us get it clear, all of us on both sides. The question here today is how fast and how much. It is a simple question on this amendment, I submit to my colleagues. Do you trust the judgment of General Shalikashvili and General Sullivan, who have both gone on record and are against this amendment, or do you trust the judgment in this case of my colleague from Massachusetts and my colleague from Connecticut? I will tell you where my judgment is. My judgment is for the support of General Shalikashvili and General Sullivan who are charged with the responsibility of the lives of our young military personnel, not because they want to pass some feel-good bill in the Chamber of this body. I say oppose the Frank-Shays amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, in terms of why [[Page H5954]] we put 25 percent of the funding in, if the gentleman would have checked with DOD, it is because it is going to take them the first three-quarters of the next fiscal year to come up with the guidelines to implement the program. Why throw money when it cannot even be spent wisely, according to the gentleman's own administration's DOD leadership? Look at the facts. Where was the gentleman when we fought 2 years ago to put a pay raise in for the military that the gentleman's President and his side did not want? We put it in at the committee level because we care about the troops. In terms of BMD requests, it was General O'Neill who works at the Pentagon who said he would like to have $1.2 billion. We gave him $800 million, so it was not some number we came up with, it was the gentleman's administration's leader on missile defense that we sought to assist and help. Let us get our facts straight in this debate. Oppose this ridiculous amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let me again clarify what we are doing here. During the process of the markup of this bill we were very clear as to not have this become a showdown on the ABM treaty. We took the steps to prevent an amendment from being offered that would have abrogated the treaty. What the gentleman from South Carolina wants to do, because already General O'Neill certified on the record in this letter, which I will provide to every Member as they walk in the door, that what we are doing here does not violate the treaty; what he wants to do is to go a step beyond that and say, ``Now wait a minute. Our defense leaders in the Pentagon can't even tell us what we may be able to do that would violate the ABM treaty.'' This is not a bill about the ABM treaty. This is a bill about how we defend the American people. We want our chief of staff, we want the Joint Chiefs, to come back and tell us how we best defend the American people. Maybe they will say we need five sites for national missile systems, maybe they will say we should use Navy effort here. But the gentleman from South Carolina does not want to have that option. He does not want to even give us the chance to look at and allow--does not even want to give us the chance to explore those options that can better protect and defend the American people. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It would take and put a political spin on this bill that is not necessary, and I will cite for the record again the representative of the Clinton administration on missile defense is Gen. Malcolm O'Neill. On June 14, and if the gentleman from South Carolina does not have a copy of the letter, I will provide one to him, General O'Neill states in this letter to us as Members of the Congress that in no way does this bill in any way, shape or form violate the ABM treaty, any portion of the ABM treaty, or any of the testing and evaluation violate the ABM treaty. This amendment is not necessary according to Gen. Malcolm O'Neill's letter to us which states on the record that we are in full compliance.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. But it does.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for yielding this time to me. I would just say, as my colleague pointed out, that we have Members on this side who would like to abrogate the treaty. I have acknowledged that publicly, and I fought against offering that amendment on this bill. Just as the Member would acknowledge that he has Members on his side who would like to take the ABM treaty and interpret it very narrowly as we saw happening to the point when General Shalikashvili earlier this year said, ``Whoa, your negotiations are threatening our defense; don't go any further,'' this is not the place for that to be. Let me read again the letter from General O'Neil. He says everything in here complies with ABM, and he says additionally, and I quote, ``Tests, experiments, programs that are sufficiently developed, but not yet in the acquisition process, are also scrutinized and do not violate treaty obligations.'' [[Page H5950]] I ask, ``What more can you want unless you have a hidden agenda?''

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe some of the debate here. If this were a debate on the ABM Treaty or treaties themselves, perhaps we could bring out the four sanctions we waived against the Russians in violation of the missile control technology regime. Perhaps we would bring up the Krasnoyarsk radar violation which the Politburo deliberately ordered in terms of the ABM Treaty. Perhaps we would bring up the numerous accounts of deliberate proliferation activities by the Russians to other countries. But this is not a debate on any treaty. This is a national defense bill. We have agreed to have a full debate on the ABM Treaty in a separate, freestanding bill. We have taken the extraordinary effort of making sure that our side did not offer an amendment to tilt the bill so that it in fact would attack the treaty. But our colleagues on the other side--not all of them, because we have bipartisan opposition--but some of our colleagues on the other side want to tilt this treaty to the extreme of supporting and furthering the ABM Treaty beyond where it currently stands. Even General Shalikashvili, in a memo to the administration earlier this year, made the point that our negotiations with the Russians were in danger of undermining our defense posture, and only when we threatened the nomination of Secretary Deutsch did the administration back off of that interpretation and that negotiation. Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to be discussing the ABM treaty. I will again enter at this point in the Record this letter, dated June 14, from General Mal O'Neill, the administration's point person on missile defense, and I would close with his statement: I can tell you that every activity under my control complies with the ABM Treaty and that we will not develop, test, or deploy systems that violate the treaty. Mr. Chairman, we have that in writing from General O'Neill. That, more than anything else, speaks to the intent of this amendment. This is not about this bill violating the ABM Treaty, because even the administration's own leader says that is not the case. This is about a political attempt to score some points for the Clinton administration and expanding the ABM Treaty, and that should be a separate debate at a separate time. The letter referred to follows: Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Washington, DC, June 14, 1995. Hon.Curt Weldon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Sir: There has recently been a great deal of debate concerning whether or not the programs planned by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for fiscal year 1996 are compliant with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. I can tell you that every activity under my control complies with the ABM Treaty, and that we will not develop, test or deploy systems that violate the Treaty. I take my stewardship of the Nation's ballistic missile defense programs very seriously and strive to ensure that the program complies with all our legal and international obligations. I want to assure you that every program in the acquisition process that raises Treaty issues is subjected to a stringent compliance review process managed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Technology (A&T). Additionally, tests, experiments, and programs that are sufficiently developed, but that are not yet in the acquisition process, are also scrutinized by the Under Secretary of Defense (A&T) Treaty Compliance Review Group to ensure that they do not violate Treaty obligations. I hope this clarifies any ambiguity that may exist. I stand ready to answer any further questions you may have. Sincerely, Malcolm R. O'Neill, Lieutenant General, USA, Director.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate and I think a very insightful debate from both sides. Let me say as we looked at the defense bill for this year, we looked at what I think will be the two biggest threats this country faces as we approach the 21st century. The first is missile proliferation and deployment, and the second is terrorism. In our mark we plus up both accounts, to deal with the terrorism we heard about and to deal with the missile proliferation. We plussed up each. We held three full hearings. In the last few years, we did not hold any hearings on missile defense. This year we have held three full hearings for Members to get classified and unclassified information on what the threat is. We heard there are 77 nations in the world that have cruise missiles, 20 more are building them. We heard about the Russians offering for sale the SS-25. Even the Clinton administration acknowledged just a month ago that the sale of the SS-25 is a violation of the START agreement. Even the Clinton administration acknowledges that. That architecture can be used to hit any city in America by a rogue nation, a mobile launch system. We heard that the North Koreans have a system that they are testing now that can reach Hawaii and Guam. And we just heard the Chinese, 2 weeks ago, tested a system that can hit the western United States and Guam as well. Mr. Chairman, these are real threats. Our bill responds to those. But let me say, Mr. Chairman, our bill is totally consistent with General O'Neill. We don't micromanage General O'Neill. We accept the recommendation of the Clinton administration's expert on missile defense. In fact we did not even give him all the money he would like to have had. Our mark is totally in line with him and in no way does it violate any part of the ABM treaty. Mr. Chairman, I will enter in the Record a letter from General O'Neill to me dated yesterday stating that no part of this bill in any way violates any part of the ABM treaty. The Spratt amendment is a political amendment being offered, I think, in the wrong-headed sense of the word. And let me say why. Our side, the conservative side, wanted to offer an amendment to take on the ABM treaty in this bill and I said, If you do, I will come to the floor and I will lead the fight against it. And that amendment was not offered. It was withdrawn. Now, we are going to be asked to vote on an amendment that takes this bill over the line and says not only do we want it to comply with ABM, but all future modifications of ABM. So, we want to limit the ability of our defense experts to look at how we can best defend America. This bill is not about the ABM treaty. We have agreed to a separate vote on the ABM treaty; a separate debate. This bill is about defending America. We want to give our defense experts the chance to tell us, based on the threats that are there, how we can best defend the country. If we want to have a vote on ABM, let that occur at some other time and some other place. But it should not be on this bill. And I resent the fact that that amendment is being offered. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage our Members and our colleagues to do what members of the committee did in a bipartisan manner. We rejected the Spratt amendment in a bipartisan vote of 33 to 18 saying this is not the place to discuss the merits of the ABM treaty. I repeat again, General O'Neill, on the record in writing, has stated that nothing in this bill, nothing in any way, shape, or form, violates the terms or the conditions of the ABM treaty. That debate can occur at the appropriate time. I would also ask our colleagues to support the leadership, Speaker Gingrich and our entire House leadership, in opposing the Dellums amendment which would also gut this effort. And I thank our colleagues for their cooperation in the spirit of debate. The letter previously referred to follows: Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Washington, DC, June 14, 1995. Hon. Curt Weldon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: There has recently been a great deal of debate concerning whether or not the programs planned by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for fiscal year 1996 are compliant with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. I can tell you that every activity under my control complies with the ABM Treaty, and that we will not develop, test or deploy systems that violate the Treaty. I take my stewardship of the Nation's ballistic missile defense programs very seriously and strive to ensure that the program complies with all our legal and international obligations. I want to assure you that every program in the acquisition process that raises Treaty issues is subjected to a stringent compliance [[Page H5946]] review process managed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Technology (A&T). Additionally, tests, experiments, and programs that are sufficiently developed, but that are not yet in the acquisition process, are also scrutinized by the Under Secretary of Defense (A&T) Treaty Compliance Review Group to ensure that they do not violate Treaty obligations. I hope this clarifies any ambiguity that may exist. I stand ready to answer any further questions you may have. Sincerely, Malcolm R. O'Neill, Lieutenant General, USA, Director.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have to correct three statements that were just made by our good friend and colleague of the committee. First, we plussed up the cruise missile accounts by $75 million for exactly the reasons the gentleman stated. We saw the need to support General O'Neill in that request, and we did it. Second, this bill does nothing, nothing to violate the ABM Treaty. That is in writing from General O'Neil, who is the administration's representative on missile defense. Third, it was General O'Neill himself on March 23 who said ``If you give me extra money, I would put $600 million into national missile defense;'' General O'Neill, representing President Bill Clinton.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about the warheads. We are talking about an architecture, a system that gives a rogue country from a mobile launch system, the SS-25 is a mobile system. They have 400 launchers. They take that system to a rouge nation and fire a missile at any city in our country. That capability is there.