Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and I serve as the House Members on the Migratory Bird Commission and as such we work on ways to preserve in a voluntary way the wetlands of this National and North America that are important to waterfowl. Over the past several decades that this program has existed, we have in fact preserved 7 million acres of wetlands through the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and 4 million acres through the Migratory Bird Commission funding. All of that has been done voluntarily. This amendment allows us to continue to recognize those lands that are important for the development and the growth of waterfowl in this country. It is a good bipartisan amendment. I applaud my colleague for offering it. I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], for joining in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include my statement in support of the amendment as follows: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment with my colleagues, Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Dingell. This provision in H.R. 961-- which will deny Federal protection for wetlands that are solely used by migratory birds--is not only unnecessary but dangerous for the future of our Nation's migratory birds. As members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, Mr. Dingell and I have witnessed first hand the role wetlands protection plays in the recovery and protection of our Nation's migratory birds. Through the use of primarily duck stamp monies together with other proceeds, the commission has provided for the acquisition and enhancement of waterfowl habitat through the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, the wildlife refuges alone cannot provide sufficient habitat to support the millions of waterfowl which annually migrate across America. As a result, thanks to the effort of my friend, Mr. Dingell, the North American wetlands conservation fund was created. NAWCF is truly one of the most cost effective wetlands preservation initiatives in existence. It operates as a private-public partnership, with Federal grant monies being matched, often times at rates as high as 4 to 1. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4308, a bill to re-authorize and expand the North American wetlands fund, passed the House by a vote of 368 to 5 last year. Almost every single one of our colleagues recognized the need to preserve our Nation's wetlands in order to protect important migratory bird populations. The provision on page 309 of H.R. 961 which eliminates protection of wetlands which are solely used by migratory birds will halt the progress we have achieved through the work of the Migratory Bird Commission. We must take into consideration that even after passage of the North American wetlands conservation fund, much more still needs to be done. Recent estimates of North America's breeding duck population is 18 percent below the average of the last 40 years. For certain species, the numbers are far worse. Mallard populations, for example, are down 20 percent and the North Pintail population has declined by half. Other migratory species have suffered as well. Populations of Franklin Gulls, Black Terns, and Soras all have declined significantly since the early 1950's. It is clear we cannot roll back the clock in preserving these species. Mr. Chairman, the migratory bird provision in H.R. 961 not only puts at risk our migratory bird populations, but contradicts case law on this subject. As Mr. Dingell has stated, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, has specifically ruled in Hoffman Homes versus Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that EPA is within its jurisdiction to view migratory birds as a connection between wetlands and interstate commerce. Proponents to H.R. 961 will argue that this case gives the EPA carte blanche to run rough shod over private landowners. Not true. In fact, the court ruled in favor of Hoffman, citing the EPA's inability to provide substantial evidence of migratory bird use. So you can see, the burden is on EPA to prove the wetlands is essential to migratory bird populations. In addition, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues--especially those who are most concerned with the economic impact on our citizens with regard to the laws we pass--exactly the impact H.R. 961, in its current form, will have on our hunting and tourism industry. In 1991, $3.6 billion was spent on hunting migratory birds such as waterfowl and shore birds, $15.9 billion was spent on nonconsumptive uses of migratory birds. Together, they contribute almost $20 billion to our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell-Weldon-Gilchrest amendment to H.R. 961. Last year you showed your support for our migratory birds. If you have constituents in your district who like to hunt, trap, or observe migratory birds, I urge you to show your support again this year.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to this week and the importance nationally in focusing on the problem of arson. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, in cooperation with our Oklahoma colleagues, I joined in support of a resolution condemning the action in Oklahoma City and on focusing on the need to further highlight this country's preparedness and ability to deal with explosions and disasters and especially those caused by terrorism. Mr. Speaker, on May 1 through May 8 is Arson Awareness Week nationwide, and this week is a time each year that we take out to focus on one particular type of tragedy that occurs on a recurring basis throughout the year. Unfortunately, in this country we tend to only focus on problems of disasters, when a major disaster occurs, such as the World Trade Center bombing, and most recently the Oklahoma City bombing. But, Mr. Speaker, arson fires and arson deaths occur every day of the year in this country and are becoming a major problem in terms of both loss of life and property. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, arson annually causes about $2 billion worth of property loss, and that does not include the amount of extraordinary damage caused by the emotional effects, indirect losses, indirect financial situations, medical and legal costs, lost wages, business interruption, fire fighting and law enforcement efforts which together exceed the direct losses twofold. So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about arson presenting a problem to our country and our people that exceeds the $2 billion a year with indirect costs approaching $4 billion a year. Arson fires account for only 15 percent of building fires in this country but account for more than 30 percent of total dollar loss. In fact, in a more troubling statistic, Mr. Speaker, arson fires account for more than 700 lives lost each year, 700 lives lost from fires directly caused by arson deliberately set either to cover up a crime, to have some profit motive, to gain money from the insurance company, or some other profit ring that would allow those to gain from the crime of arson. Arson has disrupted educational and manufacturing systems with the destruction of irreplaceable buildings and artifacts. In addition, it has rendered natural resources useless for long periods of time or completely destroyed. Mr. Speaker, there is some good news. The insurance industry is beginning to crack down on arson as never before. One way they are doing this is by reporting information on suspicious fires to the property insurance loss register, a national data base which police, law enforcement and fire officials use to investigate fires and prosecute arsonists. More and more insurance companies are extending their investigative and their deliberative actions to prosecute arsonists well beyond what was done in the previous decades. Many insurance companies are also giving more intensive arson detection and training to their property claim adjusters. In addition, company underwriters, the people who decide whether to offer insurance to individuals and businesses, also receive training in recognizing information that could warn that an insurance applicant represents a big arson risk. On May 19, 1994, almost 1 year ago, President Clinton signed a law, the Arson Prevention Act. Mr. Speaker, sides of the aisle, led by our good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher]. This legislation does several things to increase awareness of the problem of arson, including increasing the ability of fire departments to identify suspicious and incendiary fires resulting in increased and more effective prosecution of arson cases. The legislation awards 2-year competition merit-based grants to as many as 10 States for arson research, prevention, and control. The authorization for fiscal year 1994 was almost $5 million, and for fiscal year 1995 $6.25 million. The legislation also improves arson investigator training courses, leading to professional certification of arson investigators. It also provides resources for the formation of arson task forces, especially needed in our inner cities where arson for profit has become a major problem. The legislation also supports and develops programs directed at fraud as a cause of arson, juvenile arson, drug and gang related arson, domestic violence connected arson, and civil unrest as a cause of arson. Finally, the bill provides for development of an advanced course on arson prevention and expansion of arson investigator training programs at the National Fire Academy, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy. The International Association of Arson Investigators was formed in 1949. It is the most broad-based, well-respected organization in this country and the world that focuses on the problem of arson and works to train arson investigators. This organization, with over 8,000 members, was established to unite for mutual benefit those public officials and private persons engaged in the control of arson and kindred crimes. In addition, the National Fire Protection Association is currently developing a manual for fire investigation that will aid in the process of training these investigators. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to those brave men and women who day in and day out are fighting this ongoing problem in America, a problem that is affecting our economy and that is taking approximately 700 lives each year. I pay tribute especially to those brave arson investigators, those law enforcement personnel who are handling situations in all of our cities and counties dealing with the terrible tragedy of arson loss in this country.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank our colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for offering this resolution. I rise in strong support. Mr. Speaker, for the last 9 years in this Congress I have worked the issues of fire and life safety and emergency response and have been on every major disaster the country has had, from the Loma Prieta earthquake, the wildland fires, Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew, the World Trade Center bombing, but perhaps none has been more outrageous than the recent disaster in Oklahoma City. It is the worst from the standpoint of the outrage, Mr. Speaker, because of the way it was done, because of the victims upon whom this disaster was perpetrated. But the thing in each of these incidents and every major incident that the country faces every day is the same, and that is the dedication and tenacity of the emergency response officials in this country. One and one-half million men and women across America from Chief Morris from the Oklahoma fire department and Assistant Chief John Hansen were there to answer the question. Last Wednesday evening, as we have done for the last 7 years, we honored the national fire emergency responders, with 2,000 leaders from across the country at the Hilton here in Washington. We did a live video linkage with the mayor and the chief emergency response officials from Oklahoma City as we gave them our highest award, paying recognition for the work that they have done. They are typical of the emergency response community in this country and we need to recognize them. But, Mr. Speaker, there are lessons that we need to learn from these incidents. Following the World Trade Center bombing, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to President Clinton and asked him to convene a special task force on disasters in America, especially those that are caused by terrorism. The House responded. We convened a bipartisan task force that met for 5 months last year and came up with specific recommendations. The day after the Oklahoma City disaster I again wrote to President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, I include that letter in the Record at this point. The letter referred to follows: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 20, 1995. President William Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: In light of the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City, I write to urge that you convene a White House Conference on Disaster Preparedness and Response and appoint a Presidential Task Force to follow up with recommendations for legislative and administrative action. As founder of the Congressional Fire and Emergency Services Caucus, I have long advocated the improvement of federal disaster mitigation and response. I believe we must look at the situations which we have faced in past disaster scenarios--from the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City to the California earthquake and the Midwest floods--and apply the ``lessons learned'' to future planning and response efforts. Following the bombing of the World Trade Center, I called for the creation of Disaster Task Force and laid out several recommendations of my own. You may recall proposals. I also urged federal action on disaster response after the California Earthquakes, Florida hurricanes and Midwest floods. Congress responded by establishing a bipartisan Disaster Task Force on which I served. The Task Force produced numerous recommendations for improving national disaster mitigation and response. As a result of these past efforts, FEMA is today far better organized and prepared to deal with crises than it has been in the past. I appreciate the Administration's support for reform, and applaud you for the accomplishments to date. However, as recent events indicate, much remains to be done. We must build on the progress we have made and undertake a broader, more comprehensive review to address a full range of disasters. We now need to bring together top disaster planning experts from across the nation with policy makers from all levels of government so that we can craft recommendations for increasing coordination of federal, state and local efforts in mitigating and responding to natural and manmade disasters, including those provoked by terrorists. I look forward to your leadership and support in this regard. Sincerely, Curt Weldon, Member of Congress. In that letter I asked the President to convene a White House Conference on Disasters, with a special focus on terrorism, to be followed by a White House executive committee that would work to implement legislative and administrative changes to allow us to better respond to disasters like this around the country. Mr. Speaker, FEMA has improved, and the Federal Government has improved, in the way that we assist local officials, but much more has to be done, much more can be learned, and I would hope that the best tribute that we could pay to all of those who fell victim to this terrorist act in Oklahoma City would be to put into place a process through which we can improve the ability for emergency responders to deal with similar situations in the future. Because, Mr. Speaker, we know there is going to be another time, we know there is going to be another disaster, we know there is going to be another bombing, and we have to be prepared to mitigate, to deal with, respond to, and pay for those disasters, and the best way to do that is to conduct an ongoing review and make comprehensive recommendations about that response process. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for yielding me the time.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, during the debate occurring on March 24, 1995, on the Personal Responsibility Act, one of my colleagues across the aisle made serious misstatements about a school district in my district. I want to set the record straight. Reference was made by my colleague to this school district opting out of the Federal School Lunch Program. It was implied that this school district deals with its poorer children who need a lunch by feeding them scraps and leftovers. Mr. Speaker, this is simply not true. The district my colleague referred to is the Upper Darby School District, which I represent. The Upper Darby district opted out of the Federal School Lunch Program 13 years ago. The district's decision was made then, as it is made now, on a careful review of the district's demographics and a review of what is best for the community. Before opting out, Upper Darby was losing $60 to $80 thousand a year by participating in the Federal Lunch Program. Federal rules required extra people for food preparation and monitoring. Food sent to the schools as part of the program was not popular. Kids were paying 20 cents for a meal that cost a dollar to prepare, taking a couple of bits, and dumping most of the food. So the Upper Darby district opted out. No child goes hungry and no child is fed scraps. The district's goal is to have a self-sufficient food service program that serves nutritious meals. And that is what Upper Darby has. The district has contracted with a private food service management company to run its program. The district's menus meet the nutritional guidelines set by the Federal Government. The menus encourage healthy eating by offering a variety of foods, including salads, yogurt, poultry, and other healthful choices. The kids have a choice about what to eat and as a result much less food is wasted. Upper Darby has never had a problem with kids not getting a meal at school. Current program participation in Upper Darby elementary schools ranges from 56 to 70 percent. The contractor works with individual schools to assist needy children. No child goes hungry. No child eats scraps in the Upper Darby schools. The program serves nutritious meals that kids will actually eat, saves money, and meets the needs of the community. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an issue that is dominating much of the discussion of the House and Senate Armed Services and National Security Committees dealing with missile defense. Those of us who saw CNN yesterday report that the Russians have now decided to offer for sale the SS25 missile launch architecture to other nations of the world realize that the potential for this technology, that in fact could launch an intercontinental ballistic missile to any part of our country, is in fact being offered for sale to Third World nations and to nations to be used as a space launch assembly. This greatly concerns me and many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, because of the potential for a rogue nation to obtain this technology in a very short period of time. In addition, we see where the Iranians are now putting together cruise missiles along the Straits of Hormuz, which could threaten the shipping lanes in that area. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that one of the greatest threats that we will have to face as we approach the 21st century is that of missile proliferation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are three specific areas we have to focus on. The first deals with cruise missiles, low-flying, the kind of missiles we saw Saddham Hussein use in Desert Storm against the Israelis, known as the SCUDS. Cruise missiles are currently in the hands of 77 nations around the world, Mr. Speaker. In fact, 20 nations of the world are not producing cruise missiles. In fact, we in this country, much to my objection, just allowed the technology to be transferred to China to allow them to increase their cruise missile technology in terms of their motors to drive those cruise missiles. It is an area we need to focus on, and Mr. Speaker, one that we are not putting enough emphasis on in terms of national security interests. Mr. Speaker, the second concern dealing with missiles deals with theater missiles, those systems that could protect our troops from an attack in a theater of operation, like we saw the SCUDS do in Desert Storm. We are working aggressively in this area, Mr. Speaker. The President supports theater missile defense. I support that effort. I want to make sure we give General O'Neill the maximum support possible in terms of theater missile defense. The third area deals with national missile defense. Most of the public at large in this country does not realize that currently we have no protection against a deliberate or accidental launch of one missile aimed at our mainland. What further concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that China now has a missile, the CSS II, that has a range of 2,000 miles. North Korea is developing a missile, the Taipodong II missile, that has a range of several thousand kilometers, that could one day reach Guam and perhaps even Alaska. We have no defense against those kinds of missiles. In fact, as I mentioned at the onset of my comments tonight, Russia is now offering the SS25 architecture, one of their main missile launch systems, to other nations. Mr. Speaker, with these things in mind, we are now trying to provide for Members of Congress a detailed assessment of the threat and what our capabilities are in terms of missile defense technology. We are holding five hearings in the Committee on National Security on missile defense, the technology, where we are today, the threat, and what we have bought and what we have received for the dollars we have invested. Mr. Speaker, I would invite all of our colleagues to come out tomorrow morning in the Rayburn Building in H.R. 2118, the Committee on National Security main hearing room, where we will have assembled the technologies that we have purchased with our missile defense moneys over the past decade or so. Members will be able to see these technologies, ask questions, and be briefed by General O'Neill and those people in the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army who have been working on missile defense technology. Following that walk-through, which is open to every Member of the House and Senate, we will have a press conference at 11 o'clock and then open the entire display to the public. From 11:00 until 1:00 the public is invited to come to 2118 Rayburn, where they can see the kinds of technology that we have developed over the years and that is ready to go into deployment, in some cases, over the next several years. Finally, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon in that same hearing room, General O'Neill will come before the Subcommittee on Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, and we will explore in great detail with him the technologies that are in fact available today, those that are being deployed, and those technologies that are on the horizon for us to be researching and looking to implement. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all of our colleagues to join in this assessment of where we are going with missile defense technology, and to join with a bipartisan effort in making sure that Members of Congress understand the threat that is there. Some would say that with the demise of the former Soviet Union there is no more threat. Mr. Speaker, one only has to look at what is happening in the real world to understand that we are today unprotected.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 849, the Age Discrimination in Employment Safety Exemption Act. As the founder of the congressional fire services caucus, I have worked tirelessly to promote fire safety at the national level. For this reason, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 849 and am grateful that my colleague from Illinois has brought this issue to the floor today. The ability of all public safety officers to perform their duties at peak level is literally a matter of life or death for millions of Americans. I can tell you first hand that the physical demands of firefighting are overwhelming. For this reason, in 1986, Congress agreed to exempt fire and police departments from ADEA while an official study was conducted regarding the validity of age criteria for public safety occupations. The study verified what I have been saying for years, that the ability to work as a fire or police officer declines with age. Fitness tests are not a valid alternative to age limits. I've been surrounded by a 6-foot wall of fire, and I'm telling you there is no adequate simulation. In addition, fitness tests have been consistently struck down by courts as discriminatory. In absence of a valid fitness test, age limits ensure our public safety teams are in peak condition. In addition, this bill will continue to protect State and local governments who in the past have been threatened with costly litigation in their efforts to defend age policies. Lives are at stake; we cannot let this issue become another litigation nightmare played out in our Nation's courts. H.R. 849 is supported by those who are directly affected by its passage, the fire and police officers who rely on the ability of their colleagues to perform each and every day. In addition, the measure enjoys a broad and diverse range of support from organizations such as the AFL-CIO, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Fire Department Safety Officers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Association of Counties to name but a few. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of H.R. 849 and urge my colleagues to support Congressman Fawell's efforts to strengthen our emergency service teams.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to correct obvious misstatements by a colleague on the other side about a school district in my district.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Innocent Landowner Defense Act is to clarify what is required by ``all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownerships and uses of the property'' as contained in the 1986 Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA) to Superfund. The 1986 SARA amendments included several exemptions for the liability of site cleanup--an important one being the innocent landowners defense provision. This provision allows for an exemption of liability to a landowner who has not contributed to the contamination of a site and has made all appropriate inquiry into the previous uses of the property. The intent of the innocent landowner defense was to encourage the uncovering of contaminated sites which could then be cleaned up. It was meant as a narrow exception to protect those considering the acquisition of land from future liability. Unfortunately, the definition of all appropriate inquiry was never made clear in the SARA legislation, resulting in confusion as to the requirement for assessing a site for contamination. This lack of clarification has left the land purchaser with a dilemma. Even the most expensive and extensive site assessments may not prevent the landowner from later being held liable for contamination. The Innocent Landowner's Defense Act is designed to define what is meant by ``all appropriate inquiry,'' putting an end to the confusion and allowing landowners to protect themselves from liability. Specifically, this legislation calls for a phase I environmental audit--an investigation of the property conducted by an environmental professional--defined in the legislation to discover the presence of hazardous substances through the following sources: (1) chain of title documents for the past 50 years; (2) available aerial photographs of the property; (3) Superfund liens against the property; (4) Federal, State, and local government records of activities causing release of hazardous substances; and (5) a visual site inspection of the property. If these criteria are met, an individual would be recognized as having conducted all appropriate inquiry. This legislation in no way changes the liability scheme of Superfund. It is a clarifying correction which enables courts and potential landowners to determine exactly what is needed to fulfill all appropriate inquiry requirements. Not only will this legislation clear up a very confusing situation, but it will restore the original intent of the innocent landowner defense--it will encourage the testing of sites for contamination, increasing the likelihood that contaminated sites will be found and cleaned up. This legislation provides the guidance crucial to assessing the risk associated with hazardous waste sites. It would allow for the realization of the original goals of the Superfund legislation, while leaving the original statute unchanged in terms of liability.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Recycling Information Clearinghouse Act calls for the creation of a recycling clearinghouse within the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] Office of Solid Waste Management. With the monumental environmental problems this Nation faces in the future, it is imperative we examine all possible solutions to these problems. America's garbage problem is heavy indeed. Each year we generate over 180 million tons of garbage. We discard enough paper in a year to build a 12-foot high wall stretching from coast to coast. Every hour we dispose of 2.5 million potentially recyclable plastic bottles. The EPA estimates that this amount of waste will continue to increase rapidly through the year 2000. Our traditional method of disposing of garbage in landfills is becoming obsolete. Ten years ago in Pennsylvania, we had over 1,000 active landfills; today we have under 100. In addition to dwindling capacity, the cost to dump in landfills is skyrocketing. The latest trend in disposal technology is incineration. Unfortunately, this method has proven to be both hazardous and inefficient. The first step in tackling our waste problem is to convert from a throwaway society to a recycling one, by shifting our focus from waste disposal to waste reduction. Although we possess the technology to recycle 80 to 90 percent of glass and aluminum, we recycle only 13 percent of our garbage annually. Recycling is cleaner and more energy efficient than both landfills and incineration. Having set up the first comprehensive recycling program in Pennsylvania, I know recycling works at the local level. Our recycling programs have provided substantial savings in county disposal costs. The key to success is information. The success of Delaware County should be made available to other officials who are interested in setting up their own programs. My legislation would create a clearinghouse of information on the national level in the EPA. The bill would authorize $500,000 to be matched by the private sector. The clearinghouse would provide easy access to information regarding recycling to any interested State or local officials through a toll-free hotline. Technical assistance would be disseminated through seminars and other resources. Although the clearinghouse will not eliminate the waste problem, it is definitely a step in the right direction. Recycling can be a clean, cost-effective means of dealing with our garbage glut. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Recycling Clearinghouse Information Act.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, currently the ocean dumping of radioactive waste is regulated under the Ocean Dumping Act [ODA] allows dumping of radioactive waste only after Congress has passed a joint resolution authorizing the dumping. Although this provision has been in force since 1985, Congress has yet to authorize any radioactive dumping. For decades, U.S. law on ocean pollution has been more stringent than international law. At the time of enactment, the radioactive dumping provisions in the ODA were among the most restrictive in the world, going well beyond international treaty obligations. That is no longer the case. The Ocean Radioactive Dumping Ban Act corrects this, eliminating ODA's current arduous permitting process and replacing it with a simple ban. It ensures that the United States retains its leadership position in protecting the world's marine environment. The relevance of the United States banning radioactive dumping is far-reaching. Historically, the United States has set international policy on ocean dumping of radioactive waste. Until last year, the United States had resisted an international ban. Through U.S. influence, the issue was left unresolved. That all changed last November when the Clinton administration, following heavy lobbying from the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment [GLOBE] and other organizations, reversed U.S. policy and announced its support for a ban. Prompted largely by the new U.S. position, in November 1993, the parties to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter of 1972, known as the London Convention, amended annexes I and II to ban the deliberate ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The Convention has always banned the dumping of high-level radioactive waste. During the 103d Congress, as the ranking Republican on the oceanography, Gulf of Mexico, and Outer Continental Shelf Subcommittee, and the newly appointed chairman of the GLOBE Ocean Protection Working Group, I have spent the last year working to eliminate the threat of radioactive contamination of the sea. On September 30, 1993, at my request, the Oceanography Subcommittee held a hearing on the threat of contamination from the Russian dumping of nuclear waste. For four decades the former Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation has been dumping nuclear waste from nuclear submarines and weapons plants into the world's oceans. The information gathered by the subcommittee was sobering. The West's first concrete evidence on the dumping came last summer following the release of the Yablokov report which was commissioned by President Boris Yeltsin to detail the extent of Soviet nuclear disposal at sea. According to the report, the Soviet Union has dumped over 2.5 million curies of radioactive waste into the Arctic Ocean and other marine environments. By comparison, the accident at Three Mile Island in my home State of Pennsylvania released 15 curies of radiation. During the hearing, the subcommittee discovered that since 1959, the former Soviet Union dumped into the ocean 18 nuclear reactors and a reactor screen, 11,000 to 17,000 canisters of nuclear waste, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid radioactive waste. It also learned that nuclear waste totaling 10 million curies is currently stored aboard vessels in Murmansk harbor. Although water quality monitoring in the Arctic suggests that large- scale contamination of the ocean has yet to occur, our knowledge about the possibility of future leakage and transportation is very limited. Significant environmental contamination is a real possibility in the future. Even after the fall of communism, Moscow has continued to dispose of radioactive waste at sea. In October 1993, Russia dumped 900 tons of low-level radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan in violation of a previously agreed upon international moratorium. According to Japanese press accounts, high ranking Russian officials have admitted that ocean dumping is likely to persist. The Russian Federation's actions followed the October 1993 dumping have only reinforced these fears. Russia was one of only five nations to abstain from voting to approve the London Convention radioactive dumping ban in November 1993. Then, in February 1994, it became the only nation to declare its intention not to comply with the new international ban on dumping. Only through strong Western pressure will this change. But before we can pressure Russia, we have to act. That is why I reintroduced the Ocean Radioactive Dumping Ban Act. This act will make U.S. law consistent with the London Convention by amending the ODA to ban the dumping of radioactive waste. As with the amendments to the Convention's annexes I and II, which contain provisions exempting de minimis radioactive waste from the ban, the Ocean Radioactive Dumping Ban Act exempts de minimis waste from the ban. Since all matter is radioactive to some degree, a de minimis, or negligible, exemption is necessary to ensure that critical commercial activities such as dredging can continue. Although no uniform definition for de minimis waste currently exists, the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] has produced significant guidance on the issue and is working on an internationally recognized standard. Once an international standard is devised, I expect the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] will promulgate regulations on this issue based on the IAEA's efforts. Hopefully, with pressure from the United States, the Russian Federation can be convinced to change its policy. With 10 million curies of radiation stored aboard ships in Murmansk Harbor and awaiting disposal, the risk to the marine environment is significant if we fail. The Ocean Radioactive Dumping Ban Act will significantly strengthen our position and will set an example as we further discuss such dumping with the Russian Federation. Clearly the world's oceans should not be used as nuclear disposal sites. I ask my colleagues to join me in sending a strong message to the rest of the world, and support the Ocean Radioactive Dumping Ban Act of 1995.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding constituent, James W. Gallagher, for his service to the Nation and Delaware County, PA. A resident of Newtown Square, PA, Mr. Gallagher is well known and highly regarded by many people throughout our community for his selfless charitable contributions. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Jim has remained dedicated to his country as an active historian, by preserving our patriotic history like no other. Jim is best known throughout the region and the Nation as his alter ego, ``George Washington.'' As vice-president of the Washington Crossing Foundation, Jim portrays George Washington as the principal speaker at the Nationwide Bell Ringing Ceremony sponsored by the Pennsylvania Society at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Jim portrays our first President every Christmas in the reenactment of Gen. George Washington's historic journey during the Revolutionary War. He has promoted the legacy of George Washington by appearing in many parades and in our Nation's Capitol in costume. Jim, like many throughout our great Nation, has worked to overturn the Supreme Court's decision of 5 years ago that ruled people who burn American flags are entitled to legal protection under the first amendment's provisions regarding free speech. As cosponsor of the flag protection amendment, I am gratified the amendment has been reintroduced and is gaining wide support among Members. As a member of the General Society Sons of the Revolution, Jim published an eloquent and inspirational piece entitled ``Freedom is a Light for Which Many Men had Died in Darkness.'' I would like to submit this article for the record so that my colleagues can appreciate Jim's keen insight. It is my hope that those who read it will be inspired as I was to reflect upon our rich historic roots. I have been honored to work with Jim and am pleased to call him a friend. He deserves our recognition and continued support. I ask the Members of the House to join me in honoring this outstanding American. Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Men Have Died in Darkness (By James W. Gallagher) Independence Day is a day to remember what transpired here 218 years ago. In July 1776 John Adams wrote a letter to his wife, Abigail, in Massachusetts. He wanted her to know about an important vote that he had just cast in Philadelphia as a member of the Continental Congress. The subject of his letter was the passage that day of something Independence. Adams wrote his wife that a single day in July 1776 would be honored ``as the most memorable day in the history of America.'' That is a remarkable prediction to make about a nation that did not even exist then, that first had to free itself from the control of the world's most powerful country. Other predictions that Adams wrote to his wife about a special day in July 1776 were right on target, too. In his letter he said, ``It will be celebrated by succeeding generations as a great anniversary festival. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parades, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations . . . from one end of the continent to the other . . . from this time forward . . . forever more.'' John Adams got only one major detail wrong in his amazing prediction--he had the wrong date. He wrote his wife that he could foresee those parades and fireworks happening every year on July Second. That is because it was on July 2, 1776 that the Continental Congress, meeting in secret session, actually voted on the Declaration of Independence. Two days later, on July 4, the delegates to the Continental Congress signed the Declaration. Also on that day they came out of their secret session and showed the world what they had done. Does that mean we are wrong in celebrating July Fourth? Should we be having Second of July picnics and Second of July fireworks? No. Most legal documents take effect when they are signed and July Fourth is the day when signatures were put on a draft of that incredible document written by Thomas Jefferson. Many historians will tell you it is not because of the signatures that we use July 4 as the official birthday of our country. It is because that is the day people first heard about the Declaration of Independence. In this country the people count. What is important is the involvement of the people in managing their own affairs, not governmental bodies making decisions in secret. For most of human history--and even in large parts of the world today--that is still a revolutionary idea. We should remember every July Fourth that the rights we often take for granted do not come easily or automatically. Those rights are re-purchased by each generation, often at a terrible price. Nearby we have the graves of some of our Revolutionary War dead. They know that freedom is not free since they paid with their very lives. On the tombstone [of the Unknown Soldier in Washington Square] is the inscription ``Freedom is a Light for Which Many Men Have Died in Darkness.'' Fifty years ago today the beachhead at Normandy was not quite a month old. Nearly a million men and women from the United States, Great Britain and our wartime allies had landed there. They were beginning to spread out from that small foothold in northern France and each mile of liberated Europe demanded a high price in human lives and suffering. Many terrible struggles were still ahead of the U.S. military 50 years ago today during World War II. Today our enemies are harder to identify, but they are out there. Our commitment to the men and women in uniform should be as strong today as it was 50 years ago. History has taught us the best way to avoid war is to be better prepared than any adversary. Vigilance is also the watchword in our domestic life. Even the best of governments can forget that government is the servant of the people and that the people should never be the servant of government. Just five years ago the Supreme Court ruled that people who burn American flags are entitled to legal protection under the First Amendment's provisions safeguarding free speech. This decision outraged many Americans who see the flag as a sacred symbol of the country, as a symbol of our values that ought to be respected and, especially, as a symbol of the brave sacrifices of our men and women in wartime. We want to amend the Constitution to allow the states and the federal government to enact laws prohibiting physical desecration of the flag. If it is in the Constitution then the courts cannot rule it unconstitutional. ``Old Glory'' is precious to me. So is the idea that government should be answerable to the people. We hear more these days about the search for values in America. Some of us do not have to look very far to find values. We start with devotion to God, love of country and respect for the flag. These are solid foundations upon which this country has been built and they are foundations upon which we can grow. If we need to find values, we can start with the values laid down 218 years ago in that remarkable document we honor today, the Declaration of Independence. It says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted.'' That is still the best statement of who we are as a people, what we hold dear and what we will fight to preserve. God Bless America.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will hopefully not take the entire hour this evening. My topic this evening is the defense of our country, and as a 9-year member of the National Security Committee, formerly the Armed Services Committee, and current chairman of the Research and Technology Subcommittee, I would like to focus on three specific items relative to our national defense. The first will be our budget and the current conflict in Washington over how much money we should spend on our military over the next 5 years, and especially this next fiscal year. The second will be missile defense, where we are going in terms of protecting this country, and our troops from a missile attack. The third will be a problem I see emerging in terms of arms sales that the Clinton administration has not yet addressed. Before I get into the budget numbers, in terms of defense spending, Mr. Speaker, I quote an article today that appeared in two newspapers that I have to share with you and all of our colleagues that outraged me when I read it. It was printed; originally the story ran in the Baltimore Sun, and then was reprinted by the Tampa Tribune in an editorial. It has to do with the abuse of our current social welfare system. The reason I bring it up during this 1-hour special order on defense is that over the past 10 or 15 years we have heard Member after Member talk about, even the President talk about, expensive toilet seats and hammers that were especially designed materials for use by the military, and much of that criticism, I might add, was warranted, especially where we did not have good control of our procurement process. And that is why we have worked on acquisition reform in past sessions, and it is again a priority for this session. But we have seemed to never want to talk about the abuse that occurs in the social welfare state and the spending that has occurred totally out of control over the past 30 years. I pointed out during the debate on the National Security Revitalization Act several weeks ago, over the past 30 years, we have had two wars in America. The first war was the war on poverty declared by Lyndon Johnson which we lost. We spent the taxpayers' money to the extent of $6 trillion over the past 30 years on social welfare programs, yet we have more impoverished people today than at any time in recent history. During that same time period the cold war ended. We won that war, and we won that war because of our focus on a strong national defense. The purpose of a strong defense is not to fight wars but, rather, to deter aggression. During this same time period, we were spending $6 trillion public dollars on social welfare programs, we spent approximately $5 trillion on national security and national defense, and I think the best evidence of how successful those dollars were in terms of being spent is that we saw communism fall, the Berlin Wall came down, and democracy break out around the world. Even former Soviet leader Gorbachev stated he just could not keep up with America's defense posture which was the reason why they chose to work toward a democratic state and to begin to dismantle the Russian arsenal which is being done. Some would argue to what extent it is being done. At least, it is being done. I want to highlight this story, because we need to understand, America, what happens with the tax dollars that we spend, and this is probably as good of an example as you could have. It results from an interview that the Baltimore Sun had with an unemployed family in Lake Providence, LA. This family of nine people qualifies and receives $46,716 a year in tax-free cash from the Federal Government. Now, I am not an accountant or a CPA, but I know to get $46,716 of tax-free cash, you would have to make a lot more money if you were paying ordinary tax rates. I am reluctant to mention the name of this family, but it has been reported in both the Baltimore Sun and the Tampa Tribune, and the lady who was interviewed evidently had no problem with her name being used, as you will see from some of the quotes. The name is Rosie Watson. Rosie Watson gets $343.50 a month in disability payments because a judge ruled the she is too stressed out to work. Now, that, in fact, may be legitimate. I am not arguing that point. Her common law husband receives $343.50 a month also from the Federal Government because he is too fat to work. He weights 386 pounds. Now, in addition, their seven children, ages 13 to 22, all receive Federal support in the amount of $458 a month because supposedly they have demonstrated age-appropriate inappropriate behavior so they qualify for this special compensation. Multiplying all of those dollars out, you come to the figure of $46,716 a year from the Federal Government without having to pay any tax. In addition, they also receive full medical care and benefits through Medicaid which is not included in that sum of money. When questioned by the Baltimore Sun about this, she said, and I quote, ``I got nothing to hide.'' In 1978 she told officials that her second child, at age 4, was a threat to other children and, therefore, she should get compensation for that child. She kept reapplying until, in 1984, the officials agreed that he did have a behavior problem, and the award was granted. But a few years later because of that ruling, she was given a $10,000 lump sum check to make up for back compensation that she had not been provided for that child. In all, the family has received $37,000 in retroactive payments. That is above and beyond the $46,716 each year. Now, Mr. Speaker, for all of our senior citizens out there, they have to remember this is coming out of the Social Security system, yes, even the money for the children is coming out of the Social Security system. After 15 years of relentless applications, Rosie Watson has had all of her children put on these disability payments. Now, here is a rub: You know, you could see that these payments are supposed to do or are designed to help individuals deal with their disabilities and attempt to get back into the mainstream of society. But the Baltimore Sun went on to ask her what she uses the money for, and she explained how she divvies ti up each month, and then she said, and I quote, ``One need that she has each month is $120 in allowances for George, who is 14, David 17, Willie, 18, and Denny, 19. `Being the age they is and being out there with their little girl friends, they need the money,' she says.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is not only are we paying this family $47,000 a year of tax-free Federal money, but that four of the children are getting a monthly allotment of $120, $30 each, to be used partly to take care of their girl friends. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an example of what the American people feel is wrong with the social welfare state in this country. Now, we can talk about all the hammers and toilet seats we want, and I can tell you that no department of the Federal Government has more oversight than DoD has right now, but this year and this session it is time to focus on reconfiguring the way glad that is one of our major items under consideration for reform. Part of the problem in an era where we have declining dollars available for Federal priorities, one of the areas that has got hit the hardest during the past 5 years has been defense spending, and yet, in fact, in this fiscal year no one can tell us what the right amount is to spend on our national security. We had the President tell us when he was a candidate for office that he would cut $60 billion off of defense spending over 5 years from what President Bush had projected. Then when he became the President, he said, ``No, I was wrong. I am going to increase that cut to $128 billion,'' which he is currently in the process of implementing. Many of us on both sides of the aisle last year and 2 years ago told the President that he was making a grave mistake, that cutting defense spending by $128 billion over 5 years after four successive years of declining defense budgets would just not be able to be lived up to by the military, and that it was imprudent for him to include that kind of cut in his 5-year budget. But he went ahead and did it. Now, here this year we have the General Accounting Office coming before Congress and testifying that the President's defense needs, as outlined by the bottom-up review, outlined by Les Aspin when he was Secretary of Defense, are in fact $150 billion short. So the General Accounting Office is saying we are short $150 billion over 5 years. Now, the Congressional Budget Office, which reports to the Congress, last year came up with a figure that we are now using this year showing that the budget over 5 years is between $60 billion and $100 billion short. One of the most respected Democrats in terms of defense posture in this Congress, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] has come out with his own budget saying in just this fiscal year alone, our defense needs are $44 billion short, and, therefore, he wants his colleagues, and all of us on both sides of the aisle, to support the restoration of $44 billion in defense outlays, I should say, over the next 5 years, so we have three different numbers from three different individuals and groups. What we would like to think is that we base our defense needs on the realities that are out there, and as we see the potential for conflict, the military leadership would come back to us and tell us what it is in the way of manpower and equipment that they need to deal with those potential conflicts. Unfortunately, for the past 2 years, the budget number that we have been given by the administration, as Sam Nunn has said publicly, was simply pulled out of the air. It was not based on real needs and not based on a real net threat assessment. This year we are trying to deal with it and solve the dilemma of what is the correct amount of funding in terms of our military for this next fiscal year and for the remaining 4 years of the 5-year budget cycle. Now, President Clinton stood in this very Chamber in January when he gave the State of the Union Message, and he pounded his fist on the podium directly behind me, and he told the American people as well as all of us that he would not accept any more defense cuts, and those were his exact words. Usually the American people want to believe the President, because what he says we would think in fact is what he was going to do. In fact, when he pounded the desk, we figured he really meant this. He also said he was going to add back in $25 billion over 5 years, in effect, because there was a need for additional funds. But we need to look at two things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, this year's defense budget is, in fact, lower than last year's, and the President's cuts are still under way, so his notion about not having any further cuts is really not borne out by the budget he submitted to us. But more importantly, the administration is really playing a charade with the American people. He said at this podium that he was going to add back $25 billion of new money. What he did not tell the American people was that $23 of that $25 billion would not come into play until after the next presidential election. Now that is pretty convenient. In other words, ``Trust me. When I run for relection, and if I am elected, then I will put back the other $23 billion of the $25 billion I promised.'' None of it is going back in this year. It is coming after, in fact, the President has to run for relection, assuming he would be reelected. In fact, over the past 5 years the defense spending for this country has gone down by 25 percent. The single largest decrease in any part of the Federal budget has, in fact, been in support of our military, and I am not saying that some of those cuts were not necessary. In fact many of them I supported. But while we have cut defense spending by 25 percent, what outrages me is the fact that during that same 5-year time period we have increased nondefense spending in the defense budget by 361 percent. What that means is that while we have cut defense spending dramatically, Members of Congress have stuck in items in the defense bill that they could not get funded through normal appropriation channels, and that amount has increased 361 percent and includes such items as, in this year's defense bill, $13 billion for environmental restoration and cleanup, $3 billion, some of it for questionable dual use conversion projects, $4.7 billion for add-ons never requested by the military, never gone through the authorization process, stuck on by Members of Congress. So what is really concerning to me is that, while we have cut defense spending by 25 percent, Members of Congress keep adding on more and more programs that in some cases have nothing to do with the military. Now I happen to be a strong supporter of cancer research. I think it is important that we work to find a cure, but I cannot for the life of me understand why all the cancer research is funded out of the defense bill, and many of those same liberals who question the level of defense spending are the ones who put cancer research in the defense bill. Now that does not make sense. Likewise I think a solution for the problem of AIDS is important, but I cannot understand why tens of millions of dollars for AIDS research are in the defense bill. Four point seven billion dollars of this year's defense bill has nothing to do with defense in terms of requirements by the Pentagon, but rather are priorities identified by individual Members and stuck in defense spending provisions. Mr. Speaker, this has got to stop. If we are going to be fair with our military, then we need to have a clean budget process. What we need for the military should be that. If we think there are other priorities that should be addressed, they should be paid for through other bills that are worked through the appropriation process. We also need to make sure that, when this President wants to send our troops overseas, as he has done frequently, that he is willing to stand up and ask us to pay for it. Many of us; in fact, most of us in this body; wanted to have a vote on whether or not our troops should be sent into Haiti. In fact many of us signed resolutions. We wanted to have a clear, up-front debate before the President committed our troops because we were debating this issue for months. We knew he was planning on sending our troops into Haiti. The President did not want us to have that opportunity. In fact, as we know, it was a Sunday evening while we were out of session over a recess that he decided he was going to send our planes down to Haiti, and this was only averted, a military insertion was only averted, by the actions of Sam Nunn, Colin Powell, and Jimmy Carter. But in fact the troops did go into Haiti, although it was a peaceful process that they went in under, but the point is we have now spent $1.5 billion of DOD money on the Haitian operation. So my point is that while we are continuing to use the defense budget for all these other purposes, Mr. Speaker, we are also using defense money to pay for the President's escapades around the world, not just in Haiti, continued presence in Somalia which every day seems like it was more and more of a waste to keep our troops there, and troops in Macedonia, Bosnia, and now the huge operation in Haiti. our Haiti presence was to find out that while our troops are being told that we have less money to spend on them, that we are using our DOD tax dollars to pay the full salaries, benefits, housing costs and travel for non-United States troops, troops from Guatemala, Nepal, Bangladesh. Other countries that President Clinton had to entice into Haiti are being paid with United States DOD tax dollars. To me that is an outrage, especially at a time when we are cutting defense dollars in such a draconian way. Mr. Speaker, all of these budget cuts that we have imposed on the military and imposed on our national security establishment have forced us to push back further and further the whole issue that is my second topic tonight, and that is the issue of missile defense. This is an extremely important issue, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to focus on very aggressively between now and the end of this session because the facts have not been properly brought out to the American people about the real threat that is out there. We know that there are Saddam Husseins in the world and the other threats that we have seen and had to face down, but it is harder to understand what the threat is in terms of a ballistic missile attack, whether it be deliberate or accidental, or even a Cruise missile attack. We are going to be focusing on this glaring area of our national security where we currently have a vacuum and have no proper defense mechanism in place. When I asked my constituents back in Pennsylvania if they think that we have a system to protect us against one single missile coming into America fired accidentally or deliberately, they cannot believe it when I say that we have no system in place. They just cannot understand how a country with the assets that we have, spending the money that we spend, does not yet have a ballistic missile defense system to protect mainstream America, as well as our troops in the field. As a matter of fact, many of those who have fought long and hard for the past 20 years against missile defense were the same ones cheering the success of the Patriot system when it was brought into play in Desert Storm. The Patriot system was developed through the dollars that we put forth in the old SDI Program starting under President Reagan. If we had not spent money back then, we would not have had a defensive missile system to take down those missiles coming into Israel fired by Saddam Hussein, as primitive as they were. Mr. Speaker, despite the money that we have spent and despite what the misconception is of the American people, we still do not have adequate missile defense capability for this country in three different areas, and I want to talk about each of them briefly. First of all, Cruise missiles, the missiles that fly at low altitude, the kind that we saw Saddam fire at Israel called the Scud missiles. Seventy-seven countries in the world today have Cruise missiles. Seventy-seven countries in the world today, we have verified, have Cruise missiles. Over 20 countries in the world are capable of producing Cruise missiles. Now, granted, cruise missiles are primarily aimed at sinking ships. But, Mr. Speaker, a cruise missile can be placed on any platform. A cruise missile can be put on a ship at sea. So when our liberal friends say that we do not need missile defense because no missile can hit our mainland, what they forget is that a cruise missile can in fact be mounted on a ship and in fact could be used to deploy against some part of the American mainland. We are aggressively developing antimissile defenses for the cruise missile technology, but not as fast as many in the military would like us to proceed, and in fact not as fast as I would like us to proceed, because I think that poses a tremendous threat to our security. Now, the Russians, on the other hand, have an aggressive program for cruise missile defense. They have the SA-10 and the SA-12. The SA-12 has more capability than our Patriot system, the one we used in Desert Storm. In fact, what are the Russians doing with that system? We have evidence they are selling it all over the world. So here are the Russians selling a technology even better than the one that we have in terms of our ballistic missile defense. As a matter of fact, our CIA purchased one of these sophisticated systems and delivered it to Huntsville, AL. To the embarrassment of the CIA, the New York Times ran an editorial about how open this whole process was of buying this supposedly sophisticated piece of equipment from the Russians. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if we have the SA-12, countries all over the world have the SA-12, because the Russians have placed it on the open market. So cruise missiles are in fact an area that we have to focus our attention on. The second area is the adequate protection of our defenses when they are in the theater of operation like we saw over in the Middle East called theater missile defense, where we can protect our troops from the kind of attacks that we saw with Scud missiles. The Clinton administration is in favor of theater missile defense, and, even though they have cut the funding for missile defense significantly, we do have a robust program looking to implement theater ballistic missile defense whenever our troops are deployed. Both the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force are working on aggressive theater missile defense capabilities, and I support those efforts. Hopefully we can wrap up some of the funding for those programs, because who knows where the next threat will come from, a theater missile being used against our troops or one of our allies' troops. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we are working with the Israelis right now to develop a theater missile system that will be used specifically in Israel called the Arrow system, where 80 percent of the costs of that program are being paid for with United States tax dollars. So theater missile defense is the second key area of missile defense that we are focusing on, and I support the administration's attempt in that area, as well as leadership of General O'Neill, who heads the office and that operation. But there is a third area of missile defense we are completely ignoring, and that is the whole area of national missile defense. That was part of our debate that we had on the National Security Revitalization Act 2 weeks ago. There are those of us who feel we owe it to the administration to come back and tell us whether or not we have technologies we can deploy that will give us some capability against a deliberate or accidental launch of one, two, three, or perhaps four or five intercontinental ballistic missiles. Today we have no such system. Even though the ABM treaty allows each of the two signatories the opportunity to have a ballistic missile defense system, only Russia has one. In fact, Russia has today the only operational ABM system, surrounding Moscow. In fact, if you add in the capability of the large phased array radars around that system, you can in effect say they have a larger system, perhaps even the one that would break them out of the ABM treaty. We have no such system in America. So if a country, whether it be Russia, or China, or eventually North Korea when they develop the capability, has their own technology or buys the technology to fire one missile at one of our cities, we have absolutely no way today to defend the American people. None. Zilch, zero. Despite all the money that we spend on defense in this country, we have no antiballistic missile system to protect our mainland. Many say we do not need it because we operate on the theory of mutually assured destruction. We dare the Russians to attack us because of retaliation and vice-versa with them. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the scenario today. In fact, the biggest potential problem we have today comes from instability within the former Soviet Union and the warheads and missiles that are still in place that can in fact be sold to a Third World nation or a rogue nation. Now, what are the chances of that happening? I have confidence in our intelligence community being able to assess what is the command and control system in Russian today. Let me give you one example. I am going to elaborate on it in a special order in the future. with nuclear warhead capability is the SS-25. Russia has a number of SS-25's positioned throughout their country. The SS-25 typically operates out of a battery of three missiles, each of which can be programmed to a different city or different target. On each of those missiles in that battery of three is a separate nuclear warhead which means they have three warheads on three different missiles, which can be aimed very quickly at any city in the mainland United States and could hit any one of those cities from any location inside of Russia, or in fact any place that they would choose to take that capability. That system is the one that worries me the most. Now, why does it worry me? First of all, the SS-25 is mobilely launched, which means the mobile launcher for that rocket can be moved very quickly and very easily. What worries me secondarily about the SS-25 is that the Russians have offered that technology to Brazil to be used as a space launch vehicle. Now, what is so scary about that? What is so scary about that is there is no difference in the configuration of a SS-25 in Russia with a nuclear warhead than it is in Brazil as a space launch vehicle. If the Russians are offering the SS-25 to Brazil, the question we have to ask is where else are they offering the SS-25? Now, thank goodness, when we found out about the offering of the SS- 25 to Brazil, we stepped in and said no, that is a violation of agreements that we have with the Russians, you cannot do that. So they did in fact back off. But, Mr. Speaker, the point is, how much time are we going to have from the moment that a rogue nation gets the capability of a SS-25 and decides they are going to aim that at one of our cities? Can we afford then to wait 6 to 8 years to develop an affective ballistic missile defense system for our country? I say no. And that is why I think the prudent course for us to take is not to go off spending tens of billions of new dollars in missile defense. We cannot do that in this environment. But we do owe it to our people and to our citizens to look carefully at technologies that we have been working on that are ready to be deployed. Secretary Perry organized a Tiger Team task force to look at national ballistic missile defense in January of this year. Their preliminary report showed that we could implement a limited thin layer of protection for the entire continental U.S., headquartered in Grand Forks, ND, that would be able to give us a 90 percent effective rate in taking out a battery of three intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the SS-25. That system is doable today. It could be deployed in a matter of 4 years from the date that we give the go-ahead, which could be as early as say July of this year. The cost of that system over 5 years is not $25 billion or $30 billion. The cost of that system is approximately $5 billion over 5 years. But it would give us for the first time a defensive capability against an accidental or deliberate launch by a rogue nation of a missile like the SS-25. Mr. Speaker, I think we owe it to our constituents and to our security interests to pursue the development and implementation of that kind of a system. Beyond the system that is outlined in the Tiger Team report is the need to establish a system of sensors in space. Even our colleagues on the Democratic side led by our good friend and expert from South Carolina, John Spratt, agree that space-based sensors are necessary for us to detect when a missile is being launched any place in the world. Following that movement toward a limited thin-layer defense system, we also need to develop a space-based sensor system, which allows us to detect when someone would in fact fire a system against us. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I think it is absolutely critical that when we debate missile defense in this year's authorization and appropriation bill, that we do it based on the facts. Because of that, we are going to be implementing an aggressive program to educate Members of Congress and their staffs with real information about situations occurring around the world that could threaten our security, and where missile defense comes in as a critical element, whether it is theater, whether it is cruise missile, or whether it is national missile defense. We will be announcing within the week a major proactive effort that will be bipartisan that will include briefings for Members, that will include regular handouts for Members, focusing on the ballistic missile capabilities that are out there today, what capabilities our enemies have, and what kinds of technologies are being distributed throughout the world. It is extremely important that our colleagues, when faced with a vote on missile defense in the future, do so based on fact and not emotion. We are not talking about the term ``star wars.'' As I said during the debate on the National Security Revitalization Act, star wars has no place in the discussion today. Even our colleagues on the other side have acknowledged that. We are talking about moving very deliberately into technology that we have been working on that we know are deployable within the near term, and doing it in such a way that we can afford it, based upon the budgetary constraints that we have, given our other concerns and priorities. Mr. Speaker, this debate will occur in the May-June time frame, when we have defense bills on the floor, but I want to make sure as chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee of the Committee on National Security that Members do so based on factual information. Mr. Speaker, the final topic I want to hit tonight as relates to defense has to do with technology transfer, and a very scary event that is about to happen or actually has happened and continues to unfold involving the ability of the Chinese enhance their Cruise Missile capability. Mr. Speaker, an article in the Washington Times dated February 13 highlighted the sale of Russian rocket motors to China, and the Clinton administration's efforts to try to halt the Russian sale of the rocket motors to China because of our antiproliferation legislation and laws, and because our officials feel the engines will be used in advanced Chinese cruise missiles. The Clinton administration maintains that the sale of these engines by the Russians violates the missile technology control regime, but the Russian Government recently informed the United States Government and the Clinton administration it would not stop the sale because, and this is what is really outrageous, the White House had approved a similar sale of United States-made gas turbines to the Chinese last year. We have seen the headlines today, where we have a new agreement with the Chinese on trade relations, but Mr. Speaker, how outrageous is it that we in fact are continuing under the Clinton administration to sell dangerous technology that will allow them to enhance their Cruise Missile capability? We objected when the Russians wanted to sell their engines to the Chinese, because of what it would do, but we in fact ourselves are committing and have committed that same egregious error. In fact, this past Monday, February 20, in the Jack Anderson and Michael Binstein column entitled ``A Red Flag on Technology Sale to China, the Clinton administration is poised to allow a controversial technology sale that many believe could help the Communist country upgrade its missile program.'' We are not just talking now about the sale of the engines. The Clinton administration now is about ready to approve the sale of the technology, so that Chinese can now begin to build the engines that will be used in the cruise missiles that could in fact attack the United States or our allies. Let me read a quote from one frustrated administration official in the Jack Anderson column: ``The Administration knows this in fact would give China this new technology capability , but so far, no one has had the political will to stand up and say no.'' It further goes on to say ``Clearly, the Chinese could use this technology to make engines which are perfectly suited for that requirement,'' of improving their Cruise Missile engines, ``says Kenneth Timmerman, a security specialist and director of the Middle East Data Project.'' that Jack Anderson was able to get a copy of that supports Mr. Timmerman's view. I quote from the memo: ``Garrett engines,'' and Garrett is a company that manufactures these engines in the U.S., ``Garrett engines and/or production technology would provide an array of high performance capabilities to satisfy China's military requirements well into the 21st Century,'' one document alleges. ``Another study indicates China could make engines capable of launching a biological warhead about 1,000 miles if it obtained these materials.'' Mr. Speaker, what the administration is saying internally, which has not yet come out in public until this article by Jack Anderson was revealed last week, is that internal documents in the administration are cautioning that giving the Chinese this technology will allow them to have cruise missiles that can go up to 1,000 miles with a biological warhead on that cruise missile. Despite the red flags being raised, the Clinton administration last year lifted the export controls for this particular engine that normally cover the Garrett technology, and they are now about to let the technology itself be transferred to the Chinese. ``Critics of the deal are outraged,'' as they should be. ``This is exactly what we said would happen a year ago,'' an American official said. ``We warned that the Chinese would come after the technology after they got the engines, but the administration decontrolled it anyway. In my mind, it constitutes criminal negligence.'' An administration official that opposed the sale of the engines and now the technology itself, saying that they told the administration the Chinese would go to get the technology, which they are doing right now, and that we did it anyway, in his mind, it is criminal negligence. Mr. Speaker, this administration has to understand that the defense of this country and our people is of the highest priority, and those of us who serve on the Committee on National Security, both Republicans and Democrats, use every minute of the day that we have to focus on how to support that defense. However, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing occur today with defense spending numbers, with the lack of an effort for adequate missile defense capability, and with uncontrolled arms sales that jeopardize our future security, that is absolutely outrageous. Mr. Speaker, over the next 4 weeks we will be highlighting each of these components in detail. I ask you and our colleagues to read with great interest what we provide, to challenge it, to ask for backup material and data, so when we have a full debate in May on the authorization bill, that we do it based on the facts and not emotion. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the editorial from the Tampa Tribune of February 13, and that articles from the Washington Times dated February 13, entitled ``Russia Sells Rocket Motors to China'' be entered, and that the Monday, February 20 Jack Anderson column entitled ``A Red Flag on Technology Sale to China'' also be entered in the Record. I thank the Speaker and our hard-working staff for their dedication in allowing me to complete this special order.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank my distinguished colleague and chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding and the fine job he is doing, along with the entire Committee on Appropriations. As a member of the Committee on National Security for now 9 years and this session chairman of the Research and Technology Subcommittee, I have to share with my colleagues the frustration that I felt this morning sitting in on our hearing, full committee hearing, where we had the heads of the services come in and practically beg us to support the supplemental on the floor today. They made some very dire predictions to us of what would occur if we did not in fact fund this supplemental, and told us in very real terms what would happen in terms of Army training, shutting down at the end of May of this year, the Navy not being able to go forward with maintenance and operations and upkeep of our basic naval ships and vessels, and what really bothered me is that here we are now facing the prospect of funding a supplemental, which I totally support and congratulate the chairman and the subcommittee chairmen for fully paying for, when the real debate here should be focused on the administration's policy of committing our troops in places without the prior consent of this body. As I pointed out last week on the House floor during the debate on the National Security Revitalization Act, what frustrates me the most today is a situation like we see going on in Haiti where we are using DOD dollars to pay the salaries and the benefits of troops from Bangladesh, Nepal, Guatemala, and other Third-World nations. Here we are using DOD money to fund the full costs and benefits for foreign troops, when a unit of 600 troops of the Second Armored Division in Texas had to train in a tank range as though they were in tanks, because we did not have enough money to support the fuel and maintenance costs of keeping that tank unit operational and prepared. Here we have a situation where the defense budget has been cut over 5 years by 25 percent, yet during that same 5-year time period, nondefense spending in the defense bill has increased by 361 percent. So while we are dramatically downsizing the amount of defense spending, we are rapidly increasing those items in the defense budget that our good leadership has seen fit to take out and say hey, we have a readiness problem. We have a problem with modernization, and we cannot fund these other niceties that Members of Congress want to stick in that in most cases have nothing to do with the military. So I applaud our colleagues, and urge my friends to support this very important piece of legislation, and reject the Obey amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us be straight with the American people our colleagues. This amendment is not about getting out of the United Nations nor is it against peacekeeping. It is about fairness, to our taxpayers and military. We heard debate earlier today about saving $1.5 million for a commission. Two hundred two Members, largely of the minority party, voted ``yes'' for that huge savings in defense spending for the readiness of our troops. We had a big vote on missile defense. The key issue was savings. This year we are spending almost $2 billion of American taxpayer money on the United Nations and its operations around the world, $2 billion. We simply want to have some accounting and we want to have some credit for what we put in. Let me use Haiti as an example. We had no debate before our troops were committed to Haiti, I might add, not 1 minute of debate on this floor before the troops went in. Yet we have in fact spent $1.5 billion of American taxpayers' money. Even more outrageous and the purpose of the three flags in my lapel, Bangladesh, Guatemala, and Nepal. Here we are right now paying the full salaries, benefits, and housing costs of the troops of these three countries. Yes, my colleagues we are paying with DOD dollars the benefits, the salaries, and the expenses of the troops from these nations in Haiti. At the same time that 600 troops from the Second Armored Division of Fort Hood, TX, had to conduct 10 training exercises in the range walking together pretending they were in tanks because we do not have enough money for fuel and maintenance. The new slogan of that battalion of 600 troops that used tanks in training is to march together and say, ``Clank, clank, I'm a tank.'' While we are paying the full benefits of troops from Bangladesh, Nepal, and Guatemala. This has got to stop, Mr. Chairman, We want fairness. That is all we want. We are not saying pull out of the United Nations. We are not saying isolate ourselves. We are saying what our colleagues said. Let us have some concern about the taxpayers' money. It is not a bottomless pit. Two billion dollars is what we are spending. Is that enough? I think it is too much. I think the provision in the bill allows us to get a hold of the money that we are spending and better use those dollars for American troops so that from time to time we can go together with out allies. But I really have a problem using American DOD dollars to pay the salaries and benefits of foreign troops when we cannot even take care of our own readiness needs as so many of our National Security colleagues mentioned today. I might add for the Record, I just have to insert this letter from one of my constituents serving in Haiti who is absolutely outraged at what role he is paying there now. Mr. Chairman, the letter referred to is as follows: Honorable Curt Weldon: I am stationed here in Port-au- Prince Haiti, with the U.S. Army. As a local constituent I am writing you concerning several issues about the armed forces and our involvement here in Haiti. First I would like to mention about our military mission here in Haiti. Several of my fellow service members and I find no purpose in Clinton's administration policy to reinstall Aristide, a communist leader, back into this country. Since when do the U.S. forces work for a communist leader who has always denounced the United States as evil. A leader who has stolen tens-of-millions of dollars from his citizens, which the U.S. tax payers may have to pay back to the people of Haiti. This also does not include the enormous expenses of this entire military operation, to the American tax payers to which there will be no benefits. Now, since this military operation is done and over with, and our mission of restoring Aristide finished, we all should be getting back home. But, now due to the effort of the United Nations and the Joint Staff Commanders, several thousand U.S. service members are staying and we shouldn't be. Staying because the United Nations and the Joint Task Force commanders say they need us. This country is now safer to walk the streets than most Forces, under the United Nations are fully capable of keeping the peace here. What my fellow service members and I want to know from you, is what are you doing to end Clinton's U.S. involvement here in Haiti. And to keep future U.S. forces out of the control of the United Nations.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The commission has the same authority these commissions had, which is basically to come back to Congress and do what the Secretary has not been able to do, and that is give us the straight scoop on what our defense needs are.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. A Secretary being misled by an administration that does not support the facts.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The Secretary would like to have it, because it would end up supporting his needs for additional money for readiness that his President will not give in to because he pulls his defense budget number out of the air, as you know.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment despite my admiration for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] in her leadership role on the Committee on National Security. Why do we need this commission Mr. Chairman? Well, let us look at the facts as they are. We have a Secretary of Defense who tells us we need one fund level for the defense needs over the next 5 years. We have the General Accounting Office tell us, no, we need $150 billion more than what the Secretary said. We have the Congressional Budget Office saying, no, we need $67 billion more than what the Secretary said. And then we have one of the most respected Members of the minority side, the gentleman from Missouri {Mr. Skelton], saying, no, we need $44 billion more over the next 5 years. No one knows what we need over the next 5 years. Now, some would say let us let the Secretary go back and tell us. We know what he is going to tell us. He is going to tell us what he already told us, we are OK the way we are, which if I talk to almost every member of the minority party on the Committee on National Security, they will agree with us. They do not think there is enough money in there. What we are saying is we need an independent commission to look at that. Now, we are not saying a political commission, because we adjusted the makeup and markup process to suit the needs of the minority to make sure it would be six Democrats and six Republicans appointees, and that is in fact what this commission will be, a bipartisan effort to come back to us and give us the real needs in terms of dollars and in line with the problems and challenges that are out there in the next 5 years. Some of our colleagues are saying this will be a money saver. You want to save money? Boy, we will give you a list. Look at what the President put out. A nice glossy color brochure in two-part form entitled ``A Time for Peace.'' Save money? Eliminate that garbage. We do not need it. It is a total waste of money. Eliminate the L.A. Youth programs in the defense bill, $10 million. How about electric vehicles? Believe it or not, it is in the defense bill, $15 million. Cancer research, even though it is important, I would support it if it were part of the health bill, over $200 million. This commission does not take away the authority of the Secretary. It lets us play our rightful role. Now, let us look at what the minority party did when they were in power. These are just a few of the commissions that the minority party put into place, in many cases, in most cases, over the objections of the then Secretary of Defense. Everything from women in the military to bottom-up review, total force structure, everything you can think of established through an independent commission, in some instances where the commissioners were actually paid. In this piece of legislation, no commissioner is paid. The only expenses involved will be those incurred, and they will be reimbursed for that. We are not taking the money from readiness; we are taking the money from the Secretary of Defense's account. What part of it? He will have a few less lunches, a little less money to go on trips overseas maybe. That is where it will come from. So this in fact is a vote to let us play our rightful role and to see where we in fact can go in terms of the spending needs of the military for the next 5 years, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Harman amendment and to support the need for the establishment of this.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I wish to take this time to pay tribute to the chairman, both chairmen, who have gone out of their way to make sure we accommodate the minority on time that was lost in a previous vote. This effort, I think, shows a commitment on our part to make sure that we do not take time away. There was a vote that was not anticipated in the past, and with the cooperation of the gentleman from California, who I know wants to speak, and the chairman, it has been worked out. I think that speaks to our wanting to work together and allow for a full and open debate of these remaining issues. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman also apply to the majority side for that technical change?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am making a statement.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order. perfecting amendment offered by mr. dellums to the amendment offered by mr. montgomery as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. skelton

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the comments of our chairman about our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. No one has ever questioned his integrity when it comes to the support of our troops, and his leadership in coming up with the budget that is in fact very thoughtful and looks at increasing defense spending over 5 years by $44 billion is a tremendous help in this debate to move the problems that we have with our military forces, and we thank the gentleman for that. We are in agreement that readiness and acquisition and modernization are key issues. The key thing is that we do not think that we have to jeopardize readiness to support missile defense. We would hope that the leadership would come back to us and tell us how we can do it together. We have made the arguments that in fact there are areas of the defense budget where we have to take money that is being spent on nondefense categories. The gentleman's budget is in fact based on the fact that we would take $2 billion a year from the almost $20 billion a year that we are currently spending on nondefense items. We think we can take more. $13 billion for environmental costs. Some $4.7 billion for add-ons that the Pentagon never requested, that are not important to our national security, that were added in; $3 billions of which could be questioned regarding defense conversion. And then look at the savings from acquisition reform and from the base closing savings that should occur. We are not necessarily arguing one against the other. We are saying we can do both. We want to work with the If it means we have to raise the top line for defense, then so be it. But we are not talking about big numbers. We are talking about, first of all, cutting into the 361-percent increase in nondefense spending. While we all agree with cancer research, should the Department of Defense fund the bulk of it? Should the Department of Defense be asked to pay for programs that should be funded through the Committee on Commerce, through Transportation, through Public Works? What we are saying is, let us spend the defense budget on defense. And if we do that, we will have enough money to up the readiness accounts. We will be able to recapture that $9 billion in the acquisition accounts that we lost just in 1 year. But we will also be able to work with the administration on the beginnings of their missile defense program. We think we can have both, and we want to work with the gentleman on the budget that he put together as a first step because it certainly is a move in the right direction. I support the amendment of our chairman, and I urge our colleagues to support it as well.