Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, once again I rise unfortunately to object to this amendment offered by my good friend and colleague. Mr. Chairman, what we are asked to vote on right now is an amendment that in fact would specifically detail to the Secretary what type of plan he would bring back to us. We have heard from the other side that the Congress should not be micro-managing what our defense posture should be. What this amendment does is specifically state what kinds of architecture in fact can be recommended by the appropriate people in the Clinton administration. Mr. Chairman, there is no one on the floor of the House tonight advocating star wars, as we said earlier. What we are advocating is a logical, systematic approach to ballistic missile defense technologies that are recommended by those appropriate officials within the Clinton defense establishment. That is in fact what we are asking for. To say that we are somehow turning around and asking for some pie-in- the-sky thing, with no dollar assessments, is absolutely wrong. And as our good friend and colleague knows, whatever comes back in the form of a recommendation has to go through an authorization process and an appropriations process. As we heard from our colleague from Virginia, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, state, none of us on this side, who fought to get the pay raise put in when the President did not include it, who fought to up the acquisition accounts, none of us are going to jeopardize raises. We are going to fight to make sure funds are put back in for those cuts that were made by the President in this year's budget. What we are saying is allow the Secretary to come back and tell us what he would recommend in terms of time and dollars and an architecture to allow us to move toward a missile defense system. That is it. What this amendment does is it limits it. Let me just say for the Record, while I have been as critical as any on the spending of dollars for SDI and programs in the past, we cannot say there has been nothing achieved. That is really a misstatement that I think all of our colleagues should acknowledge. Any soldier who fought in Desert Storm and saw the benefit of the Patriot system knows that was paid for. One of our colleagues earlier said it was only a small amount of money. Well, let us talk about the two upgrades to the Patriot. There is one of which is being announced this week and another will be announced in a short period of time that will quadruple the effectiveness of the Patriot system. That money was obtained through the programs that the gentleman says nothing happened. The Aegis system upgrades that are currently under way with our Navy were all funded through these programs in the past. A program called Talon Shield, many of our colleagues perhaps do not realize that during Desert Storm the command officers had to keep in touch with the theater by telephone. They had to stay on a telephone line 24 hours a day. But because we have employed Talon Shield, we now have the system in place that will avoid that in the future. Talon Shield was directly developed by the dollars invested over the past several years in ballistic missile defense. The Joint Tactical Air Ground System will give us one further capability. So there have been improvements, and these improvements are technologies that have in fact given us dividends. But we are not saying that we should have a bottomless pit. All we are saying is, allow the administration to come back to us and give us their best recommendations. That is all. If they tell us that they do not want to deploy in outer space, fine. That will be their recommendation. What the gentleman's amendment does is limits them even to the point that if the Russians would break out and immediately pose a threat, under the gentleman's amendment, we could not respond. I think that is shortsighted.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. It does not say ``we.''

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No, it does not.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding. What this bill simply says, we do not put a dollar amount. We simply say to the Secretary, come back to us within 60 days and tell us what is doable in terms of implementing national missile defense. We then have to take his recommendations and put them into the context of all of our other priorities and there is an authorization process that allows us to go through that. We are not saying spend any amount of money. All we are saying is come back and tell us, that's all.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I want to clarify what Dr. Evers, the Deputy Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Office with the administration said yesterday in my office. The maximum amount for a full-blown ballistic missile defense system for our Nation would be $20 billion. So where these numbers are coming from, I do not know. But using the estimates of your officials in your administration, Dr. Evers, he said the maximum amount would be $20 billion, Dr. Evers, in my office.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I do not disagree with the gentleman. In fact I applaud his leadership on the issue of military installations and facilities. My point is we are taking a bigger and bigger chunk out of the defense years.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], another one of our bright stars on the Committee on National Security.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I take this 5-minutes special order this evening to partly respond to some of the rhetoric that we heard on the House floor earlier, primarily coming from the minority side, on the allocation of 10 hours of debate on the National Security Revitalization Act which we will have on the House floor Wednesday and Thursday of this week. While I am not going to get into all the details and implications of that piece of legislation, I do want to respond to several of the issues that were raised here tonight by the leadership of the minority side. Mr. Speaker, we heard it said that when President Bush was in office we had extensive debate before our troops were asked to go into Desert Storm, and that, in fact, is correct, because it was asked for by President Bush and this Congress responded. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side, where was that same debate when all of us jointly asked for a debate on sending our troops into Haiti. We had known we were going to go into Haiti for months at a time. Many of us had asked for a full and open debate of that issue where our troops were being put in harm's way. We were not given 10 minutes of debates on this House floor prior to sending our troops into Haiti. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, where was the debate on this House floor that now sees American tax dollars being used to pay the salaries, the benefits, the housing costs, and the travel for about 2,000 troops from Third World nations that are currently providing protection inside of Haiti? Where was the debate so the American people could vote on that issue before that action took place? Where was the debate on Bosnia, so we could fully debate the President's policy? We never had any debate on Bosnia prior to Presidential action. Mr. Speaker, I say with a great deal of concern, where was the debate in this House on the President's decision to go in and bail out Mexico? He wanted to do it to the tune of $40 billion but could get no support. Then unilaterally he sent a $20 billion loan guaranty. Where was 10 minutes of debate on this House floor before the action? Mr. Speaker, where was the debate in this House, on this House floor, prior to President Clinton or even after President Clinton changing our policy in terms of national ballistic missile defense? Prior to President Clinton taking office, we had an aggressive program that was also attempting to protect the American people as well as our troops. When the President took office, he unilaterally, without any debate on this House floor, changed that policy. Mr. Speaker, we are giving ample opportunity for debate. We want bipartisan support. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology of the Committee on National Security, I reached out to my colleagues on the other side. We forged a bipartisan national security bill. This bill, when it was reported out of committee, passed by a vote of 41 to 13. Eleven of our colleagues on the minority side supported that piece of legislation. In the committee, Mr. Speaker, many of us acknowledged that there were key Democrats who were at the forefront of the defense debate, both in the past, today, and in the future. So that bill, when it came out of committee, had strong bipartisan support, and, in fact, 11 Democrats voted with us. markup of the National Security Revitalization Act we reached out and made 32 specific changes in the bill. This was not some piece of legislation jammed down the throats of committee members. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we reached out, and over the weekend before the markup, made changes that Democrats offered to us to enhance the bill and to get their support for that particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, in total, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, allowed 32 separate changes to be made in the chairman's mark. Mr. Speaker, this was in fact a bipartisan bill, a bill that reflects our concern with the direction this administration has been going in terms of national security. We are going to have our debate on the floor, but to somehow attempt to mislead the American people, and there were so many distortions and half-truths that were spoken by our colleagues on the House floor, is a gross injustice, both to this institution and to the American people. Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance to get all those issues out on the table on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. I look forward to that debate, and I hope that the American people will also be watching the debate and the final vote on restoring our national security interests.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, in response to the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] the Russians also, as we know, have been selling their submarines. They recently sold at least two submarines to Iran.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And Iran has been doing very well in the training of those submarines, which presents a whole new threat for us, with Iranians having capability in the seas. The question of our colleague and friend on missile defense is an important one. This President changed our policy from the Reagan and Bush era with absolutely no warning to this Congress, to say that we no longer need to have a defensive system to protect allows the Russians to have the only operational ABM system in the entire world right now, which surrounds Moscow and which is in fact operational. What we are saying in the contract is we want the Secretary of Defense unlike what we heard from one of our colleagues on the other side today say that we want immediately a space-based system. That is not what the contract provision says. It says that we want the Secretary to come back and tell us what kind of national ballistic missile system we can deploy now. In conversation with General O'Neill who heads ballistic missile defense last week and a follow-up meeting I am having this week, he says that at the basic we can install a program within 2 years that would cost no more than $5 billion over 5 years. So the figures we are going to hear on Wednesday and Thursday are going to be way out of line and are going to be more rhetoric than they are substance.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment, which I have discussed with my friends on the other side, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, we are all in agreement here. The defense budget of this country has already become the cash cow. In last year's defense bill, Mr. Chairman, the total amount of unauthorized appropriations was $4.7 billion; $2 billion of that $4.7 billion was in the subcommittee that I now chair, the Subcommittee on Research and Development. I asked the staff to provide me a listing of those projects that were included as unauthorized appropriations, and I have them here. There are more than two pages. There are a whole series of pages. And, in fact, Mr. Chairman, most of the projects are under $50 million, and almost all of the projects are under $200 million. We are in agreement that those projects that are taking dollars away from the defense of this country should be subject to a Presidential line-item veto, which, if we feel strongly enough about, we can keep in the budget. Many of these programs would not withstand that test. But we also agree that there needs to be some limit. The defense appropriation bill is the largest appropriation bill that we act on each year. We want to make sure that as we go through major weapons systems that some President down the road may not in fact wipe out an entire weapons system that in fact has been fully debated through the committee process. What we are trying to get at are the add-ons that Members get through the back door. I would say to my colleagues that I do not know of any Member of this body, in the 9 years that I have been here, that has gotten an add-on on the defense bill more than 200 million. I cannot think of a thing. I went through this listing, and I cannot find one. So I think it is important that we do in fact work to reduce that $4.7 billion unauthorized appropriation level. I have said that in committee. I have said it in subcommittee, and I say it on the House floor. But I also think it is important that we understand these bigger items, which are important for our security, which are debated in our authorization and Committee on Appropriations, also should not be subjected to that kind of action without full and deliberate debate. That is why the threshold is needed. I would hope that my good friend and colleague would in fact accept this amendment to his amendment. I would hope that our colleagues would vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment, which I have discussed with the initial offerer of the amendment, and I assume he is willing to accept.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am happy that the gentlewoman has brought the issue up. What I am saying is in my opinion it is superficial. I saw no effort over the past 9 years to move this legislation. Now that we have taken the lead, the other side of the aisle wants to come in and try to make it look as though we are not going far enough. I promise to the gentlewoman that I will work with her to toughen up this particular provision.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I will say to my colleague and my friend and distinguished gentleman, I am very happy that we have legislation in this particular piece of legislation which gives the President authority that your party would not give him, despite the fact that he is of your party, which we are going to give him. I am happy we have something here. But I will pledge to the gentleman that I will work with him as long as counsel on the Ways and Means Committee says we can do it to bring this legislation or have it even broadened to eliminate all provisions that would give special tax breaks. I will work as a Member who is not on the Ways and Means Committee to accomplish that. What I object to is Members of the other side all of a sudden seeing a spirit coming down from the skies that they have been pushing this issue for years. That is the absolute most disgusting thing I have heard on this House floor.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise because I have to respond to some of the comments I have heard on the floor. It is absolutely amazing to me; this is my ninth year in Congress. I was not planning on speaking on this bill, but to hear my colleagues on the other side saying they have been steadfast in their support to eliminate targeted tax breaks, that is mind-boggling to me, because in the 8 years that I have been here the minority party now was the majority party that controlled the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules. Mr. Chairman, every one of the sessions that I have been here I went before the Committee on Rules and went to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I said, ``Please accept my Targeted Tax Relief Disclosure Act,'' which does not eliminate them, but it says publicly identify yourself. I did that because the year before I came to this body the majority party passed the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Mr. Chairman, the Philadelphia Enquirer, in analyzing that act in a five-part series, which I distributed to every Member of this body as well as the other body, identified up to $40 billion of rifleshot provisions stuck in that bill, primarily anonymously, by Members of the majority party, which I thought was ridiculous. There was a paragraph in the 1986 Tax Reform Act that went something like this: Any citizen residing in Tarrant County, TX owing a tax liability of x amount and being born between such and such a year and such and such a year is hereby forgiven that tax liability. I thought that was outrageous. There was also a provision in that bill that gave special tax treatment to an individual to finance two ships in Japan that are currently hauling Japanese cars to our American shores. As a matter of fact, I was ready to hold a press conference at the Port of Baltimore to identify this ship and say: ``Who is the Member of Congress that stuck this special tax treatment in the bill?'' Because the Committee on Ways and Means chairman would not let us have access to the records to tell us who put that provision in that bill. Mr. Chairman, these things have been going on since I have been here for 9 years, and the current minority party did nothing--nothing--to take any one of those provisions out nor to support my effort in the Rules Committee or on the floor of this House, in the Ways and Means Committee, or when I testified before the bipartisan Commission to Reform the Congress, where I said, ``Please accept my targeted tax relief disclosure.'' By the way, Mr. Chairman, that provision was accepted by the bipartisan Commission which my friend and colleague was cochair of. But as it worked its way to the floor last fall, the Speaker and the leadership pulled that provision out. Now, we hear that our party really does not care about targeted tax relief. I am not a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am not a tax lawyer, and I am not an expert on tax policies. I have been told the reason why they will not accept what was the Michel legislative language last year was because it was unworkable and in fact it could be a killer. Now, if it can be workable, I will accept it. I am not a tax lawyer. I will leave it up to the Ways and Means Committee staff and counsel. But to have our colleagues on the other side stand up and say somehow that the majority party does not care about this issue or that somehow we are for giving tax breaks to wealthy citizens and corporations is absolute hogwash--absolute hogwash.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I would hope that our colleagues would support this, Mr. Chairman. I consider myself a fiscal conservative. I have as many watchdogs in my office as any of my colleagues, but this is also an issue involving our national security. Please vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield further, it was Mr. Michel. For the past five sessions it has been my bill called the Targeted Tax Relief Disclosure Act which has had bipartisan support which I have argued on every tax bill coming up before the Committee on Ways and Means and eventually on this floor that has been ruled out of order.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York. I was the original author of the Targeted Tax Relief Disclosure Act for the last five sessions of Congress. I reintroduced it yesterday. I have introduced that legislation in every session of Congress since I have been here, starting in 1987. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I introduced that legislation as a result of a series in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the 1986 tax reform act written by Bartlett and Steel. That legislation had up to $30 billion of targeted rifle-shot tax provisions stuck in that bill. As a result of that, I introduced my legislation which I have again reintroduced in this session that does not eliminate rifle-shot provisions. What it says is we must identify ourselves up front, who is going to benefit up front, how much the transition rule or tax break is going to cost the American people. I find it somewhat ironic that we are debating this on the floor today, because the previous chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means stopped talking to me when I introduced the legislation. As a matter of fact, for the past four sessions I could not even get that amendment ruled in order on the House floor. I went to the Committee on Rules on every tax bill that came before this body, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules on the majority side and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means would not let me offer my amendment, and here we are saying that our side does not want to go far enough. Well, Mr. Chairman, I find that somewhat ironic, because I have been pushing this issue for the last 9 years. Now, I am not satisfied. I think we should have a total prohibition in Ways and Means of giving these anonymous transition rules, not that sometimes they are not deserved, but a Member should identify himself or herself and be willing to make the case on this floor or in committee publicly when they want to give those breaks out. So I think we ought to go further, but to say somehow we have a double standard is just not true.