Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to respond to these points as they are made on the floor. I have here articles in color, produced by the Russians in color, showing the missiles they are currently offering for sale. On the open market at the Abu Dhabi show, they offered the SS-25. Mr. Chairman, for those who do not know what the SS-25 is, it is the 11,500-kilometer range missile that is the primary carrier of their nuclear weapons. They do not offer the nuclear weapons, but the architecture. The Israelis have already tried to launch a satellite using the SS-25. Any country that gets the SS-25 can hit any city in America with a chemical, biological, or conventional weapon. That is the threat, and it is real and it is today.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I rise to applaud our chairman, who has done an outstanding job in leading us through this first bill that we have had the chance to put together, and also acknowledge the cooperation and support of our ranking member, who as always, is gracious and cooperative, even if we may disagree on some substantive issues. I think this is a good bill, Mr. Chairman. This is a good bill that passed out of our full committee with a vote of 48 to 3, meaning only three members of the full Committee on National Security saw fit to oppose this legislation being reported to the House floor. This bill, for the first time in the last 9 years that I have been here, reverses the hemorrhaging that has been occurring within our national defense and national security. We all heard the rhetoric of 5 years ago about the peace dividend. Well, I can tell you where the peace dividend is. It is in my UAW workers who are now looking for fast food jobs in Delaware County and Southeastern Pennsylvania because they have been laid off by Boeing Corporation, by Martin Marietta, by Lockheed. Norm Augustine, the new CEO of the new Martin Lockheed was in my office 2 weeks ago and said his company has laid off 107,000 people in the last 3 years alone, and the layoffs continue. That is what we have got even with our peace dividend. Where has been the defense conversion? There is no defense conversion, Mr. Chairman. But we stop that with this bill, and we do not do it as a jobs program. In fact, I will talk about how we have stopped that process as well, the pork barreling in the bill. We do it because we support what is important based upon the national threat. We started off this year's process with a net threat briefing where we looked at the hot spots of the world and came back to deal with our leadership in the Pentagon about where our priorities should be. Then in our subcommittees we marked up our funding levels in line with what the Joint Chiefs told us were their priorities. We also, Mr. Chairman, and I am very proud of this in the R&D area, we removed the tremendous amount of earmarking that has occurred in previous bills. There was one estimate that in last year's defense bill there was $4.7 billion of unauthorized appropriations, some of those having nothing to do with defense, many of them stuck in by the appropriators, some of them put in by the authorizers, but many of which were not requested by the military and had nothing to do with our national security. In the R&D portion of this bill this year, we have no earmarks. We have no direct programs put into that portion of the bill for individual Member requests. We in fact keep the bill clean. We do fund our priorities, Mr. Chairman. We do take a look in the R&D area at where we should be putting our priorities in terms of dollars. We fully fund missile defense. Now, how do we determine where the priorities should be? Unlike the previous 2 years, Mr. Chairman, when we had no hearings on ballistic missile defense, we in this year held three full hearings for members of the full committee, the subcommittees of Procurement and Research and Development, on where we are with ballistic missile defense. We had a hearing on the threat, both a closed briefing for the Members and an open briefing, a full day of hearings on what is the threat out there. We heard the horror stories of 77 nations today having cruise missiles that could be used against us. We heard the horror stories of 20 countries who today are building cruise missiles and the threat that poses to us. We had a hearing on what we have gotten for our money. What have we been able to produce with the billions of dollars we spent on missile defense over the past decade? We had a show and tell where General O'Neill brought in the technologies we developed with our missile defense funding. Finally, we had General O'Neill himself present to us what his vision of missile defense for this country would be like. Mr. Chairman, when we get to the missile defense section, every dollar that we put in this bill is in line with what General O'Neill said we should be spending on missile defense. In fact, it is less. General O'Neill told us we could add on up to $1.2 billion in the missile defense accounts for theater missile, national missile, cruise missile and Brilliant Eyes. We could not give him that full amount, but we gave him about $800 million. We have plussed up those areas where General O'Neill, acting as President Clinton's representative, told us we should put our dollars in terms of protecting our people from the threat of a missile coming into our mainland or hurting our troops when they are being deployed overseas. [[Page H5787]] This is a good bill as it relates to missile defense. Yet you will hear later on our colleagues attempt to say we are trying to undermine the ABM Treaty. Nothing could be further from the truth. But I will say this, Mr. Chairman: We are silent on the treaty. It is a treaty that we will abide by. But there are some who want to distort this bill and politicize it to have it be supportive of additional use of the ABM treaty, and we think that is a mistake, and we are going to oppose it when that amendment comes to the floor. This is a good bill, and I encourage our colleagues to support it with a large vote, and give our chairman the endorsement of an excellent job in leading us on the security of this country.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Tiahrt], one of the coauthors of an amendment that will be coming up in a few moments. (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield further, I would just say I agree with the gentleman. That is why in this bill, in the R&D accounts, we keep the dual use funding levels at the same level they were in previous years, for exactly that reason. We keep the dual use of funding level at exactly the level that they were funded at over the previous 2 years. So we support that notion, when it has defense as a top priority.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I appreciate my friend and colleague yielding. I appreciate the willingness to engage in a dialog. What I would say is 2 years ago as we saw the defense numbers being projected by President Clinton, we went to the Office of Technology Assessment and the Congressional Budget Office. Each of them did studies that said if we implement the budget numbers proposed by President Clinton, we would see 1.5 million men and women lose their jobs in the defense industry. That is exactly what is happening, and that is happening directly because of the most massive cuts in the acquisition accounts that we have seen since before World War II. So it has had a direct impact on real jobs all across America.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, in summary, I would say once again, we are talking about a General Accounting Office report in assessing how successful this program has been. I am not one standing here saying we should do away with the program. To the contrary, I have been supportive of elements of Nunn-Lugar, and have spoken in favor of it. What we are saying to the taxpayers is that ``If we are going to send more of your dollars into Russia, we certainly do not want any of that money to be used to build more biological weapons that can be used against us or our troops.'' Mr. Chairman, who could oppose that? Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a document which is an update on reducing the threat from the Former Soviet Union, and an article by Bill Gertz. The document and article referred to are as follows: Summary of GAO's Responses to Department of Defense Comments in our Recent Report, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Reducing the Threat From the Former Soviet Union; An Update (GAO/NSIAD-95-165) Point 1. The Department of Defense objected to our finding that the material impact of the CTR program has been limited to date. DOD stated that we overlooked the program's political impact and leverage in insuring that former Soviet states undertake weapons elimination programs and in obtaining agreements from Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to become non-nuclear states. Response. We believe that the Department's comments stem from a misunderstanding of the purpose of our report. Our report focused on the material impact of CTR projects over the past year in addressing the threats posed by former Soviet weapons of mass destruction and on the prospects for such effects in the future. Point 2. DOD stated that we had underestimated the role of the material assistance provided and stated examples to support its comment. Specifically, DOD asserted that we failed to acknowledge the benefits of delivered CTR assistance including support equipment to Ukraine and armored protective blankets to Russia. DOD further stated that Russia is ``today'' using U.S.-supplied guillotine shears to cut up heavy bombers. Response. We stated in our report that without CTR assistance Ukraine could not dismantle its nuclear weapons and that Russian officials told us that Russia has used the armored blankets to protect warheads being withdrawn from Ukraine. The guillotine shears have not yet been used and are not expected to be used until July 1995. Point 3. DOD stated that numerous tangible reductions in the threat to the United States have been achieved ``through a combination of leverage provided by the CTR program and direct material assistance.'' For example, DOD states that missiles containing 2.825 warheads have been deactivated and that approximately 630 strategic launchers and bombers have been eliminated since the Soviet collapse. Response. The examples that DOD provides in support of this statement do not distinguish between reductions that may be attributed to political impacts since the Soviet Union's collapse in December 1991 and those that have resulted from the delivery of CTR aid. Although claiming that 2.825 warheads had been deactivated, DOD does not indicate how many of these were deactivated through the direct use of CTR assistance--assistance that only began arriving in mid-1993. DOD claims that 630 strategic launchers and bombers have been eliminated since the Soviet collapse, yet Russia had eliminated more than 400 of these by July 1994--before receiving CTR delivery vehicle elimination assistance. Point 4. DOD's comments imply that every missile and every warhead deactivated in the former Soviet Union since December 1991 can be attributed to the CTR program. Response. While making such claims, DOD does not provide a clear accounting as to how and to what extent CTR hardware had been used by the FSU states to eliminate a specific number of systems. Although we asked DOD officials to provide support for the material impact of CTR assistance in dismantling specific numbers of systems, they have not done so. Officials recently informed us that it may be impossible to determine this impact in terms of specific numbers of systems. Point 5. The Department of Defense objected to our matter for congressional consideration that Congress may wish to consider reducing the CTR program's fiscal year 1996 request for $104 million for support to Russian chemical weapons destruction efforts by about $34 million because of uncertainties regarding the expenditure. DOD also asserted that we were incorrect in stating that the United States and Russia had not yet agreed upon a technology for destroying chemical weapons. Response. However, as DOD indicates in its comments, Russia has selected a technology that the United States would not have recommended--an unproven technology the United States is now attempting to validate. Unlike the U.S. preferred incineration process, the Russian technology has no record of performance outside the laboratory, and the Russians have not provided sufficient data to allay U.S. concerns about the technology's technical and cost uncertainties. Point 6. DOD cites that progress has been made in CTR projects that are improving protection of nuclear material that presents a proliferation risk, including the lab-to-lab program for improving material protection in Russia. Response. This comment overstates the impact of fiscal year 1995 CTR funds on the lab-to-lab program. This Department of Energy (DOE) program has successfully completed a project to upgrade physical protection of approximately 100 kilograms of highly enriched uranium at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow. However, the project was completed in February 1995 using DOE funds as fiscal year 1995 CTR funds for the lab-to- April 1995. Point 7. DOD points to Project Sapphire (the removal of HEU from Kazakhstan) as a CTR project. Response. Project Sapphire was not a CTR project. It was an executive branch project funded by the Departments of State, Energy, and Defense. Some CTR funds were used to pay for DOD's portion of the project. Point 8. DOD claims that the CTR defense conversion program should receive high marks from GAO for accelerating from start-up to 15 active projects in a little more than a year. Response. Although DOD has accelerated the start-up of 15 projects, we believe that it is too early to judge the success of these projects. Point 9. DOD claims that its defense conversion efforts reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Response. We found that most of the defense conversion efforts are converting dormant facilities that produced weapons related items. Point 10. Although there have been some inconsistencies in references in DOD documents, DOD generally describes the recipients of International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) grants as ``former Soviet'' weapons scientists. Response. DOD's assertion that the recipients are ``former Soviet'' weapons scientists is incorrect. DOD often--in testimony, budget submissions, and briefing documents--used the terminology ``former'' weapons scientists or scientists formerly involved in a weapons program. [From the Washington Times] Russia Uses Pentagon Funds in Constructing New Nukes (By Bill Gertz) Pentagon funds aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear war are instead being used to pay Russian scientists still at work on nuclear and chemical arms, according to a draft report by Congress' General Accounting Office (GAO). The GAO report also states that Moscow is refusing to permit audits of U.S. funds paid under the so-called Nunn- Lugar threat-reduction program, named after sponsoring Sens. Sam Nunn, Georgia Democrat, and Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican. The report concludes that the U.S. aid program, currently funded at about $1.25 billion, has produced little in the way of reducing the threat of weapons proliferation or improving control over nuclear materials. Instead, it indicates U.S. funds may be enhancing some Russian nuclear and chemical arms capabilities. Most funds for converting defense plants to civilian production are being used by Moscow to reactivate dormant weapons facilities, according to the May 18 report. Activities of the International Science and Technology Center in Moscow, funded with $21 million of Pentagon money, raised the most concerns among the GAO investigators, who studied the program from January to May. Despite Pentagon claims that only ``former'' nuclear weapons scientists are receiving U.S. money to discourage them from emigrating, ``we found that scientists receiving center funds may continue to be employed by institutes engaged in weapons work,'' the report states. ``Recipients of two center grants at three different institutes told us that they had been involved in nuclear weapons testing and nerve agent research,'' the report stated. The GAO auditors also discovered that scientists paid by the center are not employed full time and ``may spend part of their time working on Russian weapons of mass destruction,'' the report stated. Scientists are allowed to work at Russian weapons laboratories while receiving U.S. funds, and in some cases only 10 percent of their time is spent at the center, ``raising the prospect that they could spend the remainder of their time on their institutes' work on weapons of mass destruction,'' the report said. The GAO study follows a report that Russia is continuing to build newer nuclear arms. Russian Nuclear Energy Minister Viktor Mikhailov said last year that a new generation of nuclear weapons could be developed by the year 2000 unless military nuclear research was stopped. Moscow also unveiled its new strategic missile in December called the RS-12M ``Topol,'' a follow-on version of the SS-25 mobile ICBM. U.S. officials told the GAO that the center ``is intended to help prevent proliferation . . . rather than preclude scientists from working on Russian weapons of mass destruction,'' the report stated, noting that the center prohibits the use of its funds for weapons-related work. Another problem with the center, according to the GAO, is that it is ``creating dual-use items'' with both civilian and military applications. For example, a special commercial camera under development by the center can be used in nuclear testing and could be exported, according to the GAO. Officials in charge of the center told the GAO they could monitor its projects ``only intermittently'' instead of quarterly, as they would prefer. Next year the State Department will take over funding the center from the Pentagon and plans to spend $90 million more over the next seven years. Congress has approved the use of $1.25 billion for the Nunn-Lugar program for fiscal 1992 through 1995. In addition, $735 million has been requested for the next two years. Republicans in Congress, however, plan to cut the program substantially and limit the funds to weapons dismantling, congressional sources said. The House National Security Committee will complete work on its version of the fiscal 1996 defense authorization bill tomorrow. Out of about $1.2 billion the Pentagon has notified Congress it will spend in the former Soviet nuclear states, only $177 million has been spent, mostly on weapons being dismantled under the START treaty, the Moscow center and nuclear railcar security, according to the GAO. Despite agreements that permit audits of how U.S. funds are spent, ``none have been conducted in Russia and Ukraine'' because of government objections there, the report stated. One was conducted in Belarus, it said. A report to Congress required by law on the according of U.S. aid is four months late. Pentagon officials could not be reached for comment on the GAO report.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us recap this debate. First of all, this is not about ending the Nunn-Lugar program. Second of all, let me explain from my perspective, as someone who for the past 20 years has focused on Soviet-American issues, who currently cochairs two caucuses in this Congress working to enhance business opportunities in the area of energy and oil and gas as well as the environmental issues, working with Nikoli Vorontsov, a member of Russian Duma on environmental concern and working with the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Laughlin], and Members of this Congress on helping projects like the Sakhalin project, a $10 billion investment of western money in Siberia, we are not about ending help in the case of the Russians dismantling their nuclear weapons. In fact, I have been personally involved in supporting two specific programs, $10 million of money being used in Murmansk to help the Russians put together a process to dispose of their spent nuclear fuel and their nuclear waste. A terrible problem that we are working with them on. It is working, and our investment I think is a wise one. A second project is helping to convert the Baltic shipyard where the Kirov class of ships were built into an environmental mediation center. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it says that, before we put one more dime of money in, the Russians should meet us halfway. We are talking, Mr. Chairman, about biological weapons. It seems to me in the past 9 years I have heard Member after Member on the other side of the aisle say we have got to stop the proliferation of biological weapons. And certainly if we are putting money in, we should be doing that. That is what this amendment does. Now, one of our colleagues on the other side, from South Carolina, said that we have done so many positive things, and he said that we have removed warheads. But what he did not say is that we have destroyed warheads. Because my colleague knows full well that we do not have one ounce of documentation that even one warhead has been destroyed, not one ounce of documentation, because the Russians will not allow us to observe the destruction of any warheads. So, Mr. Chairman, let us be realistic about what is going on. Sure, there have been positive strides made, and sure we should continue the effort of dismantling launchers and other support material in line with the photographs we saw here. However, let us not put a cloud over the eyes of the American people. We are saying that we will continue to fund the Russians in their effort to dismantle their nuclear arsenal. We will continue to help clean up Ukraine and Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, ``but we will do it when you certify to us that you were not building biological weapons that threaten the security of peace-loving people around the world.'' Also, we are fencing the money, which means the President can certify to us that that in fact is no longer taking place. Mr. Chairman, I think the average taxpayer back in our districts would support this kind of amendment. I, as one, who supports business ventures in Russia, who speaks the language and travels over there frequently, want to see us continue to support a stabilized Russia. However, we have to do it with our eyes open. I think the Dornan-Tiahrt amendment allows us to do that. I would encourage our colleagues, when the amendment comes up, to vote ``aye.''

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and pay tribute to Henry T. Nacrelli, superintendent of schools in the Rose Tree Media School District and a constituent from Broomall, PA. When Hank Nacrelli retires on June 30, 1995, he will come to the close of a highly distinguished career in the field of education. Hank began his life-long teaching career in 1961 at Media High School, my alma mater, where he also served as head football coach and athletic director, inspiring students in and out of the classroom. He later served as the school district's Federal program director and wrote its first chapter I program. He then went on to serve as a guidance counselor, principal of both Media and Springton Lake Junior High Schools, and assistant superintendent. In 1981, Hank was appointed to his current position as superintendent of schools. Under his careful guidance as superintendent, Rose Tree Media schools have been recognized for excellence on both State and national levels. The Pennsylvania Department of Education has also commended the school achievement on statewide assessment tests. These honors bestowed upon the Rose Tree Media School District stem from Hank's ingenuity and dedication to the school system. To enhance the education of the entire community, Hank developed the ``RTM Challenge,'' a program to promote recreational reading for not only students, but for staff and parents, as well. Throughout his long and admirable career, Hank Nacrelli has brought an extraordinary level of commitment to the positions he has held. He has helped mold the lives of thousands of young people, providing students with a positive educational experience as a community leader. Under his leadership, the Rose Tree Media School District has met the multitude of challenges facing education today. As a result, he has earned the utmost respect of students, staff, parents, and the rest of the community. As a former teacher, I have great respect for men and women who dedicate their lives to the education of America's children. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Henry T. Nacrelli for his leadership and dedication to education, and in wishing him much happiness in his retirement. His guidance will certainly be missed, but his legacy will long endure.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to recognize Mr. Harry O'Neil, a constituent from my district who is this year's recipient of the Sourin Memorial Award. This great honor was bestowed upon him by the Catholic Philopatrian Literary Institute, and it represents society's appreciation for an individual who has made noteworthy contributions and achievements in a lifetime of adopting Catholic ideals, morality, and good citizenship. Mr. O'Neil is currently a partner in the Philadelphia law firm of Stradely, Ronan, Stevens, and Young and practices banking and real estate law. As an employer in his banking practice he is well respected and liked by all, and is affectionately seen by his employees and colleagues as a tough but fair boss. In addition to his achievements here, he has served as counsel for the Dioceses of Philadelphia's Cemetery Division. He attended undergraduate and law school at Villanova University and received his B.S. in 1957 and his J.D. in 1977. Remarkably, he did not attend law school until he was 38, after having four children, and he graduated in the top 5 percent of his class. Most importantly, he is, I am advised by one of his children, an understanding father who has raised his children to respect and love the Lord, but who has never forced religion upon them. Mr. O'Neil is the kind of citizen who both practices and teaches values that make our society a hard working and ethical one. As an employer, as an active member of his community, and as a loving father, he has achieved much in his lifetime. I would like to add that this is one of the first years that the Sourin Award has been given to a member of the laity rather than to a member of the clergy, and he clearly deserves it.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, they say that actions speak louder than words. In the case of the Clinton administration, that appears to be true. We have heard from the Clinton administration they are concerned about arms proliferation; specifically, missile technology being sold around the world. But what are their actions? Mr. Speaker, today's Washington Post headline screams out the record of the Clinton administration. ``U.S. Waives Objections to Russian Missile Technology Sale to Brazil.'' We now learn the Clinton administration secretly has given the go-ahead to allow the Russians to begin to export their technology, while next week on the House floor, on the defense bill, we will hear all of these arguments about adhering to the ABM Treaty. This is the second case where the Clinton administration has waived efforts to stop proliferation of missile technology. Earlier this year they failed to stop the sale of rocket motors to China, which will be used to enhance their cruise missiles. This is outrageous. Last evening I wrote to the President a two-page letter asking for a full public discussion and disclosure, with the Congress, about the waiver of the sanctions against Russia and Brazil.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Absolutely. In fact, one of the purposes of Globe is to try to expand the work of Globe to other legislators. We are growing. We have 30 Members now in Globe USA. We hope to expand it and to find a basis for discussion and the ways that we can work together as nations, specifically, in my case, on areas concerning the ocean environment. Other Members of the Congress are focusing on other areas. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has done a tremendous amount of work on population issues, as has the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and Akika Damota from Japan. So, yes, we will share these findings.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Yes. Senator Kerry and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], are cochairs of Globe International.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Basically, in the case of the oceans, we will be looking to the London Convention, which is that body which focuses on the control of the oceans relative to dumping issues and trying to get Russia to join the nations of the world in agreeing to, on the record, legally enact legislation prohibiting it from dumping nuclear waste in the future. Now, they have made some major changes. In fact, I might add, if the U.S. Policy, had it been changed, and it was not supported by the London Convention until last year at our request and our urging; I applaud the Clinton administration for taking that step. We now have made that statement. In fact, I hope to codify that in this session of Congress. But we will deal through the London Convention and nation to nation, not necessarily through the United Nations, but rather among the nations that are members of the Globe International.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to focus on an event that is about to take place here in Washington that I think is significant to the world community. Back when the late Senator John Heinz was a Member of the Senate, he came together with legislators from the countries of Japan, Russia, and the European Parliament to form what has become known as Globe International. The acronym stands for Global Legislators Organized for a Balanced Environment. This bipartisan group both in this Congress and from the Japanese Diet, the Russian Duma, and the European Parliament meet on a periodic basis throughout the year to focus on ways that we can deal with and solve the problems of the Earth's environment. I have been a member of GLOBE for the past several years and in my capacity as a Republican Member of this body had the pleasure of working with our two cochairmen. It is chaired at this point in time by Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts and Congressman John Porter from Illinois. There are approximately 30 of us in the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who lend our names to the support for Global cooperation on environmental issues, getting together on a periodic basis in different countries involved with GLOBE and finding ways that we can cooperate together. Approximately a year and one-half ago I began my focus on what I think is potentially one of the most devastating problems for the ocean ecosystem, and that is illegal dumping of waste, especially nuclear waste, which has been a real problem now documented and now admitted by the Russian leadership of the former Soviet State. In fact, it was a leading Russian environmentalist by the name of Yablakov who a year ago in January published a report which for the first time documented in great detail the extensive amount of illegal dumping that took place by the former Soviet leadership in the Barents Sea, the Sea of Japan, illegal amounts at Murmansk and in the area of Novaya Zemlya and the area around there, dumping entire nuclear reactors and power plants, in other cases dumping nuclear waste from submarines in an uncontrolled manner. The issue of Russians dumping the waste however is not alone. We, for the first time, as matter of fact, only after prodding through a subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services that I served on in last session were finally able to get our own Navy to admit we have had two nuclear- powered submarines that have gone down. In fact, Thresher and Scorpion up until that admission last fall had not been acknowledged by our Government. Part of our effort is to get our governments to be more open and discuss not only the problems that exist but ways we can better improve the environment by working together. To that end, last summer I suggested to the members of GLOBE International that we form a working task force on the oceans, and that we convene a forum in America, in Washington, sometime in 1995. They accepted my recommendation, and, in fact, asked me to chair that task force which I have done. And as chairman of that task force, along with Senator John Kerry, we will be hosting the GLOBE Forum, which will take place on Thursday of this week in Washington. Tomorrow evening we will be hosting a special reception at the Smithsonian. The reception will focus on technologies and new, emerging research that is being done in terms of our ocean ecosystem. I am here to encourage our Members to stop by that reception, to see first hand the kinds of technologies that we are working on. In attendance, besides Senator Kerry, will be from the Smithsonian approximately 300 leading scientists from throughout the world, Admiral Watkins, and other major nonprofit groups that are focusing on cleaning up our oceans. That reception will be held, by the way, from 7 until 9. On Thursday, in the Cannon Caucus Room, we will have the International Forum on the Oceans, starting at 9 o'clock in the morning when Senator Kerry and I will open the session, moving to a presentation on the state of the world's oceans at 9:15 by Dr. Kathy Sullivan from NOAA and 10 o'clock a presentation by Adm. Jim Watkins on the importance of understanding the ocean, a question-and-answer session for those in attendance, and then a break, followed by two presentations, one by the Honorable Tim Wirth, from the U.S. Department of State, on land-based sources of marine pollution, and a presentation by Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska on the development of sustainable international fisheries. The morning session will then adjourn. We will have a luncheon where a presentation will be made by a Dr. Sylvia Earle. Dr. Earle is from the Deep Ocean Engineering Center, and she will discuss the work they are doing in terms of deep-ocean technology. In the afternoon we will have three panel sessions running at 1:30, 2:45, and 3:45. The 1:30 session will deal with the importance of understanding the ocean. We will have a combined session with Members of Congress and some of our leading academics and engineering and marine biologists from throughout this country and the world to discuss the importance of understanding the ocean. At 2:45 we will discuss land-based sources of marine pollution, specifically the illegal dumping of nuclear waste and radioactive waste, and at 3:45 we will focus on the issue of declining fish stocks. That session will be chaired by Senator Kerry. The purpose of this forum is for Members of Congress to come together with Members of the Russian Duma, with Members of the Japanese Diet, and with Members of the European Parliament to see first of all what the problems are with our oceans, focusing on those three areas, declining fish stocks, the illegal dumping, especially radioactive dumping, in the oceans, and finally the sharing of technology. From that, we will hope to put together a proactive agenda that each of us can work on in our respective legislative bodies and an agenda that will allow us to cooperate as we did in the London Convention, which now has every nation except Russia as a signatory, saying it will not dump nuclear waste in the oceans of the world. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we can cooperate on marine problems, on environmental problems, not necessarily just imposing new legislation on the American people, but rather finding ways that we can cooperate as a world community, so that when we take steps to improve the quality of our marine ecosystem that we know full well that our other major industrial allies will be sharing in that effort. So I would encourage our colleagues to attend the sessions, both the reception tomorrow evening in the Museum of Natural History and the conference all day on Thursday as we discuss the problems of the oceans of the world. I want to thank my good friend and colleague for yielding to me, and want to applaud him for the outstanding work he is doing in this Congress. He has become a shining star in this institution in a very quick period of time, and I want him to know we appreciate his leadership, not just in Washington but all across the country.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, support this historic budget resolution which puts us on the path to a balanced budget for the first time in a generation. It is vitally important for the sake of our future economic health that we keep our commitment to a balanced budget by 2002. I must object, however, to including repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act in our budget assumptions. As a number of my colleagues and I stated in our recent letter to Speaker Gingrich, Davis-Bacon is an important and historic worker protection deserving thorough consideration in the legislative process before any attempt at repeal is made. The Budget Committee projects $2.7 billion in savings over 5 years from repeal. I don't think all of those savings would materialize because those figures do not take into account the reduced quality of workmanship on Federal projects that could result if the prevailing wage is not paid. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can produce the needed savings without repeal of Davis-Bacon and I look forward to working with my colleagues who signed the letter and with the leadership to devise a reasonable alternative to repealing the Davis-Bacon Act.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we have heard some case studies of families. I have one family we have not heard about yet that I would like to discuss. I would like to talk about Rosie Watson of Lake Providence, LA. Rosie is a 45-year-old mother, common-law mother of seven kids. She has been able to get her doctor to declare that she is too stressed out to work, so she receives $343 a month in income from the taxpayers. Her husband, who weighs over 300 pounds, has been able to get his doctor to declare that he is unable to work, so he gets $343 a month. They have seven kids. Rosie spent 17 years in getting all of her kids qualified as not working up to their age level in school. Guess what? The taxpayers are footing a check each month for all seven kids in an amount over $400. Mr. Chairman, this one family gets $46,716 a year under their system, a system they do not want to change, that we are going to reform. Why have we not heard about that family, or the tens of thousands of families all across America who are abusing the taxpayers in this country? Rosie was interviewed by the Baltimore Sun, who did this expose. The reporter said ``What do you do with the money?'' She said, ``I can tell you, each month I take $120 and give it to four of my kids,'' and her quote is ``Being the age they is, and being out with their little girlfriends, they need that money to spend on them.'' I do not have constituents in my district who can give their teenage kids $30 a month, let alone from the taxpayers. The Members want to keep the system intact? Our budget changes Supplemental Security Income and stop this abuse. Where are the examples on the other side, of the families who are ripping off the taxpayers? Where are the examples of what they have done to try to change the system for the past 40 years? I can tell the Members, as the youngest of nine kids with an 84-year- old mother on Social Security and Medicare, I do not want to hurt her one bit. As a 7-year public school teacher who spent more time overseeing school lunches than anybody on the other side, I do not want the School Lunch Program cut, but stop the rhetoric when we are trying to solve the problem and be fair with the way we deal with people. Once again, I ask my colleagues on the other side, where are the tens of thousands of stories about the Rosie Watsons ripping off $47,000 a year in taxpayers' money, who the Baltimore Sun has said will never get off the system? That is what we are trying to change, and we are going to do it, with or without your cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the article from the Tampa Tribune to which I referred earlier: [From the Tampa Tribune, Feb. 13, 1995] Here's a Grand Little Story To Stir Your Blood on a Monday Morning How does an unemployed family in Lake Providence, LA, qualify for $46,716 a year in tax-free cash from the federal government? The Baltimore Sun, in a special report, details one woman's crusade to win disability benefits and gives a rare insight into a welfare system infuriatingly out of control. Rosie Watson, the Sun reports, gets $343.50 a month in disability payments because a judge found her too stressed- out to work. Her common-law husband, at 386 pounds, was ruled too fat to work, so he gets $343.50 a month too. Their seven children ages 13 to 22, have all failed to demonstrate ``age-appropriate behavior,'' so each of them qualifies for payments of $458 a month. What the welfare world calls ``crazy checks.'' The Sun's description of Watson's persistent efforts over many years to convince social workers and judges that various members of her family are incapable of supporting themselves reveals serious flaws in the welfare system, flaws that account for the nation's increasingly hostile opinion of it. ``I got nothing to hide,'' the woman told the Sun, and allowed reporters to visit her in her modest home, even opened her Social Security records to them. The inescapable conclusion is that the problems lie with the system, not with people like Watson who, like good attorneys, endeavor to make their best case. Watson's quest began in 1975 when she tried and failed to convince Social Security officials she couldn't work. In 1978 she told officials that her second child, at age 4, was a threat to other children and should receive financial aid. They didn't buy it, but she kept up, applying again and again until, in 1984, Social Security officials agreed that he had behavior problems. A few years later she received a $10,000 check after it was decided he should have been declared disabled four years earlier. In all, the family has received $37,000 in retroactive payments, part of $1.4 billion in retroactive checks mailed after the Supreme Court in 1990 gave children increased rights to disability payments. After 15 years of relentless applications, Rosie Watson has had all her children put on [[Page H5162]] disability payments. The youngest child, now 13, attends elementary school, where the principal complains that the quest for ``crazy checks'' is undermining academic standards. The children don't want to fail but perform poorly to please their parents, he says. Not true, says Watson. ``I ain't never told any of them to act crazy and get some money,'' she said. ``Social Security will send you to their own doctor. They're not fooled because those doctors read your mind. They know what you can do and not do.'' The Sun discovered that one doctor found a Watson boy had ``strong anti-social features in his personality and is volatile and explosive.'' And, ``he said he does not want work.'' Apparently, unless government rules are changed, he will never have to get a job. Here is the Sun's description of what Mother Watson does with the 3,893 worth of monthly checks: ``As soon as she extracts the nine checks from the [post office] box, she cashes them. She gives the full amount to Sam, 21, and Cary, 22, the father of two children who have moved out of the house since being awarded benefits. The remainder is used for the other children and household expenses. ``Most of the money goes for the children to `see that they have what's needed,' the woman says. ``With what's left, I pay bills and buy food.'' ``One need is $120 allowances for George, David, 17, Willie, 18, and Danny, 19. ``Being the age they is and being out there with their little girlfriends, they need the money,'' she says. The checks are sent because of a disability but there is no requirement that the money be spent to try to overcome that disability, the Sun reports. The family's medical needs are taken care of through Medicaid, the value of which the newspaper did not attempt to calculate. The reporters had a little trouble determining exactly what Rosie Watson's disability is. In 1974 she said she couldn't work because of high blood pressure, heart trouble and bad nerves, and was rejected. In 1975 she reported it was anemia, dizziness, nerves and bad kidneys, and was rejected. In 1976 she blamed low blood pressure and heart problems, was rejected and gave up for a while. In 1964 she applied again complaining of stomach problems, epilepsy and sinus trouble. In 1985 the list included ``female problems,'' and an examining doctor concluded: ``This is a 34-year-old black female who had seven children under 12 years of age, and alcoholic husband and no money, who complains of insomnia, crying spells, depression.'' She appealed that rejection to a judge who determined her unable to cope with the ``stresses of any type of competitive employment,'' and the checks began to flow. Two years later, a judge ruled her husband disabled because he was obese. The newspaper concludes that the Watson family likely will remain on welfare permanently, with the children moving directly onto the adult rolls. What did Congress intend when it created such a program that rewards failure more richly than the competitive market can reward hard work? What it got was places like Lake Providence, where ``crazy checks'' have become important parts of the town's culture and economy.