[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 36 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2296-H2301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  2230
                       THE DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  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 
 [[Page H2297]] we spend money on social welfare programs, and I am 
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.

                              {time}  2240

  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.
  [[Page H2298]] What really offended me when we had the hearings on 
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.
                              {time}  2250
  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.
  [[Page H2299]] The mainstay of the Russian ballistic missile system 
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.''
  [[Page H2300]] He goes on to say that there was a confidential memo 
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.
  The material referred to is as follows:
                   [From the Tampa Tribune, Feb. 13]

   Here's A Grand Little Story To Stir Your Blood On A Monday Morning

       How does an unemployed family in Lake Providence, LA., 
     qualify for $46,716 a year in tax-free cash from the federal 
     government?
       The Baltimore Sun, in a special report, details one woman's 
     crusade to win disability benefits and gives a rare insight 
     into a welfare system infuriatingly out of control.
       Rosie Watson, the Sun reports, gets $343.50 a month in 
     disability payments because a judge found her too stressed-
     out to work. Her common-law husband, at 386 pounds, was ruled 
     too fat to work, so he gets $343.50 a month too.
       Their seven children, ages 13 to 22, have all failed to 
     demonstrate ``age-appropriate behavior,'' so each of them 
     qualifies for payments of $458 a month, what the welfare 
     world calls ``crazy checks.''
       The Sun's description of Watson's persistent efforts over 
     many years to convince social workers and judges that various 
     members of her family are incapable of supporting themselves 
     reveals serious flaws in the welfare system, flaws that 
     account for the nation's increasingly hostile opinion of it.
       ``I GOT NOTHING to hide,'' the woman told the Sun, and 
     allowed reporters to visit her in her modest home, even 
     opened her Social Security records to them. The inescapable 
     conclusion is that the problems lie with the system, not with 
     people like Watson who, like good attorneys, endeavor to make 
     their best case.
       Watson's quest began in 1975 when she tried and failed to 
     convince Social Security officials she couldn't work.
       In 1978 she told officials that her second child, at age 4, 
     was a threat to other children and should receive financial 
     aid. They didn't buy it, but she kept up, applying again and 
     again until, in 1984, Social Security officials agreed that 
     he had behavior problems. A few years later she received a 
     $10,000 check after it was decided he should have been 
     declared disabled four years earlier.
       In all, the family has received $37,000 in retroactive 
     payments, part of $1.4 billion in retroactive checks mailed 
     after the Supreme Court in 1990 gave children increased 
     rights to disability payments.
       After 15 years of relentless applications, Rosie Watson has 
     had all her children put on disability payments. The youngest 
     child, now 13, attends elementary school, where the principal 
     complains that the quest for ``crazy checks'' is undermining 
     academic standards. The children don't want to fail but 
     perform poorly to please their parents, he says.
       Not true, says Watson.
       ``I ain't never told any of 'em to act crazy and get some 
     money,'' she said. ``Social Security will send you to their 
     own doctor. They're not fooled because those doctors read 
     your mind. They know what you can do and not do.''
       The Sun discovered that one doctor found a Watson boy had 
     ``strong anti-social features in
      his personality and is volatile and explosive.'' And, ``he 
     said he does not want work.''
       Apparently, unless government rules are changed, he will 
     never have to get a job.
       Here is the Sun's description of what Mother Watson does 
     with the $3,893 worth of monthly checks:
       ``As soon as she extracts the nine checks from the [post 
     office] box, she cashes them. She gives the full amount so 
     Sam, 21 and Cary, 22, the father of two children who have 
     moved out of the house since being awarded benefits. The 
     remainder is used for the other children and household 
     expenses.
       ``Most of the money goes for the children to `see that they 
     have what's needed,' the woman says. `With what's left, I pay 
     bills and buy food.'
       ``One need is $120 allowances for George, 14 David, 17, 
     Willie, 18, and Danny, 19.
       ``Being the age they is and being out therewith their 
     little girlfriends, they need the money,' she says.''
       The checks are sent because of a disability, but there is 
     no requirement that the money be spent to try to overcome 
     that disability, the Sun reports. The family's medical needs 
     are taken care of through Medicaid, the value of which the 
     newspaper did not attempt to calculate.
       The reporters had a little trouble determining exactly what 
     Rosie Watson's disability is.
       In 1974 she said she couldn't work because of high blood 
     pressure, heart trouble and bad nerves, and was rejected. In 
     1975 she reported it was anemia, dizziness, nerves and bad 
     kidneys, and was rejected. In 1976 she blamed low blood 
     pressure and heart problems, was rejected and gave up for a 
     while.
       In 1984 she applied again complaining of stomach problems, 
     epilepsy and sinus trouble. In 1985 the list included 
     ``female problems,'' and an examining doctor concluded: 
     ``This is a 34-year-old black female who has seven children 
     under 12 years of age, an alcoholic husband and no money, who 
     complains of insomnia, crying spells, depression.''
       She appealed that rejection to a judge who determined her 
     unable to cope with the ``stresses of any type of competitive 
     employment,'' and the checks began to flow. Two years later, 
     a judge ruled her husband disabled because he was obese.
       The newspaper concludes that the Watson family likely will 
     remain on welfare permanently, with the children moving 
     directly onto the adult rolls.
       What did Congress intend when it created such a program 
     that rewards failure more richly than the competitive market 
     can reward hard work?
       What it got was places like Lake Providence, where ``crazy 
     checks'' have become important parts of the town's culture 
     and economy.
                                                                    ____

               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 13, 1995]

                  Russia Sells Rocket Motors to China

                            (By Bill Gertz)

       The Clinton administration is trying to halt Russia's sale 
     of rocket motors to China because anti-proliferation 
     officials say the engines will be used in advanced Chinese 
     cruise missiles.
       State Department officials notified Moscow last year that 
     the sale of military rocket motors would violate the Missile 
     Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the international accord 
     aimed at blocking the spread of missile technology, according 
     to administration officials.
       But the Russian government recently informed the U.S. 
     government it would not stop the sale because the White House 
     had approved a similar sale of U.S.-made gas turbine engines 
     to China last year.
       One official said the small rocket motors are taken from 
     Russian cruise missiles and 
      [[Page H2301]] are suitable for use in Chinese cruise 
     missiles.
       The official said the sale would put Moscow in violation of 
     the 1987 MTCR, which bars sales of missiles or components 
     capable of lofting a payload of at least 1,100 pounds of a 
     range of at least 186 miles.
       The engine deal is part of broader Russian efforts to 
     supply
      military hardware and technology to China, regarded as a 
     major proliferator of weapons and technology, officials 
     said.
       The U.S.-Russia dispute over the sale comes amid fresh 
     reports that the United States tried unsuccessfully to block 
     an $800 million contract between Moscow and the Iranian 
     government to build a nuclear power plant.
       Russian officials went ahead with the Iranian reactor 
     because of the U.S. agreement with North Korea to provide 
     that rogue nation with nuclear reactor technology, said 
     officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
       U.S. officials believe the Russian support will assist 
     Tehran's drive for nuclear weapons, which many officials say 
     are several years away.
       ``We have expressed our concerns on that issue and continue 
     to express our concerns,'' White House Chief of Staff Leon 
     Panetta said yesterday. ``And, obviously, we think that 
     ultimately there's some hope that this will not take place.''
       Mr. Panetta said the administration will review ``our 
     relationship'' with Russia in an effort to force Moscow to 
     ``adhere to the policy that we believe in, which is, let us 
     not give aid to terrorists in this world.''
       Administration officials said U.S. efforts to halt the 
     proposed sale of Russian rocket motors to China were 
     undermined by the sale last year of jet engines made by the 
     Phoenix-based Garrett Co., a subsidiary of AlliedSignal.
       The Garrett jet engines were sold to the Nanchang Aircraft 
     Co., which manufactures jet trainers used by the Chinese 
     military.
       The engine sale lifted controls on the small engine 
     technology that the CIA believes could be used in long-range 
     Chinese cruise missiles.
       China produces six types of surfaced-launched cruise 
     missiles, including the Silkworm, and has exported cruise 
     missiles to Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan. It also has 
     exported airlaunched cruise missiles to Iran.
       The officials did not disclose the exact type of cruise 
     missile engine being marketed by the Russians.
       The sale of jet engines by the Phoenix-based manufacturer 
     Garrett was bitterly opposed by some CIA and Pentagon 
     officials last year because of just the type of problem 
     raised by efforts to head off the proposed engine sale by the 
     Russians.
       ``The administration's counter-proliferation program is a 
     total failure,'' one official said. ``There isn't one program 
     that has been able to stop the proliferation of weapons 
     technology.''
       The Chinese are more interested in acquiring the Garrett 
     engine production technology than the Russian engines, which 
     are inferior to the U.S. engines.
       In fact, the Chinese are now seeking to buy the technology 
     needed to produce their own versions to produce their own 
     versions of the Garrett turbine engines, U.S. officials said.
                                                                    ____

                 [From the Post, Monday, Feb. 20, 1995]

                 A Red Flag on Technology Sale to China
                (By Jack Anderson and Michael Binstein)

       The Clinton administration is proving once again that on 
     arms proliferation issues, profit often rules over prudence.
       At a time when American officials are threatening the 
     People's Republic of China over its unfair trade practices, 
     human rights abuses and weapons exports, the Clinton 
     administration is poised to allow a controversial technology 
     sale that many believe could help the communist country 
     upgrade its missile program.
       ``This [sale] would give China the technological know-how 
     to make engines for long-range cruise missiles capable of 
     hitting any city in Japan, Korea--all the way through 
     India,'' one frustrated American official explained. ``The 
     administration knows this, but so far no one has had the 
     political will to stand up and say no.''
       The proposed deal involves AlliedSignal Inc., the 
     California-based aerospace giant. The company recently 
     informed the government that it intends to sell China the 
     manufacturing technology used to build its Garrett gas 
     turbine engines. This follows on the heels of a controversial 
     decision by the administration last year to allow the Garrett 
     engines to be sold.
       AlliedSignal officials told us the technology poses little 
     risk because it is suited only to build aircraft engines.``We 
     are not in a position to judge China's missile engine 
     manufacturing capability,'' a company spokesman said, 
     ``However, the technology involved is specific to civil-
     certified [Garrett] engines, which are designed for aircraft 
     operations.''
       Arms proliferation experts believe China wants the Garrett 
     technology to establish a domestic production line for 
     upgraded cruise missile engines. ``Clearly, the Chinese could 
     use this to make engines which are perfectly suited for that 
     requirement,'' says Kenneth Timmerman, a security specialist 
     and director of the Middle East Data Project.
       Confidential government studies obtained by our associates 
     Dean Boyd and Dale Van Atta support Timmerman's view. 
     ``Garrett engines and/or production technology would provide 
     an array of high * * * performance capabilities to satisfy 
     [China's] military requirements well into the next 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.
       Despite the red flags, the Clinton administration last year 
     lifted the export controls that normally cover the Garrett 
     technology. This means AlliedSignal is free to sell its 
     manufacturing technology without government approval--unless 
     the administration reverses itself. So far, there's been 
     little indication this will happen.
       Iain S. Baird, the Commerce Department's deputy assistant 
     secretary for export administration, maintains there is no 
     legal basis to oppose the sale. He says the Garrett 
     technology is more than 20 years old and ``completely 
     impractical'' for use in cruise missiles. Baird added that 
     AlliedSignal should be applauded for taking ``the unusual 
     step of advising'' the government of the sale when it wasn't 
     required to.
       In the original engine sale, which came in the wake of the 
     administration's 1994 decision, the engines were to be used 
     in a military jet China was developing with Pakistan. Many 
     American officials opposed the deal, after intelligence 
     studies found that the Chinese recipient was involved in 
     missile building and that the engines could form the basis 
     for a new Chinese cruise missile.
       Nevertheless, the Clinton administration approved the sale, 
     allowing the engines to be exported as civilian goods despite 
     their declared military end-use. Despite specific warnings 
     from Congress, officials at the Pentagon and the Commerce 
     Department also removed export controls from the Garrett 
     manufacturing technology.
       Allied Signal says it has sold only 33 Garrett engines to 
     China, and the technology sale hasn't been finalized. A 
     company spokesman added, ``At this point, we don't need 
     government approval.''
       Critics of the deal are outraged. ``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.''
       The anger generated by the proposed sale is not surprising 
     considering a simulated war game played out by the Pentagon 
     last year. In the fictitious battle scenario, which projected 
     what China's military capability and manpower would be in 
     2010, China routed the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet, due in part to 
     a line of new precision-guided cruise missiles.
     

                          ____________________