[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15189-H15207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE JOHN DINGELL ON HIS 40TH ANNIVERSARY IN THE 
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is recognized for 60 minutes as 
the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this evening to come to 
the floor to honor one of the truly great leaders that has served in 
this institution over the course of our noble history in this country.


                             general leave

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the subject of this special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I am proud this evening to join with my 
colleagues to pay tribute to my good friend and mentor, the gentleman 
from Michigan, John Dingell. All of us have favorite John Dingell 
stories, and let me just tell you quickly a story that I think just 
about says it all.
  A few months ago when we were in the heat of the Medicare debate, I 
turned the TV on one morning on C-SPAN, and there was John sitting in a 
committee meeting. He was reading our colleagues on this side of the 
aisle the riot act. A few hours later I looked again on C-SPAN and 
there was John, standing up in front of a group of senior citizens at a 
press conference talking about Medicare. A few minutes later the House 
went into session and he was sitting here, in one of the front rows, 
and came up and gave a 1-minute speech on the Medicare plan. Later that 
day, during the debate, I looked up and there he was, giving a stirring 
speech in opposition to the nursing home cuts that were being proposed. 
At the end of the day I walked out of the House and there was the 
gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, in front of the Capitol. He was 
talking to a group of constituents about this very same issue. This all 
happened in a period of one day.

  The next morning we were in Michigan and we had this bus tour, and it 
was a Medicare bus tour. We went to all these different cities in 
southeastern Michigan, my district and his district, Sandy Levin's 
district, Dale Kildee's district, we went into the city of Detroit, 
John Conyers' district, to talk about Medicare.
  I remember the first stop was in Pontiac. I thought, ``Well, maybe I 
had better get there very early to make sure everything is going 
right.'' I got there, and I do not recall what time it was, but it was 
quite early in the morning. He was there before I was, and he was 
talking to some of the constituents in Pontiac about this issue. Not 
only did he speak at all six stops as we went throughout southeastern 
Michigan that day, he was the last one talking to the reporters when 
the day was over. I swear I expected to half see him driving the bus 
home at the end of the day.
  I think that story says it all about John Dingell. After 40 years, my 
friend from the Dawn River area in Michigan is just as committed, he is 
just as passionate and just as dedicated to the working people that he 
represents as the day that he got here. I do not think I have seen a 
more energized and compassionate defense of working people from a 
Member of our party when we went into the minority this year, 
especially a senior Member, than I saw in John Dingell in the first 12 
months of this new year. Minority status has not bothered him at all. 
He has been out there, he has been fighting, and I think that says a 
lot about his person, who he is, what he is about, and what he cares 
about.
  For over 40 years, he has made a difference in more lives than I 
think virtually any other Member who has served in this great 
institution. I stand in awe of the legacy that he has for this great 
institution. If you look at what he has done, he was there for 
Medicare, he was there when Medicaid was established, he was there for 
the nursing home protection that we have in the institutions that house 
the elderly all over the country.
  In the environmental area I had the good fortune to serve with John 
on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries when I first came to 
the Congress. We worked on many, many pieces of legislation back there 
to help clean up our environment. He has been there on the forefront 
of, of course, the Clean Air Act, the Water Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, the Alaskan lands bill, and in the environmental area he stands 
out as a giant in this country.
  For those who have disabilities, he was there in championing, in 
leading the fight in his committee on the Americans with Disabilities 
Act; in his efforts to remove asbestos from our children's classrooms, 
to improve lab testing, to increase railroad safety, and to ensure that 
tax dollars are used 

[[Page H15190]]
wisely. As the chairman of the subcommittee for so many years on the 
committee which he chaired that dealt with oversight, he has been 
vigilant to the abuses that have gone on in this government, and the 
abuses, frankly, that have gone on in the market as well, the free 
market as well. He has been there to crack down on waste, fraud and 
abuse, and so many others, other issues that he has championed over the 
years that this constituents in this country are indebted to him for.
  People will give you a lot of reasons why John Dingell has been so 
successful, but those of us who are from Michigan know the real secret. 
He has been here for 40 years, but the truth is that John Dingell  has 
never left his community, the people who work there, the people who 
work in the factories and the offices, the people he grew up with. He 
have never left his roots. That has been demonstrated to me personally 
so eloquently and so well in his fight this year when we, as a party, 
have needed a champion, and someone with savvy and experience. He has 
been here doing it, and it has meant a tremendous amount, John, not 
only to me but to a lot of Members who noted it, who appreciated it, 
who respect your knowledge and your wisdom, and your tenacity for those 
people who have sent you here and who you have never forgotten. It has 
always been a source of strength and commitment to many of us, and we 
will always remember it.
  When you come right down to it, nobody has done more for the people 
of the State of Michigan, nobody has done more for this institution, 
and nobody has done more for the working people of this country than my 
dear friend, John Dingell. John, I am really proud to call you a 
mentor, I really mean that, a friend, and an inspiration for nearly 30 
years. I am proud to have been able to have served at your side and to 
have learned from you, sometimes painfully, but to have learned from 
you lo these many years.
  John is part of a great team with his wife, Debbie, who has done 
tremendous work in this town, but especially back in Michigan with the 
charity work that she does, the work she does with our party, and the 
boost that she gives us to make this institution and the work John, and 
I know and others do, so very, very important. We are delighted and 
honored that she is a part of one of the most dynamic and great teams 
in terms of helping people in this country.

                              {time}  2100

  I just want to conclude by saying that I look forward to working with 
the gentleman from Michigan in the months ahead to fight for the issues 
that we believe in.
  I guess I also should say before I conclude that John has one of the 
greatest staffs that you could ever want, not only in Government, but 
in the private sector. He hires the best. He has the best seek him out 
because he is the best. He has a fantastic staff; and if you talk to 
any of them, they will tell you that. Good people.
  John, I look forward to working with you. We have a lot of work to do 
yet over the next few years. The health care issue that your father 
championed and you have championed all of these years, we have a ways 
to go to get there yet, but we are going to get there. I never give up 
on the fact that that is such an important issue to the people of this 
country. We are going to get it done.
  So I thank you for your outstanding service and your dedication, and 
we look forward to your continued service.
  I yield to may friend from Pennsylvania, who has patiently waited, 
and I thank him for participating with us.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If Dad were still 
living today, he would have been most upset if I had walked off the 
floor when they were having a special order for Congressman Dingell. 
Even though on some issues, they were probably 100 percent opposites, 
on many issues they worked very, very closely together and had a great 
relationship, which again was carried over with John and myself when I 
arrive here. So from both Dad and myself, we say, thank you for 
outstanding service.
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to my friend from the great State of Tennessee, 
Mr. Bart Gordon.
  Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Dave Bonior, for yielding, but more 
importantly I want to thank you for taking the initiative to have this 
well-deserved tribute tonight.
  As you mentioned earlier in your remarks, everyone could tell a John 
Dingell story, but I think it would all come down to sort of the same 
theme that you pointed out earlier, and that is that, and I see it 
every day on the Committee on Energy, it is not just that John Dingell 
is the most senior Member that walks in the room, but he is also the 
most prepared Member that walks in the room, and he is the hardest 
working Member that walks in the room.
  Most folks after 40 years in any career try to coast on their 
experience and their reputation, but not John Dingell, and I am amazed 
at how he continues to work, work, work and prepare so that us young 
whippersnappers never have a change to get a leg up on him, because he 
is always up a little later, working a little harder. So I am glad to 
share in this.
  I guess the remembrance that I have of this is I was at a meeting 
with him one time and someone asked me to give a good reason why we 
should have Medicare and Social Security, and so I gave them that 
reason, and it was my mother. If someone were to ask me who my mother 
should thank for her Medicare and Social Security, I would answer, 
thank the Dingells.
  Like your father, John, before you, you have been more responsible 
for providing health care and income support to senior Americans like 
my mother than any other individual who has ever served in this 
Government. If your work on health care issues had been the total of 
your first 40 years, you would have a legacy of which every Member 
would be envious.
  However, the truth is that your contribution has been far greater. 
When any of us see a bald eagle flying we can credit your work on the 
Endangered Species Act. When any of us breathe air that does not poison 
our lungs, we can credit your work on the Clean Air Act. When we are 
thankful that our children will be able to go into the oceans to see 
dolphin and whale populations growing, we can credit your work on the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act.

  When we see disabled Americans show up for work and become full 
members in helping America grow, we can credit your work on the 
Americans With Disabilities Act. When any of us feel relieved that we 
live in a home that has been checked for radon and lead-based paint, we 
can credit your work on those important bills.
  I think we are limited just to an hour, so I cannot go through all of 
the other bills that every day when we wake up, we know how thankful we 
are.
  So now, I know that my mother has a lot to be thankful for to you, 
and so do other Americans, and I guess we should also be thankful for 
you bringing Debbie Dingell into our midst and being a part of what we 
do. We are all grateful for the contribution that she has made to all 
of us, and you and Debbie are a team that make our lives better, that 
make America better.
  I want to thank you for your work, for your dedication. It has been 
an honor to serve with you, and I look forward to continuing to serve 
with you.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my friend from Tennessee for his eloquent 
remarks.
  I now would recognize my colleague and neighbor from the State of 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. To 
me, it is an honor, and it is very appropriate that I be here to join 
my colleagues in congratulating John Dingell on his 40th anniversary, 
40 years, 4 decades. In fact, it spans in effect five decades from the 
1950's through the 1990's.
  I think of that, and I go back to the year that John Dingell came to 
this Congress after his father had been here for over 20 years, and I 
think about Elvis Presley who had not even come into being. I think 
about Sputnik, which was just around the corner, but still had not 
happened. Those were the Eisenhower years; and before John Kennedy 
became President, John Dingell was a veteran in this House.
  I must tell you also that, coming from the opposite side of the 
aisle, John Dingell and I agree to disagree on a number of issues, but 
we agree on a great many issues too. I have a great deal of respect and 
admiration for the 

[[Page H15191]]
accomplishments that he has made in this body. I have more respect and 
admiration for the man.
  There is no doubt that John Dingell has left his mark on this body, 
and he will continue. His kindness, his courtesy is something that 
perhaps does not shine through, but as a junior Member of this body and 
having been here a short time, I have had the experience, or I have had 
the, call it delightful experience of gaining some of the courtesy, 
sharing some of the courtesy he has extended to me.
  Many of the issues that he and I have agreed to agree upon are issues 
that obviously involve Michigan, but they also deal with matters that 
go beyond his district and my district and the State of Michigan to 
involve the country at large; and most notably, I know we have worked 
very hard, and with other Members of this body to provide access to 
foreign markets for the domestic auto manufacturers in our area. Again, 
this is a matter that we found common ground on, that has done 
remarkable things for our State, our locality, and our country.
  John Dingell is an ardent defender of the governing philosophy of the 
Democratic Party, and he has worked with Republicans for years and 
years and years to find that common ground on many important bills. 
This year, more recently, his input on the House Committee on Commerce 
was instrumental in moving forward a telecommunications reform bill 
that would create millions of new jobs and provide better 
telecommunications services at lower prices to the American people.
  So again, I just want to emphasize the common ground, and I think 
that is the mark of a true legislator, someone who may disagree 
philosophically on a matter here or there, but can find reasons to get 
together, to embark on the same course and come to a conclusion that 
benefits all of us.
  I would never question John Dingell's patriotism. He never questions 
mine either. He might question my thinking and I might on occasion 
question his, but he is a gentleman, he is a man who believes very 
strongly that you have a right to your philosophy, but still, in fact, 
he has a right to disagree with you. I do not think there is any more 
that you can ask of any individual.
  Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, John Dingell's character and integrity 
are his strongest attributes. One thing that I have learned in the 
short time that I have known him is that when he gives you his word, 
you know that you can count on him to keep it. That is a quality that 
many people search all of their lives for and can never accomplish. I 
can tell you that John Dingell accomplished that years ago. I see signs 
of that every time I talk to him.
  An interesting comment: Just a short time ago I happened to be 
talking to John, and I cannot even tell you what we were talking about, 
but it had to do with--we were paying, I guess, some mutual respect, 
praising each other in one of those moments, and I said something to 
him along the line of, I appreciate all of his advice, and he said, I 
do not recall ever giving you any advice, I said, well, maybe you have 
not by words, but you have by actions.
  I would say also, John, it has been words as well, but certainly by 
your actions, and I think those actions speak much, much louder than 
words. I respect what you have done and the character you have shown 
me.
  In closing, I just want to again congratulate my colleague from 
Trenton, from down river, on this 40th anniversary in the House. John 
Dingell is the dean of the House. He is called Mr. Chairman, but I also 
want to go beyond John and salute the lady who has already been called 
the best asset he has, and I believe that she is, his wife, Debbie. 
Debbie is his greatest asset.
  I wish you both the very best, and I again salute you, John Digell, 
in obtaining this milestone. Thank you.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my friend from Oakland County for his very kind 
remarks.
  Let me just give you a little biographical sketch of John. I will 
just do that very briefly and then I will yield to my friend from 
Michigan, Jim Barcia. John was born July 8, 1926, in Colorado Springs, 
CO; beautiful country. He was educated at Georgetown where he received 
his bachelor of science degree and then a law degree in 1952. He served 
in the U.S. Army from 1944 to 1946.
  He is, indeed, a lawyer and was a Wayne County assistant prosecutor 
from 1953 to 1955, and Wayne County is the largest county in the State 
of Michigan.
  As my friend, Joe Knollenberg, has indicated, he is, indeed, the dean 
of the House and has served continuously the longest of any member of 
the House of Representatives.
  I now yield to my friend from the Bay City area, Jim Barcia.
  Mr. BARCIA. Thank you very much, Congressman Bonior. It is indeed a 
pleasure and a privilege to also rise and join my colleagues in paying 
tribute to the outstanding service that John Dingell has given this 
institution and the Nation.
  Of course, I cannot go through the long list, just a few of them have 
been mentioned this evening, the long list of accomplishments of 
Congressman Dingell spanning some 40 years of service, distinguished 
service in the House. But I know that sportsmen across this country, 
the men and women who love to fish or hunt, ought to certainly 
appreciate the efforts of Congressman Dingell and the numerous public 
acts which he has shepherded through this body and seen signed into law 
during his distinguished career, that preserve and protect the 
bountiful natural resources that our country has.
  I know that reference has been made this evening to clean air and 
clean water, but especially I would like to say, as also a fellow avid 
hunter, how much the sportsmen of this country have to appreciate the 
contributions that John has made on behalf of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, few people have had the ability that John Dingell has 
had to make a lasting mark on the policies of our National Government. 
Perhaps some Presidents have left their mark and some Members of our 
leadership have succeeded over the years. But not many could ever hope 
to have had the record of achievement that has been proudly and 
deservedly earned by John Dingell.
  He has worked long and hard on behalf of his constituents, and that 
is apparent if you look at the margins of victory by which he has been 
returned to this body through the election cycle over these past 20 
elections. He has worked long and hard on behalf of our Democratic 
Party in this body. More importantly, he has worked long and hard on 
the matters to which he has a personal commitment which are too 
numerous to mention in the few moments that I have to share in this 
tribute toward our colleague.
  No one here can talk about health care policy without recognizing the 
contributions and wisdom of John Dingell. No one can expect to have a 
responsible discussion about trade policy without understanding that a 
key player in trade policy since the 1970's has been John Dingell.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Washington in 1993, John Dingell 
was among the first to come to me and offer his help and advice. I had 
other colleagues who offered some very important advice: Accept help 
from someone who remembers when he has been refused. This tenacity has 
been the hallmark of his success. John Dingell does not give up.

                              {time}  2115

  It is a lesson soon learned by those who are prepared enough to 
challenge him, either in committee or on the floor.
  While some of my colleagues who have spoken already alluded to the 
tremendous carrier John's father had in this body, and also the 
dedication and the contributions of Mrs. John Dingell, our friend 
Debbie, I have also had the honor and privilege, as some of my other 
colleagues who are about to speak, of serving with yet another Dingell. 
Christopher Dingell, John's son, who I want to say, Congressman 
Dingell, you can be very, very proud of, who is succeeding in the great 
and fine tradition of being a tremendous public servant back in the 
State Senate in Lansing, Michigan. I miss seeing Christopher, but I 
know that he will carry on in this next generation the fine tradition 
of public service that your father and you have provided.
  John Dingell is now the senior member of the House in terms of 
seniority. He has spent his time here wisely, with 

[[Page H15192]]
distinction and honor. I am sure that he will continue to conduct 
himself in a similar fashion for so long as his constituents exercise 
their good judgement to retain him as their very effective and capable 
Congressman.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor and a privilege to know John 
Dingell and to serve with him both as a Member of this House of 
Representatives and as the dean of the Michigan delegation. I join all 
of our colleagues in thanking him for his years of devoted service, and 
in wishing him the very best for whatever the future may hold for 
someone who has even been talked about as a future Speaker of the 
House.
  Mr. BONIOR. Thank you very much, Jim, for your very kind remarks.
  If I could just go to my friend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Chrysler]. Then I will be happy to yield to my colleague Sandy Levin.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my fellow 
colleagues in paying tribute to Congressman John Dingell for the 40 
years of public service to this Nation.
  As a fellow native of the state of Michigan, I have seen the impact 
that John has had both back home and nationally. John has been a 
central figure in both Michigan and national politics for decades and 
will leave a lasting legacy as one who has dedicated his life to his 
fellow citizens.
  Whether it be from his service in World War II, as a county 
prosecutor in Michigan, or his extensive legislative record here in 
Congress--John has exemplified the qualities of leadership that have 
helped shape this Nation and helped educate our future leaders. And it 
is a great honor for me to now serve in this body with him.
  I had known John for many years before being elected to Congress. We 
have for years shared many common interests back home, most notably the 
auto industry. I have had the benefit of accompanying John and his 
lovely wife Debbie at the Detroit Auto shows over the years.
  And although I am new to the House of Representatives, and from the 
other side of the aisle of my good friend, I feel his years of service, 
his tenacity and persistence, and the conviction with which he has 
guided himself throughout the years are unparalleled.
  John, I, the people of Michigan, and the Nation salute you and thank 
you for all your dedicated service.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank you, Dick, for your kind remarks.
  Let me just give you a little background about the Dingell family. We 
have heard references this evening about John's father and son. They 
have represented the Congress since 1932. For 23 years John's father 
was a New Deal champion in the health care area. Of course John has 
specialized in that area as well as so many others.
  One of the great things you can say about John Dingell is that his 
expertise is not necessarily narrow, it is broad. It is trade policy, 
it is health policy, it is transportation policy, it is regulatory 
concerns, environmental concerns. He has a deep and broad understanding 
of the workings of this country.
  Of course, as Jim Barcia mentioned, his son Christopher has served 
with distinction in the State Senate in Michigan. So the family has 
been an incredible attribute to the citizens of our State.
  I now yield to another gentleman whose family has been a great 
attribute and who has championed some of these very same issues, Sandy 
Levin from the State of Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Congressman Bonior, our distinguished minority 
whip. I applaud you for, in your very busy schedule, taking time at 
this late hour to do something that you care about so personally, and 
that is paying tribute to a friend. We do not do that enough around 
here, and surely it is warranted on this occasion.
  If we were going to have a vote on the resolution tonight, I might 
have to vote ``present.'' I have a conflict of interest, in a sense. 
Our two families have been intertwined for a long time. I am not 
objective.
  Indeed, my first recollection of direct involvement in politics 
relates to the Dingell family. It is a pretty vague memory, but I do 
remember it. In knickers--that dates me--carrying pamphlets for John 
Dingell's father in our precinct. It was my first direct involvement 
and it was not a very major one. I do not think John's dad needed my 
help.
  Mr. BONIOR. I am still trying to picture you in knickers.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wore them. You maybe are not old enough to remember what 
knickers are.
  Mr. BONIOR. No, I remember them.
  Mr. LEVIN. I confess that I am.
  We went door-to-door distributing these leaflets, and I do not quite 
remember the district number. But that was just part of our two 
families' interwovenness.
  Some of my uncles knew John's dad very well. My Uncle Bayre and my 
Aunt Lydia and my Uncle Theodore and my Aunt Rhoda, John's dad was 
close to my uncle and with his help was elevated to the Federal bench. 
John clerked for my uncle.
  So our two families have had a long history together. And our family 
is so proud of our relationship with the Dingell family.
  We might ask ourselves, what is the key to John's success? We can 
point, and he would, to his own family. I think we would point to his 
intellect, his integrity, his perseverance, his guts, many other 
qualities. We also would mention as we have Debbie Dingell, a tower of 
strength. They have been a couple that have blessed Michigan and this 
city. But if I might, I just want to comment on one other aspect.
  I had a chance to campaign throughout Michigan in the 1970's and see 
John in action in his district. Then when I was elected to the Congress 
in the 1980's, the district I represented bordered John's district.
  One of John's towering strengths is what I think is often overlooked. 
That is, no matter how powerful he became in Washington, he was still 
very much rooted back home.
  Mr. BONIOR. Exactly.
  Mr. LEVIN. No matter how much he rubbed elbows with the mighty here 
in Washington, he remembered those who were plying elbow grease back 
home to their own work.
  No matter how much he was part of the famous here, John remembered 
the humble families back home. That is where he came from, and he has 
never left them.
  I think that has been such a source of strength and if I might say 
accomplishment. David, you and I feel this so much. Industry, it is in 
John's blood. Jobs. Good jobs. John has been a leader in the fight to 
remind America that if the middle class does not grow and does not 
prosper, America sinks.
  The auto industry and the steel industry have been such a critical 
part of that and John has been identified: Jobs, health. Health. Even a 
good job is not meaningful without good health.
  This goes back to John's did and he has carried on this tradition, 
this fight, this tenacious battle to make sure that every American has 
an opportunity of good health.

  Good environment. A job. Health. People also want to live in an 
environment and in a hospitable environment. John has been a tenacious 
battler.
  Safety. There is no use having a good job if you are likely to be 
injured there. John has had a difficult balancing act representing a 
State with a strong auto industry and Representative Bonior and I know. 
Everybody always is not a sync. I see Representative Ehlers here. There 
are conflicts, too. Representative Chrysler, who has been part of that.
  You have to do some balancing. John has been such a battler in terms 
of oversight.
  Then lastly let me just mention, we all hope to grow old. John 
Dingell has remembered his roots.
  I had a chance to travel through his district in the 1970's and, as I 
said, represent areas right next to him. John has remembered the 
importance of the dignity that needs to come with old age.
  In talking about age, I want to finish with this, and I think our 
distinguished minority whip will agree: John Dingell has made us feel 
young, and I say this to my colleagues in the majority, and it has been 
commented on. I do not think for anyone here the transition would have 
seemed more difficult from majority to minority status than John 
Dingell.
  Just think of it. All of his years here. The position, the powerful 
position. We in Ways and Means sometimes thought his position was too 
powerful.
  And all of a sudden, and it was a bit sudden. Maybe some of you knew 
it was coming.

[[Page H15193]]

  Mr. BONIOR. It was too sudden.
  Mr. LEVIN. All of a sudden he is in the minority.
  Now I think some people thought John Dingell might disappear. But I 
think all of you admit, he has been very much on your radar screen. As 
the distinguished minority whip mentioned, he has been on the 
television screen, he has been on every screen. He has been working his 
heart out. He has made us feel young. He has shown that what he 
believes in, he fights for as hard in the minority as when he is in the 
majority. There is no better test of the real mettle of a human being 
than that he fights regardless of the circumstances.
  So to John Dingell, I just say, with a completely subjective feeling, 
but I think there is some objectivity to it, too, that your 40th 
anniversary here is an important event for us to note. We are deeply 
proud, John, of being your friend and of serving with John Dingell.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my friend from Michigan. Well-said and 
beautifully said.
  You reminded me in your remarks of another attribute that we have not 
mentioned this evening, one which I appreciate especially, and that is 
the great parliamentary skills of John Dingell. There are not very many 
people in this institution that understand the rules and can debate the 
rules and he is one of the best, and I think we have seen that as he 
has had time to do that in this the first year of our minority status.
  I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania Curt Weldon.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding, and I want to join with my friends on both sides of the aisle 
in paying tribute to an outstanding American leader, John Dingell, 
although I hate to say, John, when you first started out in this body, 
I was in grade school, but, like many of us here, we knew you by 
reputation long before we got here, and, growing up in a State that has 
many similar problems to the State of Michigan, the State of 
Pennsylvania, a State that has had the problems associated with what we 
refer to as the Rust Belt, we in our State saw you fighting for jobs, 
and economic growth and development years ago. As a former mayor of a 
small town, an industrial town, and the county commissioner of that 
county, your reputation for being a fighter on behalf of working people 
was known throughout our Commonwealth as it has been known throughout 
the Nation.
  There also was another reputation that you instilled in many of us on 
this side, but also on your side, and that is the word ``fear'' because 
before coming to Congress, as a local official and then getting here as 
a freshman and sophomore, I know many a bureaucrat who feared having 
John Dingell, and his committee, and his investigators come in to 
basically get the facts on a given issue or a given set of 
circumstances, especially where you had evidence that things perhaps 
were not operating as they should, and perhaps the taxpayers and the 
citizens were not being as well served as they should be served by this 
Government, and so that fear really was out of respect for you and the 
job that you have established a reputation in doing for the entire time 
you have been here, as someone who is willing to take on any fight, any 
battle that you believe in and which warrants the attention of this 
body.
  But in the last 3 years I have come to know you in a different 
capacity, and it has been a very enjoyable one for me. I have had the 
pleasure of serving as the Republican along with our colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], on the Migratory Bird 
Commission, a rather obscure commission that only has seven members, 
two Members of the Senate from each party, two Members of the House, 
one from each party, and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, and 
the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. The seven of us meet 
throughout the year three or four times and basically decide how to 
spend the moneys that are raised from the sale of duck stamps for 
hunting licenses and conservation practices and to implement the 
programs established under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 
as well as those administered by the Migratory Bird Commission.
  Mr. Speaker, it was the legacy of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] following his father to establish that whole effort in this 
country, and we talk about Federal programs that some would say have 
been boondoggles. Let me tell you one that is a shining example of 
something that both parties can point to, and conservatives and 
liberals can point to, that works amazingly well, the program that John 
Dingell has kind of like, I guess, been the grandfather of, if you 
will, because we honored him for 25 years of service in that capacity 
just this past year. He has protected millions of acres of wetlands in 
this country for ducks, and for hunting and for wetlands protection, 
not with a strong arm of Government, not with mandated actions, not 
with condemning properties, but with the voluntary acquisition of 
property that our Government has been able to enter into agreements 
with, all across America, to protect our vital wilderness area and our 
wetlands, and no one has done more in that regard than John Dingell.
  Mr. Speaker, for years he was associated with the late Silvio Conte, 
and the two of them were a dynamic team because they were the two that 
represented the House in fighting for the support for this very 
valuable, but ofttimes unheralded, program.
  But, John, you know people all over this country know that you have 
been there day in and day out fighting for not just the continuation of 
this very successful effort, but fighting to make sure, working with 
conservation groups, working with the Defenders of Wildlife and the 
Nature Conservancy, to not just espouse conservation concerns, but also 
to take a very aggressive--yet in some cases you can argue a very 
conservative approach to protecting the land of this country through 
these two commissions, and you have just been a hero in that regard.
  And I can remember when I first joined the Commission and had the 
honor of sitting next to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] at 
the first meeting and said, you know, I am here to learn. He said, 
``No, my friend, you are here as my partner,'' and that is a typical 
attitude of a John Dingell, to have someone who, still wet behind the 
ears, who is at that point in time a fourth-term Member of congress, 
sit down next to a veteran who has been through so many battles that I 
could never begin to name and to consider me an equal partner in the 
struggle to make sure we continue the fine work established with the 
tradition of excellence that the Migratory Bird Commission, the North 
American Wetlands Conservation Program represent.

  So I join with my colleagues today in saying congratulations and 
thank you. You are a role model for me. We may not always agree on the 
issues, but you are always a role model, the way you handle yourself, 
the way you do your homework, the way you present your facts, the way 
you fight for your causes, the way that you work with every ounce of 
energy and body until you accomplish what you set out to achieve. Those 
are all the traits that all of us can and do admire and respect in you, 
and I am a better person for having known you and worked with you and 
look forward to many more years of being a colleague and associate of 
the Honorable John Dingell.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], for having yielded to me.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his lovely remarks, 
and I yield now to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I, too, join my colleagues in an honor 
today to really talk a little bit about John Dingell. As was pointed 
out, the times that we entered this Congress or first heard of John 
Dingell, John Dingell entered this Congress before I was born. I was 
elected in 1992, but obviously I had heard of the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] before then. As somewhat considering myself a 
student of history and history of this Congress, in many ways John 
Dingell  is the Babe Ruth of this Congress and really a legendary 
person, a person that, when you look back on 40 years of American 
history, had a role, had a piece, had a touch, on 40 years on American 
history, and, when we look back on 40 years of American history 

[[Page H15194]]
in terms of the good things that happened, that same hand, that same 
touch, that same action was there, and for those of us who studied the 
legislative process over the last 40 years, there is no one who has 
probably attained the status of master of this process of being able to 
use public policy to positively influence people's lives, and really 
that is what this process is about, using this process, using 
Government, to make a difference in people's lives, to make a positive 
force, to use Government as a positive force, in people's lives.
  And that really, I guess, is the legacy of John Dingell, really 
having done that over a 40-year period because none of our words here 
tonight can possibly do justice to what he has done in the last 40 
years, but tens of millions, really hundreds of millions, of Americans 
whose lives are different because of his work are that legacy.
  And we can go through, and some of the issues have been talked about 
tonight, but his integrity and his commitment--but his attitude about 
this process I think is an example that all of us really use as a 
paradigm of unbought and unbossed, whose only interests really have 
been that goal of representing his constituents and people of this 
country. Whether it is health care, whether it is the environment, 
those differences have occurred, and I can think of no greater tribute 
than I can say for myself that I can look to no one in this Congress 
whose career that I would seek to emulate, and I think many, if not 
most, of the younger Members of this Chamber who have had a chance to 
serve with him would say the same thing, than to have a career, after 
any number of years, of trying to influence this process and being 
successful as John Dingell has during the first 40 years of his career.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank you, the gentleman from Florida, for the lovely 
remarks.
  I now yield to the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. I thank my colleague for yielding. I must say that 
there are not many things that the Democratic whip and I agree on, but 
I think one of them is the extraordinary historic role that our mutual 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], has played in this 
institution and the leadership he has given over the years.
  I have known the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] as a tough 
partisan, and he has been as good as they get. I have seen him as a 
great bipartisan legislative craftsman, and he is as good as they get. 
He did more to build the then Energy and Commerce Committee into a 
powerhouse than any chairman in its history except, I guess, Sam 
Rayburn. He brings to the floor a level of knowledge, a level of 
enthusiasm, and at the same time a level of decency and concern for 
others that is remarkable. When you disagree, he will run over you, but 
he will do so in a gentlemanly way, and courteous, and on the other 
hand, when he was in the minority, I found that he was equally 
courteous and a gentleman, does not like it any more than I did when he 
ran over me. But on things like the Clean Air Act and clean water and a 
whole range of issues where Congressman Dingell had a deep interest in 
the envrionment, an interest in the economy, we worked together on a 
number of issues that, I think, I think, have helped make America a 
better country.

  And I think any student who wants to understand this House in the 
last generation has to look carefully at the role of the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], has to understand the tremendous tradition that 
he embodied going back to his father, the commitment they both had to 
helping people, to making this a more humane country, and to doing what 
they could to make Government a more useful instrument of social 
purpose, and I think that there is an enormous investment in creating a 
better America and in extending democracy that is the personification 
of the career of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. Marianne 
and I regard John and Debbie as close friends, and it is just a 
wonderful thing in this historic period, setting a record, to be able 
to be with him, and I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. BONIOR], for hosting this, and I thank you very much for taking 
this kind of time.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank the Speaker for his comments and for honoring the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] this evening.
  I yield now to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have any prepared comments but would rather 
speak from the heart because I find I can do that much better without a 
prepared statement.
  I have not known the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for very 
many years. I am probably the least senior of the Members from Michigan 
in that regard. But I have known him long enought to know what an 
outstanding person he is.
  My first acquaintance with him was serving with his son, Christopher, 
in the Michigan Senate for several years, and Chris and I came to be 
good friends partly because we shared a technical background, partly 
because we have common interests, even though we are from opposite 
parties, and we worked on a number of issues together and got a 
considerable amount accomplished. But I decided, if John Dingell was 
anything like his son, Christopher, he was a fine person, and it was a 
pleasure when I arrived here to discover indeed that that impression 
was correct. I must confees I was always puzzled as an outsider at the 
power that John Dingell was reuputed to have. I recall an article in 
the Michigan newspapers when Mr. Foley was elected Speaker of the 
House. The article stated that John Dingell could have had the job, but 
did not want it, and the reason was that he had more power as chairman 
of the Committee on Commerce than he would have had as Speaker of the 
House.
  When I arrived here I realized why everyone considered him such a 
powerful member of the House. He was not only the chairman of the 
Committee on Commerce, but he had also defined the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Commerce to include virtually everything that came before 
the House of Representatives.
  That reminds me of the comment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior] a few moments ago about the exceedingly good knowledge of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] about the rules of the House, and 
that surprised me, because I assumed during his 40 years here he had 
probably managed to rewrite most of the rules of the House so that they 
would make more sense and could be used properly.
  But what particularly impressed me when I arrived in the Congress was 
the kindness and courteous attitude displayed by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] as the dean of our delegation. He introduced me 
to the House. He was extremely helpful to me, and I thought that was 
exceedingly gracious that the dean of the delegation, one of the wisest 
Members of the House of Representatives, certainly the most 
experienced, took the time to be considerate and thoughtful toward me 
as I made my maiden voyage, which is always a different thing when 
entering as a result of a special election, because you are thrown into 
the maelstrom. It is similar to sitting in a tree above the river 
waiting for a canoe to go by and trying to jump into the canoe without 
tipping it over.

                              {time}  2045

  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] was very gracious and 
helpful in getting me established in the House, helping me learn its 
myriad ways. I certainly appreciated that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here not only to give tribute to Mr. Dingell, but 
also to his wife Debbie, who I had the pleasure of meeting shortly 
after I arrived. What I have said of him is true, in many ways, of Mrs. 
Dingell as well; being very thoughtful, very kind, very helpful to me 
in getting settled here, and also to my wife. I appreciate her 
thoughtfulness as well, and particularly the way she organized events 
for the Michigan delegation. I found that also to be a real asset.
  Mr. DINGELL is a gentleman, a sportsman, a man of courage, a man of 
honesty, a man of integrity, all extremely valuable attributes in the 
House of Representatives. I wish that there were more Members of the 
House who had these characteristics, and we are here tonight to honor 
Mr. Dingell, Congressman from Michigan for 40 years, for what he has 
taught us and for what he has shown us about being 

[[Page H15195]]
not only a good representative, but a civil human being who is kind and 
helpful to all those around him. I thank you very much for your service 
to our State and our Nation, Mr. Dingell.
  Mr. BONIOR. Thank you, Vern, for your very lovely remarks.
  I yield to the gentleman from the upper Peninsula and parts of the 
lower Peninsula of Michigan, Bart Stupak.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. 
Bonior] but I am also honored tonight to be able to rise and pay 
tribute to my good friend, John Dingell, and celebrate his 40 years 
here and all the accomplishments and achievements he has accomplished 
over these last 40 years.
  I came in when the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Weldon] was 
talking. I could not help but overhear the comment that there is always 
a degree of fear associated with Mr. Dingell, but it is a very 
respectful fear. This morning I was at a meeting and there were 
Democrats there and Republicans and Independents and business leaders 
from around town. We got to talking about the degree of animosity or 
the tensions that are on the floor as we are here during the holiday 
season, and how tempers grow short at times.
  The people and the Members who have been here the longest said, ``You 
know,'' because I had the honor of serving with Mr. Dingell on the 
Committee on Commerce, ``that there are one or two committees in this 
whole House where there is not the friction between the Democrats and 
the Republicans on the committee because of the way, when Mr. Dingell 
was chairman, he treated the Republicans, and the gentleman from 
Virginia, [Mr. Bliley].''
  They said the Committee on Commerce has set the example, and that 
example is truly, John Dingell, you always treat people in a 
professional, respectful, civilized manner, whether you are Democrat or 
Republican. We wish the other committees would take up from John's 
leadership and copy his style, because I think things would run much 
smoother, especially right now when time is short and tempers are 
getting a little frayed right now. So, John, you bring a degree of 
civility which is recognized not only within this body but also outside 
this body.
  I had the pleasure of serving in the Michigan legislature with John's 
son Christopher. Tonight we have touched upon John Dingell, Senior, 
John Dingell here present with us, his son Christopher, his wife 
Debbie. I think the Dingell family has given so much to this country 
and to Michigan that it is only right that we honor the whole family, 
because without the whole family, John Dingell could not be the 
individual he is that we have come to love and respect in this body.
  I appreciated it when I came here 3 years ago, the outward hand, and 
a big hand, I may add, was given to me by John Dingell. His wife, 
Debbie, befriended my wife, Laurie, and they have made our times out 
here when Laurie comes out so much more personable, so much more 
enjoyable to have them with us, to be our personal friends.
  Professionally, he has helped me immensely, being a young Member, 
learning the ropes, helping me to get on the Committee on Commerce, 
where I learned underneath John. He has become my mentor. I learn every 
time I have an opportunity to talk with him. He has helped me 
immensely. He has helped Michigan, he has helped northern Michigan, and 
he certainly has helped this country.
  I hope those who are listening tonight take a special note to those 
who would advocate term limits, how term limits is really the wrong 
thing for this country when you have someone like John Dingell. I hope 
they stop and understand that we speak here very affectionately of John 
Dingell as the individual, but also very affectionately of John Dingell 
and his expertise, and the knowledge that he brings to this 
institution; that once he leaves this institution, for whatever reason, 
that knowledge is lost, that expertise is lost. We cannot bring it 
back. The advice, the leadership, the moral compass he has set for this 
House, that is something that would be lost. So those who advocate term 
limits, we rely upon John Dingell and others who have been here more 
than three terms or four terms for advice on the complex issues of the 
day.

  Tonight I would like to say thank you. I consider it a high honor to 
know you, John Dingell, to have worked with you, to be a friend with 
you, to be a friend of yours, and I always appreciate it when that big 
paw of John Dingell gives me a slap on the shoulder or on the back. To 
a young Member like me, it means so much that Members who we respect 
and admire acknowledge us, give us some guidance, and always have a 
willing ear to help us in difficult times, and even when we are having 
some fun around this place.
  We look forward to many more years of working with you, John, and you 
have a fine family. Christopher and Debbie are great folks, and we 
really do appreciate your 40 years here. I have only been here for 3, 
but I have 37 more in me. I hope you do, too. I thank you very much.
  Mr. BONIOR. Our time is just about up, so I want to close by saying 
to John how much we admire, respect, and love you for your service to 
your district, your State, and the people of this great Nation. We look 
forward to working with you and Debbie and Christopher and your family 
in the years to come. We thank you so very much.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Bonior] for his kind words, and tell him 
how much I cherish his friendship and how much I love him, and how 
grateful I am to him for having done this. It has been a singular 
honor, a somewhat uncomfortable moment, but nothing has been said 
tonight that I feel there is a strong need for me to deny.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues who have stayed up so late to 
participate in this event and tell them how much I appreciate the 
gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Knollenberg] the gentleman from 
Tennessee, [Mr. Gordon] the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Levin] the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Goodling] with whose dad I served, 
and who was a great friend of mine in times past and with whom we wrote 
great legislation; my good friend, Mr. Barcia, the gentlemen from 
Michigan, [Mr. Chrysler] Mr. Smith, and Mr. Ehlers, who has provided 
some remarkable leadership in the area of the environment, and for 
which I am grateful, and my partner and friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Weldon] who worked with me on the Migratory Bird 
Commission. We have done great work in a small area which is so little 
known that it is able to be uniquely effective, and we are very proud. 
Also my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. 
Stupak]. I am grateful to you and to Speaker Gingrich, the gentleman 
from Georgia. I want to express my appreciation to him for his 
friendship and for his being here tonight. It means a great deal to me.
  I am honored that you have mentioned my wife, Deborah, who is very 
dear to me and who is an extremely important part of this family and of 
whatever success I have had. Her wisdom and goodness and loyalty have 
been a shining light and a source of enormous strength to me. I am 
singularly blessed in having had a wonderful family, a great mother who 
lent strength and dignity to the family, and a dad who left a great 
tradition, of which I am very proud, and wonderful children.

  We come from, as does my good friend, Mr. Bonior a family of Polish 
immigrants, and that tradition is something of which I am enormously 
proud. I have served and represented a great district, the Sixteenth 
District. It is called the Down Rivers, and the people who live there 
are great people who work hard, raise great families, take pride in 
their communities, and are great Americans. They were the arsenal of 
democracy in time of war. They are people who are proud of and work 
hard on behalf of their communities.
  I owe an enormous debt to a great staff, which has served me and this 
body, the committees and the people of the Sixteenth District for many 
years with great dedication and decency, and I have had the privilege 
of serving, as mentioned, on the wonderful Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, which is a great institution and was made so 

[[Page H15196]]
under the leadership of Sam Rayburn, who I admired. I had the benefit 
of his wisdom and guidance and teaching, as I did of some other great 
speakers, like John McCormack, to whom I hope God will be very, very 
kind, and I know he will, and our great friend, Tip O'Neill, who was a 
wonderful and unique man.
  I would just like to say that it has been a singular honor to serve 
here for 40 years. This is a great institution, a great body. Great 
human beings are here, wonderful people. Great friendships are 
generated across the aisles. In spite of the sometimes terrifying 
partisanship that exists in this institution, really strong and 
wonderful friendships exist here. They are the thing of which service 
in this place is really made to be meaningful, good, and it is 
something which contributes to the goodness and the strength of the 
country. I am proud that I have been here.
  I seriously doubt if I will be able to ever express my full gratitude 
to my colleagues for the things they have said about me tonight. I note 
that I will not be denying them, and that, I will enjoy them always. I 
will say it may, perhaps, have gone a bit to my head, and perhaps some 
of my colleagues and I think the lovely Deborah will have to inform me 
that I perhaps should not take the events of the evening too seriously. 
I want to also mention the fact that she was sitting up there with her 
very special friend, Mary Anne Gingrich, who is a wonderful and a fine 
woman.
  I want to just conclude by saying that it is always a privilege to 
serve as part of this institution. It is a great body, it is a 
wonderful place. It is the people's House, and in good times and bad, 
in differences and in friendship, we serve the public interest, and 
remarkably well. We may all take pride in that. We may all take pride 
in the fact that we have had the privilege of serving in perhaps the 
greatest and most democratic institution in the entirety of not only 
the free world but the rest of the world.
  I thank my colleagues for what they have said about me. I am grateful 
to each of you, both for what you have said, and your friendship. Thank 
you very much.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I 
rise today to pay tribute to my very good friend and mentor, the 
Honorable John Dingell on the occasion of his 40 years in Congress.
  When I came to the Congress as a freshman in 1985, one of my primary 
goals was to become a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and 
to serve under the leadership of the legendary ``Chairman Dingell.'' It 
took me a few years, but with John's help and strong support, in 1989, 
I became one of only two new members of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  It was truly an honor and a privilege to watch Chairman Dingell 
shepherd legislation through his Committee. In those days, almost forty 
percent of the legislation considered on the House Floor was reported 
by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  During the 101st Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee tackled 
one the most controversial and comprehensive measures ever considered, 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
  As the author of our nation's most important and lasting 
environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, John Dingell's environmental record was then, 
and remains today, second to none. But his skills as a legislator and a 
deal maker would be put to the test like never before in the effort to 
reauthorize the Clean Air Act. It would clearly take a herculean effort 
to strike a balance between competing economic interests and the need 
to cleanup our nation's air. Yet that is exactly what John Dingell 
achieved. He pulled together disparate interests and presided over the 
passage of a landmark and historic measure to dramatically improve the 
quality of our air while preserving economic growth and job 
opportunities in every region of the nation. It is truly a legislative 
achievement that has touched the life of every American.
  I served on the conference committee that developed the final version 
of this comprehensive legislation, and I was deeply honored that 
Chairman Dingell chose a new member of his committee to play a role in 
this historic event. I will be forever grateful.
  Of course, the Clean Air Act is just one of the many achievements of 
his storied 40 year career. He passed legislation to improve our energy 
efficiency, remove asbestos from our public schools, improve clinical 
laboratory standards, and establish strong federal nursing home care 
standards.
  And during the 1980's when everyone was railing against waste, fraud 
and abuse in government, John Dingell was doing something about it. As 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Chairman 
Dingell uncovered corrupt billing practices by defense contractors and 
major violations at nuclear weapons facilities. He also led the effort 
to revamp the Red Cross' blood collection system and exposed corruption 
in the generic drug industry. Chairman Dingell found waste and he 
cleaned it up.

  John Dingell has enjoyed four decades of unparalleled success as one 
of the greatest leaders and legislators who has ever graced this august 
body. The people of Michigan and this nation owe him a great debt of 
gratitude.
  I am proud to call John Dingell my colleague, and more importantly, 
my friend.
  Congratulations to you and Debbie on your 40 years of service. And I 
know, there is much, much more to come.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I 
join my colleagues tonight in honoring a friend and colleague, 
Representative John Dingell, on the occasion of his 40th anniversary 
serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. His 40 years of dedicated 
service in this House on behalf of the people of the 16th District of 
Michigan is unmatched by any of us here today and by few in the long 
history of this institution.
  John Dingell, Mr. Chairman, as I still like to call him, is a true 
crusader in a form and fashion that we do not see too much of lately. 
Grounded in principle and integrity and skilled in legislative 
negotiating he is an undaunted leader who will always persevere.
  There are few people who have made their mark on such a wide variety 
of policy issues ranging from clean air and clean water, to protection 
of our blood supply, removal of asbestos from our schools, protection 
from securities and telemarketing fraud, increased railroad safety, and 
promoting energy efficiency.
  In tackling these often controversial issues he has a real knack for 
achieving that delicate balance between progress and productivity, and 
protection for the consumer and the environment. Through it all he has 
never compromised his principles working equally for improved job 
opportunities and worker protections for industrial workers, fighting 
for the preservation of our environment, and protecting our nation's 
consumers.
  His achievements which have improved the lives of the residents of 
Michigan's 16th district and indeed the entire nation are too numerous 
to mention. But one that stands out for me is Medicare. As a new Member 
of Congress in 1965, I remember John Dingell and his role in 
shepherding the Medicare bill through the House. It was a difficult 
task for anyone and John took on the challenge with the tenacity of a 
pit bull. It is because of John Dingell that we have a Medicare program 
today.
  For a young, new Member of Congress watching John Dingell at work, 
fighting for health care for our seniors was inspiring and most of all 
educational. Today, 30 years later, I still learn from John Dingell and 
look highly upon his guidance and counsel.
  Not serving on the same committees I don't often get the chance to 
socialize or spend time with John, but this summer we both had a chance 
to attend the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of World 
War II in Honolulu Hawaii, before his service in this House John served 
as a soldier in World War II. And I think it appropriate that tonight 
we recognize not only his 40 years of service to this institution but 
his 50 plus years of public service.
  From his military service to his tenure in the U.S. House, John 
Dingell exemplifies the true meaning of a public servant. Thank you 
John for your dedication to making this world better for us and for 
future generations. It is an honor to call you my colleague and my 
friend.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to House 
minority whip, David Bonior, for reserving this special order. I am 
pleased to join my colleague and Members of the Michigan congressional 
delegation in saluting the dean of the delegation, Congressman John 
Dingell.
  Forty years ago, John Dingell was elected to this legislative body. 
At the beginning of the 104th Congress, he marked 40 years of 
uninterrupted House service. This represents the longest record of 
continuous service in the House of Representatives. As he celebrates 
this important milestone in his legislative career, it is fitting that 
we pause to salute Congressman Dingell.
  Mr. Speaker, John Dingell was elected to the United States Congress 
in 1955. He came to Washington armed with an insider's view of Capitol 
Hill. For 23 years John's father, John D. Dingell, Sr., had represented 
the people of Michigan in the Congress. Thus, John Dingell arrived on 
Capitol Hill well versed in the 

[[Page H15197]]
legislative process and parliamentary procedure.
  Like his father, John also brought to the Congress the highest level 
of commitment to public service. During his 40 year tenure in Congress, 
the residents of Michigan's 16th Congressional District, and indeed the 
Nation, has benefitted from his tireless efforts and unselfish 
dedication.
  Mr. Speaker, as we review his legislative record, I note that 
Congressman Dingell has compiled a distinguished record of legislative 
accomplishments that reflect highly upon this institution and the 
Nation. He has taken the lead on important issues which impact the 
lives of all Americans.
  John Dingell led the fight on health care reform, greater 
environmental protections and the reshaping of the Nation's 
telecommunications industry. Congressman Dingell has been instrumental 
in writing every major law to improve air quality standards, including 
the Clean Air Act of 1990. His efforts were also instrumental in the 
passage of the first ever Americans With Disabilities Act. Other 
legislative accomplishments include authoring the National 
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National 
Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, just to name a few.
  Mr. Speaker, when I came to the U.S. Congress as a freshman lawmaker 
in 1969, Congressman Dingell was one of the individuals to whom I 
turned for leadership and guidance. His knowledge of the legislative 
process is unsurpassed. More importantly, John Dingell was willing to 
give freely of his time and counsel. This is something that I will 
always remember about this great statesman.
  Mr. Speaker, I take special pride in joining members of the Michigan 
congressional delegation in saluting Congressman John Dingell. His 
service in the Congress has been exemplary. He represents the best that 
this institution stands for, and he is held in high esteem throughout 
the Nation. I extend my best wishes and salute our distinguished 
colleague and friend, Congressman John Dingell.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a longtime friend and 
colleague, John Dingell of Michigan. Last Wednesday marked the 40th 
anniversary of his election to the House of Representatives. John 
Dingell is the longest serving House Member of the 104th Congress, and 
I think we all should take a minute to reflect on the distinguished 
record of this distinguished gentleman.
  John Dingell has spent his career fighting for the betterment of our 
country on a broad range of issues. As chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, a post he held for 14 years, John Dingell was able 
to make a real difference for improving the lives of all Americans. He 
was instrumental in writing every major law to improve air quality 
standards, radon testing and lead paint removal and was the author of 
the Clean Air Act of 1990. He is the author of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 and has been effective in protecting millions of acres of 
wetland and controlling pollution in the Great Lakes.
  In 1987, John Dingell wrote strong Federal nursing home care 
standards in response to widespread abuse in our nation's nursing 
homes. He ushered through the Americans with Disabilities Act, the law 
which affords disabled Americans with the same rights and privileges 
other Americans enjoy.
  John Dingell served as chairman of the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee, where he was able to reveal dozens of instance of waste 
and abuse. His subcommittee directed an investigation of the safety of 
our Nation's blood supply that prompted the Red Cross to completely 
revamp its blood collection system. He exposed corruption in the 
generic drug industry and uncovered corrupt billing practices by 
defense contractors. John Dingell investigated waste and abuse in 
public and private institutions with such tenaciousness that 
correspondence from the Dingell Committee was one of the most feared 
letters in Washington.
  I have had the privilege to know John Dingell more than 30 years; he 
hired me to work on his staff in Detroit prior to may election to 
Congress in 1964, and we have worked closely together ever since. He is 
one of the most dignified, honest and hard-working members this body 
has ever witnessed--and today those are qualities that are becoming 
harder to find in the House of Representatives. Congratulations, John 
Dingell, for 40 years of distinguished service.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join my 
colleagues today in paying tribute to Rep. John Dingell as we celebrate 
the 40th anniversary of this election to Congress. It has been an honor 
for me to serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee under his 
effective leadership. Throughout his years of distinguished service, 
John always has been a fierce advocate and tough negotiator, and his 
legislative accomplishments are impressive.
  John's efforts led to passage of milestone legislation to protect the 
environment. He was instrumental in passing the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and passed strong Federal nursing home care standards. 
He helped write legislation that protected the consumer from unsafe 
products and unfair practices. He led efforts to expose and end 
corruption and waste in the public and private sectors and wrote 
legislation that promoted competition in the telecommunications 
industry. Although John and I sometimes disagreed philosophically about 
the nature and scope of specific legislation, we developed a good 
working relationship and a special friendship over the years.
  Mr. Speaker, John Dingell continues with great distinction his 
family's legacy of public service, following in the footsteps of his 
father, John Dingell, Sr., who preceded him in the House of 
Representatives. His son, Christopher, carries on the family tradition 
through his service as a Michigan State Senator--and perhaps he also 
will join this body one day. Such dedication to public service, Mr. 
Speaker, is part of our rich American heritage. Such commitment to 
public service, Mr. Speaker, deserves our respect and our gratitude. My 
friend and colleague, John Dingell, has served our country well and no 
doubt will continue to fight the good fight as long as he is a Member 
of the House of Representatives. I join my colleagues today in paying 
tribute to this great warrior.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in paying tribute 
to the Representative from the 16th District of Michigan John Dingell, 
for his 40 years of service in this body. This length of service, I am 
told, represents the longest continuous run of any Member who has ever 
served in the House of Representatives.
  These days, as we witness a rash of voluntary retirements from this 
body, it is refreshing to reflect upon John Dingell's career and his 
continued, and still very much intense, service to his constituents in 
this body. Leafing through just about any write-up on Members of 
Congress such as ``Politics In America'' it is impossible not to find 
the words ``powerful'' and ``influential'' as descriptions of John 
Dingell, especially in terms of his tenure as chairman of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce. Indeed, during his chairmanship, John's 
legislative savvy and tenacious oversight activities grew to almost 
mythical proportions.
  It is true that John ruled the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
between 1981 and 1995, and that few dared to cross him. But in my 
dealings with him, I knew of a kinder and gentler John Dingell. A 
Member of this body who would listen to your concerns, and who if he 
could, would seek to accommodate them into his legislative strategy. I 
personally found this to be true during our consideration of the Clean 
Air Act reauthorization in 1990, and when we devised the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992.
  John Dingell represents the type of Member many of us view as the 
ideal. So to the dean of the House of Representatives, I salute you. 
Congratulations on your years of service, and I look forward to seeing 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan serving in this body for many 
more years. You are a dear and true friend, ``Big John,'' to me and 
many in my family. Thank you.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
honor Representative John Dingell, the dean of the House of 
Representatives, on the 40th anniversary of his election to Congress.
  As all of us recognize, John Dingell possesses a strong commitment to 
public service and a stellar record of legislative accomplishment. John 
has worked to enact meaningful legislation to protect the environment, 
improve health care, and defend the consumer from unsafe products and 
unfair practices. In fact, John has authored several of the most 
important environmental protection measures, including the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990.
  In addition, as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, 
John has written legislation to lower cable television rates, to stop 
securities and telemarketing fraud, and to improve energy efficiency.
  It has been an honor and a privilege to serve in the House with 
Representative Dingell. Clearly, John's hard work and dedication to 
public service have improved the lives of all Americans.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay the 
highest tribute to my long-time colleague, Commerce Committee ranking 
member, and great friend, the Honorable John Dingell of Michigan. On 
this day, marking his 40 years of distinguished and unparalleled 
service to this institution, it is only proper that we take this time 
to reflect upon the momentous impact Representative Dingell's dedicated 
work has had on the lives of all Americans.
  The list of Congressman Dingell's accomplishments is long and 
impressive. For four decades, he has been a leader in the fight for 
expanded access to quality health care for all of our citizens. From 
the battle to create Medicare to the current attempts by the majority 
to 

[[Page H15198]]
destroy it, John Dingell has stood firmly on the side of the people, 
upholding the rights and needs of seniors across the Nation. He was 
instrumental in establishing standards governing nursing home care in 
response to abuses throughout the system and shepherded the Individuals 
with Disabilities Act through this body, giving a voice in Congress to 
those with special needs.
  On the environmental front, Representative Dingell has been a strong 
protector of our country's vast and valuable public lands and wildlife, 
authoring the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and 
the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act. In addition, the 
Congressman has staunchly championed the public health and safety of 
our children and families through his efforts to improve the quality of 
the air we breath and the water we drink.
  Both the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Clean Water Act are the 
products of John Dingell's commitment to our future generations. When 
he could easily have backed down from pressure by major business 
interests such as the auto industry on these and other major fights 
over the years, Congressman Dingell held his ground.
  As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I constantly 
marveled at the fairness that John Dingell, as chairman, exercised in 
moving legislation through that committee. I recall working closely 
with him on numerous occasions as we tackled such weighty issues as the 
divestiture of AT&T and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992. Each and every time I approached Congressman 
Dingell with the concerns of my constituents on a particular matter 
before the committee, John treated me and my constituents with the 
utmost respect and consideration, always welcoming our input.
  In his long-standing role as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, 
Representative Dingell has been singlehandedly responsible for 
uncovering some of the most profligate cases of waste, fraud, and abuse 
at several government departments--saving American taxpayers hundreds 
of millions of dollars. His investigations of U.S. defense contractors 
turned up the infamous $600 toilet seat while his probes of EPA 
contract mismanagement and lack of enforcement practices in the 1980's 
fundamentally improved the functioning of that Agency.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours. The contributions Congressman 
Dingell has made to our Nation and its citizens cannot be overstated. 
John Dingell is truly a Representative of the people. I am proud to 
serve with him, and congratulate him on this historic day.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to 
pay tribute to one of the most remarkable individuals the Congress has 
ever known, Congressman John Dingell of Michigan.
  As a Member of Congress, John Dingell has helped write landmark 
legislation to protect the environment, promote American 
competitiveness, and defend consumers form unsafe and unfair practices. 
He has written legislation to improve energy efficiency, stop 
securities and telemarketing fraud, and lower cable television rates by 
promoting competition in the industry.
  Under his guidance, the Energy and Commerce Committee passed measures 
to remove asbestos from public schools, improve clinical laboratory 
standards increase railroad safety, and promote the development of 
alternative fuels.
  Throughout Michigan, John Dingell is known as a defender of the 
people; an advocate for issues that are often unpopular but always 
critical. In this body, he has come to represent an ideal that is in 
short supply: the willingness to take a stand for what is right, and 
what is good for this country, regardless of political implications.
  John Dingell is legendary for his tenacity, especially when it comes 
to fighting for causes in which he believes. He has been a mentor and a 
friend, and it has been a great honor knowing him over the years. His 
outspoken leadership in the area of environmental protection was 
inspirational in my own legislation to fight environmental injustice in 
poor and minority communities.
  His legislative accomplishments are far too numerous to list, but let 
me simply say that without the presence of John Dingell this body--and 
this nation--would have missed one of the few great men of our time.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr.Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to join my House 
colleagues in saluting a man whose 40-year contributions to our Nation 
are only exceed by his commitment to public service and his unswerving 
sense of personal, political and professional integrity, Congressman 
John Dingell.
  For 40 years John Dingell has been a champion in the fight to protect 
consumers from fraud, waste, corruption and environmental pollution. 
The 16th District of Michigan and all Americans can be confident that 
their welfare has been well served by the former seven term Commerce 
Committee chairman.
  As a member of the Commerce Committee, I have fond memories of my 
initial introduction to the former chairman, whose vast reputation was 
only matched by his gigantic physical stature and expansive intellect. 
During my tenure as a committee member I have marveled at his mastery 
of legislative procedure and his gift for building political 
coalitions. Without equivocation, John Dingell  has created an 
indelible impression upon anyone with whom he has come in contact. When 
the political annals are written about legendary members of Congress, 
without question, John Dingell's name will appear at the top of that 
list.
  America owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Congressman Dingell 
for his discovery of corrupt billing practices by government 
contractors, and major safety violations at nuclear weapons facilities. 
And it was John Dingell who was directly responsible for prompting the 
American Red Cross to revamp its blood collection system. Americans 
with disabilities can now function much more effectively and 
comfortably given the input of Congressman Dingell  and his 
contributions to the Americans with Disabilities Act. And every 
American who cherishes breathing clean air, owes a tremendous debt to 
Congressman Dingell for his efforts in promoting the Clean Air Act of 
1990.
  I consider John Dingell a personal friend and mentor. His 40 years of 
selfless service merit recognition and commendation. The institution of 
Congress, and the taxpaying public, has gotten the best that John 
Dingell has had to offer. I salute him for his years of service to, and 
love for the United States Congress
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, for the past 40 years, the people of 
Michigan's 16th district have benefited from the representation of John 
Dingell. John is a gentleman whose example challenges us in the House 
of Representatives, and will continue to do so.
  Michigan is consistently recognized each year as one of the most 
influentional delegations in the House. Through experience and 
leadership, both sides of the aisle have made their legislative mark 
for both their State and the entire Nation. John demonstrates both 
tenacity for his personal interests and causes, as well as a spirit of 
cooperation within the legislative process.
  His record reflects a dedication of addressing needs of his district 
while balancing those with the needs of the Nation. His hard work, 
legislative ability and conscientious votings have earned him the 
admiration of his constituents and fellow Members of Congress.
  I join my fellow colleagues in paying tribute to John, his 
accomplishments and his continued service to our Nation.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my long-time friend 
and colleague, John Dingell, as he marks his anniversary of serving 
four decades in the U.S. Congress.
  John is certainly a landmark around here, one of the true legends to 
ever serve in the Congress. He is the House's longest serving Member 
and no one has worked harder on so many important and complicated 
issues over the years.
  He was one of the most outstanding chairmen we've ever had and he 
certainly made his mark on Energy and Commerce matters. John Dingell 
has always been respected for his leadership and legislative 
capabilities.
  He remains one of most able and capable leaders in the Congress. I 
hope John will serve many more years here. We need people of his 
caliber and intellect as our public servants. His fine record of 
accomplishment will always be remembered and appreciated.

                        TRIBUTE TO JOHN DINGELL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 60 
minutes, but I will be happy to start off, and I am going to talk about 
the defense bill, I will be happy to start off by yielding to my good 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am a 
Republican, and the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, is a 
Democrat. I 

[[Page H15199]]
have been here 3 years, and what I have discovered is he is just a good 
person. He cares about people. His knowledge is extraordinary. I served 
with his son, Chris Dingell, in the Michigan Senate for 10 years. I 
asked Christ about 3 years ago if he was going to follow the family 
tradition and run for the U.S. Congress. Chris said, ``Nick, you 
wouldn't believe how hard dad works.'' I did not believe it then, I 
believe it now.
  John, I think, you know, this is not a eulogy, it does not mean you 
can relax or let down. We need your experience, we need your help, we 
need your camaraderie to make some of the tough decisions ahead of us. 
It is a shame, you know more about many subjects and many areas and 
probably you have more knowledge than anybody else in the world in some 
of the aspects of your experience over the last 40 years. I personally 
think you should work harder and write a book. Debbie, encourage him to 
do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be from Michigan and a colleague of a 
gentleman that has helped Michigan a great deal and helped America a 
great deal. Thank you.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding. I want to state that I am not from the State of Michigan, 
but I have had the opportunity to serve with John Dingell for the past 
3 years I have been here in the House of Representatives, and I just 
wanted to take a moment, just a few minutes, a few seconds, actually, 
and just stop by and say John, I want to thank you for your years of 
service, 40 years.
  I am only 33, but I tell you, you have been serving the people of 
this country as long as I have been living, and it was an extraordinary 
opportunity for me to meet you, not only meet you, but also to develop 
a friendship with you, and I want to thank you for the time that you 
have given me in your office and talked to me about the oil and gas 
industries and issues relative to my State. As a young Member of this 
Congress, I want to thank you for taking out the time with me.
  I want to also thank you for giving me the opportunity to be in your 
district. It was encouraging to see a Member like the gentleman from 
Michigan, John Dingell, at a rally at the University of Michigan, to 
see young students rally around a Member of this institution.

                              {time}  2200

  Martin Luther King once said, ``The measure of a great man is not 
where he stands in moments of confidence; it is where he stands in 
moments of challenge and controversy.''
  Through your 40 years of service, I am sure you have been through a 
lot. I just want to say, thank you so much; on behalf of not only the 
college students in Michigan, but across the country, thank you for 
your years of service.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank our colleague for those very 
eloquent comments, and I yield to our friend from New York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have 
been patiently waiting here just in case there was no one here to take 
the Republican hour, and I am happy to make additional comments about 
John Dingell, the icon of this institution.
  I came here in 1983 with a very large freshman class, I think it was 
something like 57 Democrats and a total of 80, and about two-thirds of 
the members of my freshman class all wanted to serve on the Committee 
on Commerce. I had a mindset for education and labor, so I was not a 
part of that group.
  I can speak objectively, because I am not a member of the Committee 
on Commerce, I am not from Michigan, but I would like to add my voice 
to those who paid tribute to John Dingell tonight.
  I could go on and on and talk about the Individuals with Disabilities 
Act, a piece of legislation which a number of enemies swore would never 
get past the Committee on Energy, but it of course got past the 
Committee on Energy, and in the end, all of the Members of Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats, joined in making that act pass as a result 
of the kind of leadership shown by John Dingell.
  On term limitations, somebody has already spoken. I think John 
Dingell's 40 years in the Congress certainly answer the assertion made 
that we have people here too long. I have always argued that term 
limitations are a bit silly. Nobody goes out to look for a lawyer fresh 
out of law school to take a case that is important; you do not go to 
surgery expecting a doctor fresh out of medical school to put your life 
in their hands; and certainly it should not be done in a complex job 
like this.
  The legislative process is just as complex, and those who insist that 
you do not need to stay here long to understand it are misunderstanding 
the process. I think John Dingell shows that in order to succeed in the 
legislative process here in America you have to have the wisdom and 
skill of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, combined with the skills of 
Machiavelli and Jesus Christ all together. It is a very complex process 
and it takes a great deal; and just as nobody would say that Einstein, 
because he had a head of white hair and looked very old, should step 
down because of term limitations, I think John Dingell will never be 
asked to step down, in deference to some kind of theory of term 
limitations.
  John Dingell is the Einstein of the Federal legislative process, and 
it is a pleasure for me to and an honor for me to raise my voice with 
others to pay tribute to John Dingell, Mr. Chairman, from the State of 
Michigan.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank our colleague for joining us and 
I thank all of our colleagues who have joined with Congressman John 
Bonior, in his Special Order and the beginning of my Special Order this 
evening; and I again wanted to thank Mr. Dingell for his tireless 
efforts in this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I will take approximately 20 or so minutes to discuss a 
piece of legislation that has finally made its way through this body 
and the other body and is now headed down to the White House for 
consideration by the President, and that is the 1996 defense 
authorization bill.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening the Senate passed this piece of 
legislation, which is the major authorization bill for our entire 
military, by a vote of 51 to 43. Last week the House went on record and 
supported the exact same conference report for this bill with a total 
amount of almost 270 votes. I think the final vote was 267.
  The bill, when it originally passed the House, Mr. Speaker, gathered 
300 signatures, the largest number of Members in a bipartisan way to 
support a defense bill, certainly in the 9 years that I have been here, 
and it is certainly showing a strong bipartisan backing of our defense 
authorization process.
  In fact, when the bill left the Committee on National Security of the 
House, it passed by a vote of 48 to 3, the largest vote we have ever 
had, at least in my time here, in support of a bill coming out of 
committee.
  So this is in fact a good bill, Mr. Speaker. Despite intense lobbying 
by the White House and by the Secretary asking Members not to support 
final passage of the conference report, getting almost 270 Members of 
this body to support a national defense authorization is a major 
accomplishment.

  In fact, there are several major items in this legislation that 
really merit the President to fully consider supporting this; not to do 
as has been rumored, and that is to veto this legislation.
  The bill is consistent with the appropriated defense dollars for the 
next fiscal year. We worked very closely with the appropriators to make 
sure that our dollar amounts were consistent, that there in fact was 
not a large disagreement between the dollar amounts for the various 
items within the budgets, both authorization and appropriation.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the conference report for the defense 
authorization for the 1996 fiscal year contains major legislation 
dealing with acquisition reform. This administration and Members of 
Congress on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly stated that we need 
to reform the way that we spend our DOD dollars, that we can save 
significant amounts of money, that we can buy better equipment and 
materials for our military and in the end save the taxpayers their tax 
dollars. That acquisition reform is in this legislation.

[[Page H15200]]

  If President Clinton vetoes this bill, we lose the acquisition reform 
which is so critical in this year of declining defense dollars. In 
addition, we have the pay raise authorization.
  Last week, we had the debate on whether or not to support the troops. 
The President asked us to support the troops; we supported the troops. 
Members on both sides of the aisle, depending upon which version of 
legislation that they supported, were unanimous in one argument on the 
House floor, and that was to support the troops as they are being 
deployed to Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no better way to support our troops than to 
vote for the authorization to give them a pay raise. Contrary to what 
is being stated here in this body, the military personnel will not 
receive their full pay increase if we do not have the authorization 
bill approved by the President and become law. The appropriation bill 
will not do it alone.
  Those are major reasons why this President needs to consider 
supporting this legislation and express the urgency of putting this 
legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard some comments that perhaps the reason why 
the President might want to veto this bill is because of what we have 
done in the area of missile defense. Mr. Speaker, that is an area that 
I have worked on this entire year as the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Research and Development and have worked to try to turn around the 
whole debate on protecting the American people from the threat of a 
missile attack, either an accident or deliberate, by any Nation, not 
just Russia. In fact, I would agree with my colleagues that what we did 
in the missile defense area is perhaps one of the single biggest policy 
changes that we made from the President's stated policy objectives when 
he came out with his defense request for 1996.
  It is a tough issue, but Mr. Speaker, we have tried very carefully 
and very exactly to make sure that what we came out with is a bill that 
this President can sign into law.
  We were very careful this year, Mr. Speaker, during the authorization 
process in the committee and on the House floor; we were careful that 
in plussing up the funding for theater missile defense, for national 
missile defense, and for cruise missile defense that we do it in a way 
that was consistent with what the administration and the Pentagon 
thought should be our priorities.

  Mr. Speaker, as I have sat on this floor, many times over the past 
several months, each of the areas in which we plussed up funding in 
missile defense were given to us by the administration's point person 
for missile defense policy. We asked Gen. Mal O'Neill, who heads the 
BMD office, the missile defense operation for the Pentagon, to tell us 
where he would put additional dollars if the Congress were to provide 
those dollars to him.
  So we followed his advice in plussed-up money for theater missile 
protection, for a robust national missile program that had been 
devastated by the President's request, and by a plus-up in the cruise 
missile area, because of the threat that cruise missile proliferation 
poses not just to the American people, but to our troops wherever they 
are deployed, and we did those plus-ups, Mr. Speaker.
  We fully funded programs in theater missile defense like those that 
are being tested right now for use in those theaters where our troops 
are in fact going to be committed in the future. We plussed up national 
missile defense to give us the ability over a period of 3, 4, or 5 
years, to have a system in place much like one the Russians already 
have.
  Most American people when you ask them whether or not they believe 
that we have a system like the Russians have to protect themselves 
against an accidental launch, they would tell you, oh, sure we have a 
system like that, obvious. They cannot believe that we today do not 
have a national missile defense system to protect the American people 
against a rogue nation launch.
  Mr. Speaker, we also saw the threat in our hearings of cruise missile 
proliferation. We saw that 77 nations in the world today have cruise 
missiles that they are capable of using right now, today. We heard 
testimony from experts, including the administration, that over 20 
nations are today building cruise missiles, some of them very 
sophisticated, well beyond what we saw with the Scuds, even beyond what 
we saw with our own capabilities in terms of cruise missiles. We have 
to put more of our resources in protecting our people and our troops 
from the threat of a cruise missile situation.
  Mr. Speaker, we did all of these things and we did them finally in a 
way that this administration could not stand up and say was in 
violation of the ABM Treaty. That is a very important point, Mr. 
Speaker, because some in our Congress and in this institution wanted us 
to take the treaty head on on the bill.
  While I have serious reservations about the ABM Treaty, I think in 
the end the treaty has outlived its usefulness, I think we are dealing 
in a different world today; I was in agreement that that should be a 
debate left and a fight left for a different day.
  This bill, when it left the House last week and when it left the 
Senate today, by a vote of 51 to 43, in no way violates the ABM Treaty. 
In fact, it is totally consistent with the ABM Treaty. We in fact now 
have on the record both the Army and the Air Force telling us that we 
can deploy a single-sight system which is compliant with the ABM 
Treaty, as the Russians already have and have upgraded at least two 
times since they have had that system, that can protect the entire 48 
States and Alaska and Hawaii.
  The Air Force says they can do it using the existing Minuteman system 
with upgrades costing about $2.5 billion over 4 years. The Army says 
they can do it using THAAD for a cost of $4 billion to $5 billion over 
the same time period.
  Well, we say in our bill that we want a system deployed by the year 
2000. We want a system that is not pie-in-the-sky. We want a system 
where we know that technology is available today that we can afford 
that will give us no more than what the Russians have. My colleagues on 
the other side during the debate on the conference bill last week said, 
well, the Russians' system does not protect the entire nation of 
Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, the ABM system that Russia deploys today protects 80 
percent of the population of Russia because it was designed when it 
used to be the Soviet Union. So they already have a system, so that if 
we were to fire a missile at Russia, they could protect their citizens. 
If a rogue nation like Iraq or Iran or Libya were to fire a missile, 
they could, in effect, shoot up their missiles to protect their people.
  We have no such system today, even though it is totally and 
completely allowable under the terms of the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that we send to President Clinton tonight, 
approved by both bodies of this institution, does not violate any 
treaty, and if the President says that to the American people tomorrow, 
he is just not being truthful.
  Mr. Speaker, that is really an outrage, because we have been 
extremely careful. In fact, in the negotiations that we were involved 
in with the Senate, with Senator Thurman and Senator Nunn and with 
Senator Lott, we were very careful in bringing in the administration's 
point person on missile defense, Bob Bell. He raised eight specific 
concerns in the bill with us, issues involving missile defense. We were 
able to resolve each of those items, and finally it came down to Bob 
Bell realizing that we were not going to give in on the issue of a date 
certain for deployment.
  He found out also, and I know he has called various officials in the 
administration that would be able to respond to this question, that 
what we have done in this bill in no way violates the ABM Treaty.
  So what is really going to come down to the actual decision of the 
President and whether to veto this bill or not if he does veto it and 
uses the issue of missile defense, is very simple: It is that this 
President does not want to provide a system to provide any defensive 
protection for the American people.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous because we are not talking about 
building more offensive weapons. We are beyond that now. We are talking 
about defending the American people. We are 

[[Page H15201]]
talking about a defensive system that would be able to shoot an 
incoming missile if it were fired not just from Russia but from China, 
who we know is developing a CSS-2 system that has tremendous 
capabilities. We know the North Koreans are about ready to deploy a new 
system that could eventually reach Hawaii and parts of Alaska. We know 
that Iraq and Iran want to buy these systems.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am going to include an article that appeared 
in the Washington Post on December 15 where the United Nations came out 
and said they have found documentation of missile parts and state-of-
the-art technology to be used for long-range missiles that were bound 
for Iraq, that were made in Russia.
  This is not something that came out years ago. This is from the 
December 15 issue of the Washington Post. I am putting the entire 
article in the Record, because in the article the United Nations 
verifies that missile components that can be used by Iraq to develop a 
long-range missile that we cannot defend ourselves against have now 
been captured, and even though Russia is denying where they came from, 
they have no idea, the best guess is that someone within the former 
Soviet Union has made these parts available in the black market.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also say that our efforts here are not about 
sticking a twig in the eye of the Russian nation. This is not about 
calling the Russian nation an evil empire.
  As most of my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, I have been a student of 
the Russian government and people since I graduated from college with 
my undergraduate degree in Russian studies. I have spoken the language, 
I have traveled there, I have lived in homes.
  In the past year alone, I have hosted 120 members of the Russian Duma 
in my office and here on the Hill. I lead the bipartisan effort in the 
area of energy cooperation with my colleagues Greg Laughlin and Steny 
Hoyer and Glenn Poshard. For the last 3 years, we have worked with our 
energy companies to encourage and follow through on joint energy deals.
  Just today we learned that the Sakhalin one and two deal had been 
grandfathered by legislation passed by the Russian Duma. These two 
projects, when completed, will see the largest western investment of 
dollars in energy development in the history of Russia and the former 
Soviet republics.

  In the area of the environment, working with Nikolay Vorontsov in the 
Russian Duma, I lead American efforts to work with the Russians on 
cleaning up their nuclear waste. In January, I will be in St. 
Petersburg representing America in a major conference on ocean 
protection.
  Last week, in the first ever subcommittee of our committee on ocean 
protection, I brought over Aleksey Yablokov, the leading environmental 
advocate in Russia, a member of Yeltsin's National Security Council, 
who testified for an hour before my subcommittee in terms of ways that 
we can work together to deal with the problem of ocean dumping that he 
helped expose in his homeland of Russian.
  We are not about a radical agenda. Mr. Speaker, these efforts are 
designed to say yes, we want to build a strong relationship with 
Russian. We want to work with its leadership and its people and its 
Duma, but we do not want to do it with blinders on and we do not want 
to walk into a situation where we have some of the former military 
leaders still thinking that it is the cold war. Some will say, well, 
that is not true.
  Mr. Speaker, let me include some other articles in my special order 
this evening. The first is an article that appeared in Krymskaya 
Pravda, and I monitor the FBIS reports, the Foreign Information 
Broadcast Service, every day. Every article that appears in the Russian 
media that is highlighted there, I go through.
  This one caught my eye from November 28 of this year. It is an 
article written by Admiral Baltin, who was commander of the Black Sea 
fleet, hero of the Soviet Union.
  Remember, the Russian Navy and the Soviet Navy has had a reputation 
of being among the best in the world, in many cases able to go toe-to-
toe with our Navy. Here we have the commander, the current commander of 
the Baltic fleet, Admiral Baltin, doing an article in the Russian media 
about his state of concern for what is happening in his country.
  I would encourage all of our colleagues to read this article in 
depth, Mr. Speaker, because in this article Admiral Baltin makes the 
case that we are in the midst of World War II. He says this is not a 
war like we have fought in the past. He refers to it, and I will use 
his direct quote, as a velvet war, a velvet war because the United 
States has sucked Russia into a process of not being able to defend 
itself.

  And what does he advocate? He advocates, and I will quote him 
directly here, ``World War III is not over.'' The last of the elements 
that are inaccessible to the West is Russia with its nuclear might. He 
goes on to say that Russia must not do away with its nuclear arsenal 
but must reinforce it, that it is the only way to deal with the West.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not some radical person in the Russian 
media. This is the commanding officer, a decorated admiral in charge of 
the Baltic fleet, just recently, Mr. Speaker, on November 28 of this 
year.
  Now, I am not saying he speaks for Boris Yeltsin, I am not even 
saying he speaks for Pavel Grachev, but this is the mindset of some of 
the military leaders inside Russia that we have to be aware of, that we 
cannot ignore it.
  Or, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps we ought to look at some of the 
comments made by the fellow I had in America last week before my 
subcommittee, Aleksey Yablokov. Three articles, again appearing in 
FBIS, this time on November 21, 1995, a week before he came over here 
to testify before my subcommittee.
  The first article quotes Mr. Yablokov in his criticism of the Russian 
military. He has done this repeatedly in the Russian press. This 
article appeared in Itar Tass in Moscow. It was an article that ran on 
their national TV network.
  Yablokov criticizes the Russian General Staff Chief Kolesnikov in his 
report that Russia only has 40,000 tons of chemical weapons in its 
arsenal. Yablokov in this article says that is not true. We know Russia 
has 100,000 tons of chemical weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a Member of Congress saying this. This is 
not some radical journalist saying this. This is a member of Boris 
Yeltsin's Security Council in the Russian media telling the Russian 
people that the military is not being honest, that it is not 40,000 
tons of chemical weapons, there are 100,000 tons. In this article he 
says to the military, ``Tell us what you have done with the other 
60,000 tons of chemical weapons. Are they hidden someplace? Have you 
buried them? Where are they?''
  The second article, also quoting Mr. Yablokov, deals with miniature 
nuclear weapons. Again Mr. Yablokov questions the small nuclear weapons 
that are portable that Russia has, which they admit they have, that can 
be used in a battlefield environment.

  Mr. Yablokov in this case disagrees with the Russian military 
leadership as to the extent and the potential impact these nuclear 
weapons could have in a theater of operation, let alone the damage they 
could cause accidentally. That article appeared, by the way, in Itar 
Tass, as I mentioned.
  The third article appeared in English in Interface in Moscow. It 
deals with decontaminated nuclear submarines. Mr. Yablokov again is 
quoted. This time he says that as the Russian military is 
decommissioning its nuclear submarines, 50 of them still contain 
nuclear fuel that they do not know how to deal with, and that 7 to 10 
of these submarines have nuclear fuel that cannot be extracted for 
technical reasons.
  He goes on to say, and I quote, ``These submarines are the source of 
super high danger.''
  Mr. Speaker, may point is simple: All of us, and certainly me, want 
to have a stable relationship with Russia. When I go to Russia in 
January, besides attending a conference on the oceans in St. 
Petersburg, I will be in Moscow, and I will be following up on 
establishing a process, a formal process, with members of the Russian 
Duma National Security Council for an ongoing dialogue with members of 
our congressional Committee on National Security.
  This is an outgrowth of discussions that my good friend and colleague 
who 

[[Page H15202]]
I am going to yield to in a moment, Duncan Hunter from California, 
Chairman Floyd Spence and I, along with Congressman and Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations Bob Livingston, had with members of the 
Russian Duma defense committees for 3 hours behind closed doors last 
spring.
  Mr. Speaker, we want stable relations with Russia. Mr. Speaker, I 
want Russia to succeed economically, and my actions prove that. Mr. 
Speaker, I want us to help the Russians solve their environmental 
problems, and my actions prove that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am reaching out to Duma members every day. If this 
President, Mr. Speaker, stands up and says that we are somehow radical 
people who want to distort the balance between our Nation and Russia, 
then, Mr. Speaker, I have a problem, and I will deal with that problem 
very vocally and verbally because the President, or whoever would say 
that, would in fact not be honest with the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask that the President seriously consider 
supporting the bill. The elections that occurred this past weekend in 
Russia showed a small, not a really significant gain, but a gain by the 
Communist party. They garnered 22 percent of the vote. If you couple 
that with Zhirinovsky's party which pulled 11 percent of the vote or 12 
percent of the vote, you have seen some reactionary movements in 
Russia, but that should not scare us.

  Mr. Speaker, we want to work with people like Yablokov, we want to 
work with people like Yeltsin, but we do not want to do it in a vacuum 
or with blinders on our eyes. We want to protect the American people, 
and we want to make sure that in the end the people of Russia have the 
same protection that we have.
  What is ironic about this whole thing, Mr. Speaker, if President 
Clinton were to veto this defense bill because we in fact are wanting 
to establish a national missile defense capability, the irony is that 
this President wants to give one of our key allies, Israel, a national 
missile defense largely paid for by the American people, to protect the 
people of Israel, but does not want that same protection for the people 
of America.
  Mr. Speaker, that to me is the ultimate irony. Let me say in closing, 
before I yield to my friends here, I am a supporter of the ARROW 
program. It was my friend and colleague Duncan Hunter, who is here 
tonight, who 7, 8, 9 years ago wrote a letter to the administration and 
to the Israelis suggesting as their strong friends and allies that 
instead of pursuing a Leve technology for a Leve fighter plane that 
they shift to missile defense. The outgrowth that that effort is the 
ARROW system being developed today with Israel paying a portion of the 
cost and America paying a portion of the cost. Is it ironic that this 
President and some people that are recommending bad advice to him in 
threatening a veto for this bill would want to fund a defensive system 
for Israel but not one for the United States? It just does not make 
sense.
  So I hope the President is listening, and I hope he heeds our warning 
that this is a good bill and certainly one worthy of his consideration. 
I will be happy to yield to my friend and colleague from California the 
chairman of the Procurement and Acquisition Committee who did such a 
great job in the process of this bill and I am sure he is going to talk 
about the positive aspects of the bill as they were developed by his 
subcommittee, Duncan Hunter from California.

  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding. First let me talk about a 
positive aspect of his leadership. Curt Weldon has been a person who 
has driven this bill with respect to missile defense and you are 
absolutely right that in many cases you asked and solicited as much 
information as you could get on the problems that the administration 
had with this bill. Each time they developed a problem, you sat down 
and tried to work it out. I think you did everything you possibly could 
do to meet their concerns. It is going to be tragic if the President 
vetoes this bill, which provides by a date certain some modicum of 
defense, of missile defense, for the American people which, as you 
further pointed out, most Americans think we already have.
  So I want to salute you for your leadership because you had to work 
with both Members of the other body and folks from this body and some 
of us that wanted to do more in this bill, and the President's people, 
and you made a number of agreements and put a number of pieces of 
language to accommodate them, and for the President to veto this thing 
simply on the basis that he does not want to protect the American 
people make no sense at all. I agree with you, if he did the same 
thing, if he was a leader of Israel and made the same decision with 
respect to Israel, he would not get 10 percent of the vote in the next 
election. Let us hope this President does the right thing and to my 
friend, let me just say briefly, because I know our friend from 
Michigan has something to add to this discussion, also, that we have 
done a lot for the troops in this bill. You have mentioned the 2.4 
percent pay raise, the increase in the housing allowance that we have 
in this bill.

                              {time}  2230

  If the troops are going to get their pay raise January 1, this is the 
way to do it, but, secondly, we give them some good equipment, and we 
have increased the number of trucks, armored personnel carriers, tanks, 
small arms. We have given them new weapon systems. We added a lot of 
ammo, all the way from basic M-16 ammunition right through to these 
precision guided munitions like the ones we saw operating in Desert 
Storm that allow you to stand off, and make strategic hits, and protect 
people, and keep us from having to put soft bodies into a very violent 
contact zone with the enemy.
  So we do a lot of things to equip our soldiers, to give them a 
quality of life, and, you know, I served a brief, served a tour in 
Vietnam, did not do anything special, but I served with a lot of 
special people. I never read a congressional resolution, we passed a 
number of them now, but I always read my pay raises. If the President 
really wants to support the troops, the way to support the troops is to 
sign this bill that will give the families of all those military people 
who are over there in snow that is even deeper than it is in 
Washington, DC a little bit of value and a little bit of buying power 
over the next several months by giving them that 2.4-percent pay raise. 
Let us see President Clinton really support the troops by sending a few 
more bucks to their families.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for everything that he has done 
because I think you put together an excellent missile package, one that 
the President can work with over the next 8 or 9 months, we can get 
together, we can work out some of our more detailed problems in 
hearings working with the other body.
  We have the same concern that the Soviets have about the ABM treaty, 
we understand that they are still wary of the United States, but one 
thing that you brought out when the members of the Duma met with us was 
that they, too, are worried about missiles coming from Third World 
nations, and the real tragedy in this is going to be, if we are so--if 
the President is so insistent on vetoing a bill that does anything at 
all toward moving us to defense against missiles on the basis that he 
thinks in some point in the future this will violate the ABM treaty, 
here we have an ABM treaty that was signed by two parties, us and the 
Soviet Union, and yet there are many countries now like North Korea, 
like Libya, like Iraq which are developing missiles. So because of an 
agreement that we made with the Russians, we are going to allow a Third 
World nation to have a vulnerable target either in the United States, 
on the mainland or against our troops in theater, because we do not 
want to violate this deal we made with the Russians. The North Koreans 
did not sign the ABM treaty. They do not care about the ABM treaty. The 
Libyans did not sign it, Iraqis did not sign the ABM treaty, and when 
you were discussing this with your fellows and your colleagues in the 
Duma when they were visiting the United States Congress, I noticed you 
asked a question of one of them, and that was were they not also 
concerned with missiles coming in not from the United States, but from 
third nations, and they answered, yes, they were, and because of that I 
think--I think if the President will sign this bill, they will 
understand 

[[Page H15203]]
that, they will understand our problems, and they will move forward 
accordingly to accommodate not only the United States and the Soviet 
Union or the Russians in our arms negotiations, but also to accommodate 
the safety requirements of their own citizens against incoming missiles 
from other countries.
  So this is a good defense bill, and lastly I just  say to my friend 
for those who say that might tell the President we are spending too 
much, this bill is roughly $100 billion less in real dollars than 
Ronald Reagan's 1986 defense bill, and the reason it is less is because 
we held the line in those days, and we stood strong, we stayed strong, 
we funded adequate ammunition, and equipment, and readiness for our 
troops, and because of that we were able to bring about a peace with 
the Soviet Union. We achieved in the 1980's peace through strength.

  This budget is about a hundred billion dollars less than those 
budgets, and yet I think we have done the right thing in many places in 
this budget, and we can maintain this peace with this defense bill, and 
I hope the President signs it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague for his excellent 
comments, and, before he leaves, I just want to enter into a brief 
dialog with him about the--you know we hear on the floor all the time 
about the state of our economy and how some of the decisions that this 
Congress is making are putting people out of work. And you are the 
chairman of the acquisition committee which oversees all the items we 
procure. Is it not true that, what I read in the Fortune magazine and 
on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, that we have lost over 600,000 
manufacturing jobs in the defense industrial base because of the 
downsizing, and while you and I both agree, I think, that our priority 
is not to be a job producer, that is a secondary benefit, that our 
ultimate goal is to protect the American people and give our troops the 
best.
  But you wonder why you never hear these same Members of Congress 
talking about the only area where we are making such draconian cuts, 
putting real people out of work, and what is interesting is and which 
still boggles my mind, most of these people that have lost their jobs 
are members of the UAW, the machinists' union, the electrical workers. 
They are all AFL-CIO workers, and where are they? They are out there 
looking for jobs in southern California, in Pennsylvania, because they 
have--and Michigan. They have no place to go, people who have lost 
their jobs paying $40,000 and $50,000 a year where this Government has 
just said, ``Oh, well,'' and is it not true that those cuts in jobs 
have been caused directly by our lack of support for procurement?
  And you might want to comment on how much we have procured in the way 
of new aircraft compared to some of our allies like some of the--even 
the Scandinavian countries in Europe for instance.
  Mr. HUNTER. Well, the gentleman is right. Last year we purchased 
fewer combat aircraft than that warmaking nation in Switzerland. We 
had--I think we did something like 29 aircraft, and they did about 31 
or 32. But the facts are that every billion dollars in economic 
activity expenditures on defense in manufacturing means about 25,000 to 
30,000 jobs. So we have lost well over 600,000 jobs in the radical cut 
in defense spending that this administration has embarked upon. They 
have gone down roughly $129 billion under the levels that George Bush, 
and Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney got together and agreed upon as what 
they considered to be a prudent number, and now we are learning in 
Bosnia, and the gentleman has been a leader there, we are learning that 
the world may be a different world now, now that the Berlin Wall has 
come down. But it is still a very dangerous world.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Is it not also true, to my colleague who 
chairs the acquisition subcommittee as I chair the R&D subcommittee, 
that you were lobbied, as I was lobbied, by the heads of each of the 
services who told us privately that they desperately needed additional 
dollars to meet the needs of their troops so that when this President, 
if he does, and he said this repeatedly, says and makes the claim that 
we are spending too much on defense, that the Pentagon did not ask for 
this; the only one in the Pentagon who did not ask for this is his 
appointee who happens to be his Secretary, but that each of those 
service chiefs, who are career people who are responsible and whose 
necks are on the line if our kids are killed and not able to respond, 
each of them have come to us personally, as I know I have, and I would 
ask you if you have had the same meetings in your office saying these 
cuts are way out of line, you know we are not going to be able to meet 
our needs.

  Is that true with your role as chairman?
  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is absolutely true, my friend is stating 
the fact.
  Once the President makes his decision on the defense number, and in 
this case I think it was totally arbitrary, much less than we should 
spend to be prudent, and you ask the leadership, military leadership, 
in the series of hearings that we held, you ask them at the table what 
do you think about this in terms of funding, their answer is we support 
the President's budget. It has to be like that, and it is. But there 
are also good, honest, candid Americans, and later on you get to have a 
conversation about ammunition, about modernization, and they have every 
single piece of equipment that we put in this bill, the gentleman has 
put in and I put in this bill, and other members of our committee, 
because we have a very bipartisan committee, Democrats and Republicans. 
Everything we have put in has been put in after discussion and thorough 
discussion with military leadership, and you know that has all come out 
now in the last few days. They had an article in the Washington Post to 
the effect that the military leadership had gone to the Joint Chiefs 
and said we needed to increase spending on modernization by 50 percent. 
Now we spent a little over $40 billion, so that is saying here they 
were telling their leadership in the Clinton administration we need to 
spend an extra $20 billion on modernization, and yet the President's 
aides say that the 5, or 6, or 7 billion extra that we have spent this 
year is just too much, and nobody wanted it, nobody asked for it.
  Well, everything we put in the bill has been asked for, and you know 
something? I think, as the President gets into this very serious 
situation in Bosnia and other situations that will come down the line 
in the next year, he is going to say thank God for those increases in 
defense.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to my friend from Michigan. I 
would ask him the question:
  He sat through the State of the Union speech, as we did. Does he 
recall the President standing at this very podium, and pounding his 
fist on the table, and saying we will not cut defense spending any 
further, and in fact, if the gentleman would respond, my recollection 
is he said he was going to add $25 billion to defense spending.
  Does the gentleman remember that?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Yes, I absolutely do.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And what he said though unfortunately is 
that he is not going do that until after the next Presidential 
election, which it is convenient for him to make that statement after 
he runs for reelection.
  With that I will yield to our good friend from Michigan for whatever 
comments he would like to make.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I would just like to rise in support of this bill and 
certainly encourage President Clinton to sign this bill, and I commend 
my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] for their efforts in giving us a 
procurement bill, a business-type procurement bill, that can save us on 
the $400 billion of goods and services that this Government buys up to 
20 percent, which is some $400 million, and it means no more $600 
toilet seats, it means no more $200 hammers, and it helps cut down the 
300,000 people that we have in this Government that work at acquiring 
goods and services for this Government, and one of the things, and I 
know I went against my chairman and my subcommittee chairman on this 
legislation to get it passed and to get at part of this bill, and that 
is why I am so interested in seeing this sign, is because one of the 
things that we find is that this Government is the single largest 
purchaser of vacuum tubes.

[[Page H15204]]


  Now some of you might be too young to remember what vacuum tubes 
were, but we buy more vacuum tubes than anyone else. We do not make 
them in this country, but because of our procurement system we have to 
buy them.
  Now you can get a computer chip about the size of your little 
fingernail that equals 3,150,000 vacuum tubes, and of course nobody 
that is listening wants to know what we use vacuum tubes for in this 
Government because we use them to keep the air traffic controller 
system running in this country, and we need to modernize that system. 
This bill will allow us to do that for the first time, and that is why 
I rise in such strong support of it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman because he played a 
major role as one of our newer Members of this institution, hit the 
ground running and played a major role in pushing the agenda of 
acquisition reform that is going to help us save the dwindling defense 
dollars that we are currently spending. We appreciate your leadership. 
It is not often that a Member comes in here and makes that kind of a 
difference, and we on the defense committee--I know the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter] shares my feelings--appreciate the leadership 
of you on the Government Ops Committee who played a key role in getting 
this added to our defense bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Chrysler] is especially valuable to us because he comes with a 
business background, and he understands acquisition in the real 
marketplace; that is, in the private marketplace, and we are going to 
save a lot of money because of what you did.
  We still have a long way to go. We still have those 300,000 
Government shoppers in the Department of Defense which is roughly 2 
United States Marine Corps. We call them fighting shoppers from the 
sky, and we are going to be trying to build a more efficient system in 
terms of personnel in the next couple of years, but your work has been 
extraordinary, and we are going to save the taxpayers some money 
because of it. I thank you.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my 
colleagues for their cooperation here and for joining me here in this 
special order to reiterate to the President and to our colleagues the 
importance of this bill becoming law. It would be a real tragedy for 
the American troops and for the American people if this President 
ignored the authorization process, ignored the acquisition reform, 
ignored the pay raise, the benefits in terms of housing that were 
outlined by my friend from California, and the advances we have made in 
areas like missile defense consistent with his own people in the 
Pentagon if we would choose to veto this legislation.

                              {time}  2245

  I would say to my friends and colleagues that we will be there to 
respond to whatever case this President attempts to make as to why this 
bill should be vetoed. If it is based on the missile defense, we are 
going to have an out-and-out war on our hands, because it will have to 
be filled with untruths, because of the efforts we went to to meet the 
administration more than halfway in getting a bill finished that he can 
sign into law.
  With that, I thank both of the gentleman, I thank our staff and our 
distinguished Speaker, the scholarly gentleman from the deep South, 
from Arkansas, Mr. Dickey, for bearing with us this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles mentioned:

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 15, 1995]

 U.N. Is Said to Find Russian Markings on Iraq-Bound Military Equipment

                         (By R. Jeffrey Smith)

       United Nations investigators have determined that an Iraq-
     bound shipment of sophisticated military equipment seized by 
     Jordanian authorities last month was built in Russia and may 
     have been designed for use in long-range, intercontinental 
     missiles, according to informed diplomatic sources.
       The shipment, which has been valued by the United Nations 
     at more than $25 million, was seized on a western 
     government's tip just days before it was to be shipped to 
     Iraq, the sources said. They said it consisted of about 100 
     sets of advanced guidance equipment, such as accelerometers 
     and gyroscopes, which Iraq may have wanted to use in banned 
     missiles capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads.
       The equipment was shipped in 30 or so boxes to Jordan's 
     capital Amman in August on flights that originated in Moscow, 
     according to three diplomatic sources. But Washington is 
     uncertain whether the export was secretly sanctioned by part 
     of the Russian government or was the work of criminals who 
     obtained the parts in Russia on the black market, officials 
     said.
       If the United Nations confirms that the equipment was meant 
     for use in long-range missiles, it would mark the first 
     occasion that such advanced missile technology has been 
     exported from Russia to a country considered hostile to U.S. 
     interests.
       If the export was approved by Moscow it would be a 
     violation of Russia's pledge to abide by the terms of the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, a global accord aimed at 
     stopping the spread of missiles capable of carrying nuclear, 
     chemical or biological warheads. It would also violate 
     Russian promises to adhere to the global trade embargo 
     imposed on Iraq by the U.N. Security Council after the 1991 
     Persian Gulf War.
       If the Russian export was instead illicit, it suggests that 
     long-standing U.S. fears that such advanced arms technology 
     would eventually leak from Russia are finally being borne 
     out, a U.S. official said on condition he not be named. 
     ``There is a very real . . . possibility that this was 
     provided by black marketeers'' who obtained it directly from 
     the Russian military's stockpile of long-range missile 
     equipment, he said.
       Although the Clinton administration has not yet raised the 
     matter directly with the Russian government, the Ministry of 
     Foreign Affairs in Moscow issued a statement last week 
     denying any knowledge of the shipment. ``It does not 
     belong to Russia,'' said a spokesman for the Russian 
     Embassy in Washington, U.S. and U.N. officials said the 
     denial was not credible, however, because the parts were 
     clearly marked and recognizable.
       ``These are Russian-made components, definitely,'' one 
     official said. The parts were designed for use in Russian 
     long-range missiles but could be adapted for use in shorter-
     range missiles.
       Documents obtained by the United Nations indicate that the 
     missile parts had been ordered by the Karama research center 
     near Baghdad, where Iraq continues to work on missiles with a 
     range of less than 150 kilometers (about 90 miles). Such 
     short-range missiles are allowed by the cease-fire 
     resolutions approved by the United Nations, which sought only 
     to prohibit arms capable of directly threatening Iraq's 
     neighbors.
       But Iraq has not claimed it was trying to buy the parts to 
     use with such short-range missiles; it instead has sought to 
     pin the blame for the attempted export on any overly 
     enthusiastic Jordanian businessman who it claims tried to 
     sell the banned parts on at least two occasions this year 
     without ever receiving an Iraqi tender offer or negotiating 
     contract.
       ``The Iraqi industrial facility refused this offer 
     categorically, in compliance with United Nations 
     resolutions,'' the Iraqi News Agency said in a written 
     statement issued in Baghdad last week.
       Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who is visiting the 
     United Nations this week to seek an early lifting of the 
     punitive trade embargo, told U.N. officials on Tuesday that 
     the seller had been arrested by the government pending a full 
     investigation. He also alleged that the incident had resulted 
     from a conspiracy meant to undermine Iraqi cooperation with 
     the United Nations.
       A knowledgeable diplomatic source identified the 
     businessman as a Palestinian from Gaza and Wiyam Abu 
     Gharbieh, and said his company's name was listed on the 
     shipping manifests for the equipment. ``We have reason to 
     believe the Iraqi account [of official disinterest in the 
     parts] is inaccurate,'' a U.N. official said.
       U.S. officials said that Iraq may have wanted to use the 
     guidance equipment on banned medium-range missiles, which 
     they suspect remain hidden in Iraq. Alternatively, Iraq may 
     have wanted to stockpile the equipment until it could produce 
     other vital long-range missile components, an effort that 
     would require many years to complete.
       U.S. intelligence officials said they are confident that 
     any Iraqi attempt to develop, assemble and test such a 
     missile would be detected long in advance.
       ``We now have tangible proof of our statement'' in October 
     that Iraq was still trying to buy sensitive missile parts 
     from foreign suppliers, said Swedish envoy Rolf Ekeus, who 
     chairs the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq. He added that 
     `'we don't think this [revelation] is the end of the road,'' 
     because Iraq has made other such purchases or attempted 
     purchases.
                                                                    ____


                 [From Krymskaya Pravda, Nov. 28, 1995]

                      The Third World [War]? . . .

                          (By Adm. E. Baltin)


                military danger for russia is a reality

       The geopolitical consequences of the collapse of the Soviet 
     Union have not yet been completely studied. However, their 
     negative manifestations are already visible to everyone who 
     has made even the briefest observations on the development of 
     events throughout the world.
       A very important peculiarity of the present international 
     situation that has an extremely unfavorable effect on 
     Russia's situation is the existence and reinforcement of 
     NATO, as well as the West European Union, which, essentially 
     speaking, represent the power ``fists'' of the consolidated 
     West. We might recall the discussions that were held 

[[Page H15205]]
     in Brussels after the self-disbanding of the Warsaw Pact. The topic of 
     discussion was not only the need to transform NATO from a 
     military-political association into a political one, but even 
     the possibility of disbanding it has having fulfilled the 
     goals that had been set. But the words remained words. Today 
     NATO not only preserves the structure that used to exist, but 
     even is intensifying and consolidating it by attracting new 
     members into its orbit. Cover for activities of this kind is 
     provided by programs such as the notorious ``Partnership For 
     the Sake of Peace.''
       Meanwhile it is absolutely clear that in its present form 
     NATO is nothing else but a military-political anachronism 
     that not only failed to serve the reinforcement of security 
     in Europe, but kept undermining it. The military-power course 
     in resolving acute international questions, the arbitrary, 
     uncontrolled expansion of the zone of its responsibility, and 
     the policy of ``movement toward the East'' are links in a 
     single chain and they are aimed primarily against Russia.
       Operation Desert Storm and the recent demonstrative 
     punishment of the Serbs, despite the lack of similarity of 
     their causes, nevertheless had much in common. The first and 
     most important thing is: under United Nations cover (after 
     the divulging of the existence of a secret treaty between 
     NATO and the United Nations that pertains to former 
     Yugoslavia, the essence of the interaction between these 
     organizations does not evoke any illusions), the NATO bloc 
     personally assumed the duties of ``world policeman,'' 
     maintaining order in his fiefdom, and that order is 
     established by the ``policeman'' himself.
       Second, The armed forces of the NATO allies obtained 
     unprecedented experience in waging aggressive combat actions 
     on foreign territory, with the modern methods of armed combat 
     being applied with respect to an opponent with a Soviet 
     organization and using what is basically our tactics and 
     weapons.
       Third. Psychologically, the armies and public opinion in 
     the countries participating in NATO have become adapted, to a 
     considerable degree, to the waging of aggressive combat 
     actions on foreign territory--by means of the broad-scale 
     propaganda campaigns concerning the ``extremely precise,'' 
     ``intelligent,'' and ``human'' weapons, the ``carpet 
     bombings,'' ``surgical strikes,'' and the ``clean,'' 
     ``local'' warfare. For professionals, the absurdity of these 
     propaganda efforts is obvious. In the Persian Gulf, NATO 
     pilots were definitely not fighting against Khussein's army, 
     which had lost its combat potential, but against peaceful 
     citizens.
       And there is one more thing. The undeclared NATO war 
     against the Serbs is already the obtaining of practical 
     experience, the conditioning of world public opinion, and the 
     psychological preparation of NATO soldiers for unpunished 
     combat actions against Slavs.
       Let us now examine the foreign-policy situation that Russia 
     has found itself in today and the problems in this area that 
     are awaiting their immediate resolution. With the collapse of 
     the USSR, Russia, which had been occupied exclusively by its 
     domestic problems, actually lost its previous allies and 
     failed to acquire any new ones. As a result, its situation in 
     the world, as well as in Europe, is extremely indefinite and 
     shaky.
       The process of crowding Russia out of its age-old 
     geopolitical positions is continuing. All we have to recall 
     is Ukraine, which is being drawn increasingly into NATO's 
     embrace, and the successful activity of Turkey in the trans-
     Caucasus, not to mention the processes in the Baltic region. 
     The extensive crowding out of the country from Western and 
     Central Europe has already led to the loss of basic ports in 
     the Baltic and Black seas, as well as communication hunger 
     with Europe. In the south of Russia is the well blackened 
     ``arc of instability''--across the Black Sea, Chechnya, 
     Georgia, and even across Central Asia to the border of the 
     KNR [People's Republic of China], as well as the gradual 
     shifting of that ``arc'' to the north under the flag of 
     Islamic fundamentalism. The situation is no better in the Far 
     East or the Asia-Pacific Region. In those areas there has 
     been the continuing weakening of Russia's positions against 
     the background of the unresolved nature of a number of 
     international problems, with the growing economic and 
     military power of China, Japan, and other close neighbors of 
     ours.
       And there are also comparisons that already are not in our 
     favor: Europe is integrating and is consolidating its 
     positions more and closely--in our country, with the aid of 
     certain conceited neighbors, even such an unsteady boat as 
     the CIS is being rocked until it is listing dangerously; 
     the United States and other NATO members have a permanent 
     presence in practically all the regions of the world, and 
     we are abandoning the forward-base lines that our army and 
     navy have had for many years in the countries not only of 
     the far abroad, but also of the near abroad; NATO 
     submarines, the carriers of nuclear and conventional 
     weapons, carry out constant combat duty and patrols in the 
     immediate proximity of our borders. By virtue of our 
     extremely meager financing, we are not only failing to 
     build new technology, but cannot even use that which 
     exists. By means of the holding of ``joint'' maneuvers and 
     exercises, the armed forces of the NATO countries are 
     becoming acquainted with newer and newer theaters of 
     military actions. In Russia, even the conducting of 
     conventional intelligence has been left practically to 
     drift along on its own momentum, and the intelligence 
     services that have been reorganized and renamed many times 
     are taking on an attributive nature...
       There arises the completely reasonable question of the 
     goals pursued by the United States and NATO, which expend--
     for the purpose of arming their armies and conducting 
     exercises and, finally, combat operations--amounts of money 
     that would be more than enough to provide fundamental 
     assistance to starving Africa and to carry out the technical 
     re-equipping of the entire post-Communist Eastern Europe. The 
     goal of these miliary preparations is obvious: to prevent the 
     Russia that is being reborn and its allies, assuming that 
     such should arise sooner or later, from reconstituting a 
     serious competition to the West that has been experiencing 
     increasingly serious problems, despite its former prosperity.
       What has been stated may seem to be improbable. Since the 
     time of open confrontation between West and East, the world 
     has truly changed very much. But the crux of the matter is 
     that, despite the external illusion that has been skillfully 
     created by Western specialist in psychological operations, 
     the world has not become more stable or more just, but, on 
     the contrary, has become even more dangerous and 
     unpredictable--as a consequence of the disruption of the 
     balance among the forces that used to constitute it and the 
     predominance in that world of interest that are extremely 
     remote from humanitarian ones. ``We won the war, but we did 
     not win the peace,'' Boris Yeltsin has said. And that is the 
     truth.
       For that category of our citizens who look at the world 
     through the prism of a forced system of values, it seems 
     impossible that the West can find a reason for armed 
     interference in Russian affairs--not necessarily in Russia 
     itself.
       Now the West is deciding how much democracy is sufficient 
     for us, and how much is not. The West is dictating the 
     principles of the construction of the Russian economy. The 
     West determines whether human rights are being observed in 
     our country. So long as Russia was a strong country, 
     ``comments'' such as this were called interference in 
     internal affairs, and that was perceived completely 
     adequately by our opponents and by the world community as a 
     whole.
       The system of double standards that has been used for so 
     long by specialists in the area of the struggle of ideas is 
     not new. So it is strange that we have once again been hooked 
     by it. The world remains silent about the fact that unarmed 
     Kurds are being killed by shells fired from tanks of 
     governmental troops in Turkey. The passions have not yet 
     subsided in the Ireland that is thirsting for independence, 
     but people also are generally not being reminded of that 
     either. For yet another year the United States is incapable 
     of coping with the periodically arising unrest among the 
     Negro population (of whom there are approximately 30 million 
     in the States), a population that is demanding autonomy. And 
     is anyone actually speaking seriously about the crudest 
     violations of human rights in Serbian Kraina? Who has counted 
     the number of defenseless Serbs who perished under NATO 
     bombs, or the number of their homes that have been destroyed? 
     Those are areas that could use the numerous commissions on 
     human rights from the CSCE and the European parliament! But 
     they prefer to come to our country, in order to discuss the 
     situation in Chechnya. The West has certain criteria for 
     judging human rights in our country, and completely different 
     ones for itself.
       Let us imagine now what might become a reality in the 
     situation of a collision between Russian and Western 
     interests that is completely possible in the future. An 
     invented reason (Panama, Somali, the Balkans), the United 
     Nations ``blessing,'' and...
       The only thing that is currently restraining the appetites 
     of our new ``friends'' is the nuclear weapons that Russia 
     continues to have. Although the West attempts constantly to 
     put under its control the production, testing, deployment, 
     and reduction of those weapons. With the aid of the 
     government of the former USSR, the West partially managed to 
     do that, and continues to this day to make such attempts.


                             repartitioning

       Everything that was formulated above is occurring during a 
     unique period of world history. I have in mind World War III, 
     which broke out and almost ceased rumbling before our eyes. 
     It was not a classic ``world war,'' but, rather, a ``velvet'' 
     world war that became such by virtue of the factors that 
     caused it and the conditions in which it occurred. For all 
     the mootness of this kind of assertion, no one will deny 
     that mankind has entered a new phase in its development, a 
     phase that has exceeded all its expectations. For the 
     third time in the present century there has been a 
     repartitioning of the spheres of influence among the 
     leading world powers. And the most extensive one of all 
     those known to us.
       What became physically the beginning of World War III was 
     the destruction of the Berlin Wall. But a new classic world 
     war--judged on the basis of its form, content, and methods of 
     waging combat actions--did not break out simply because, 
     first of all, the public awareness of the twentieth century 
     was saturated by the two preceding ones, which had been the 
     bloodiest wars that had been its misfortune to endure, and, 
     secondly, because there was absolutely no need for the 
     classic continuation of a policy specifically 

[[Page H15206]]
     by military means. There had been an offensive, but there was no proper 
     defense, since the opponent was so demoralized by internal 
     upheavals that he could scarcely have been called an opponent 
     in the usual understanding of that word.
       The third world war, the ``velvet'' one, is being waged in 
     other forms and by other methods. Its essence lies in the 
     strategic-informational offensive, in which the basic role is 
     played by the well-organized means of psychological 
     operations. But all the unconventional, nonclassic methods of 
     waging that war combine closely with the numerous military 
     conflicts of small and average intensity. All of which, in 
     their turn, are frequently engendered by the same 
     psychological effect.
       Yet another peculiarity of World War III consists in the 
     fact that it is being waged on the territory of the Old 
     World, chiefly Europe. At one time Iosif Stalin stated that 
     he would be able to prevent a war on the territory of the 
     Soviet Union. His conviction has been implemented by the 
     pragmatic Yankees.
       The results of World War III have exceeded all the 
     expectations and everything that mankind has known up until 
     now. In none of the classic world wars were such astonishing 
     successes achieved with practically no bloodshed. The first 
     such success was the achievement of NATO's political goals: 
     the system of socialism, with what had been at one time its 
     powerful economy and military potential, was destroyed.
       But World War III is not over. The last of the elements 
     that are inaccessible to the West is Russia, with its nuclear 
     might. In order to eliminate that factor, our state, by means 
     of all kinds of subterfuges, is being drawn into numerous 
     international programs under the aegis of the United Nations, 
     NATO OSCE, CSCE, WMF, and Council of Europe (at times one 
     cannot get rid of the impression that those programs were 
     invented only with this purpose in mind). Within the 
     framework of these joint programs, Russia is being 
     pressured into participating in international agreements 
     that are of a political, economic, and only partially a 
     military nature (limitation, control of limitations of 
     weapons production and testing, etc.). Participation in 
     such missions, which are being conducted under the noble 
     slogans of peacekeeping activity, most-favored economic 
     conditions, arms reduction, human-rights protection, etc., 
     leads to a situation in which the elements that are 
     desirable for the West are forced into Russia's domestic- 
     and foreign-policy strategy, that is, leads to the 
     programmed formation of our policy. Factually speaking, 
     this is the end of the process of the destruction of the 
     Russian state system.
       Hence Russia's complete political, economic, and military 
     dependence upon the West.
       But Russia is definitely not the first country to suffer as 
     a result of World War II. Its deplorable consequences for the 
     Old World, for Europe, will require more time to evaluate. As 
     a result of the geopolitical reforms that have occurred, 
     Europe lost its face by allowing the processes occurring on 
     its territory to get almost completely out from under its 
     control. Europe had a direct influence on those processes 
     before and after World War II, but currently Europe has 
     become only a test range for the concepts of world structure 
     that have been developed in the United States, thus having 
     transformed its peoples into hostages of the transoceanic 
     national interests.
       At one time Adolf Hitler used to dream about ruling the 
     world. However, for him that goal proved to be unattainable. 
     The embodiment of the wildest of all ideas that ever 
     existed--true, with the existence of the objective 
     prerequisites and by means of other instruments--apparently 
     proved to be possible several decades later by the United 
     States. The scheme ``Center of power (United States)--NATO--
     United Nations--. . .'' still lives and, as we may be 
     convinced, is winning. The main thing now is for the world 
     that has been deprived on equilibrium must not slip of its 
     fulcrum. . .


                    a strong army is a strong russia

       The current period in the history of the Russian state is a 
     critical one. Here has been an understanding of the changes 
     that have occurred in the world and in the country, and the 
     first, albeit shy, attempts are being undertaken to correct 
     the miscalculations that have been made. This segment of time 
     has coincided with the latest parliamentary election in 
     Russia. It appears to be indisputable that Russia's 
     population, which has obtained a definite amount of 
     political experience, will make the most correct choice if 
     one compares it with the previous ones.
       I would call the broad participation of the military in the 
     current election campaign completely natural. The military, 
     more than anyone else, are capable of subordinating 
     themselves to the state's interests, and of differentiating 
     among all its misfortunes and problems. Because, unlike a 
     large number of other politicians, serving the state is their 
     profession. Being completely aware of the importance of the 
     Armed Forces in the modern world and, on a daily basis when 
     resolving exceptionally practical tasks, coming up against 
     the objective impossibility of constructing the activities of 
     military units according to canons that correspond to the 
     vital needs of the state, the military are forced to go into 
     politics. Because, essentially speaking, the struggle for the 
     Armed Forces today is becoming a struggle for the Homeland. 
     From what has been stated above, this must be absolutely 
     clear.
       What, then, is the Russian army and Navy today? That which 
     we have been accustomed to calling them are only fragments--
     and not even the largest or the best ones--remaining from the 
     Armed Forces of the Soviet Union. Almost everything that is 
     the best has remained on the former forward base lines, in 
     what are now the countries of the near abroad. The only thing 
     that remains now is to rebuild the Russian Armed Forces.
       Throughout the world the building of the armed forces is 
     carried out by proceeding from the national interests of the 
     state. It is necessary on that basis to create the concept of 
     the county's national security and the military doctrine the 
     evolves from it; the structure of the Armed Forces, the 
     concept and long-range arms program, and the state production 
     order for them have been determined. This is the classic 
     scheme, and that is precisely the scheme that should be 
     followed today when we create the Russian Armed Forces for 
     the twenty-first century. It is also necessary to save that 
     we inherited from the former USSR: today's shield, the 
     guarantee of the unique, independent path of Russia's 
     development, if such is chosen. But with the attitude of 
     society and many state figures to the Ministry of Defense 
     that we observe today, it is a miracle that the Armed Forces 
     are still functioning. It must be admitted that this is 
     thanks only to the colossal stamina of the Russian enlisted 
     man.
       Let us analyze to a certain extent how the Russian power 
     structures and de-facto functioning today. It is a paradox 
     when only one-third of the people who are ``under arms'' are 
     subordinate to the minister of defense, and the remaining 
     two-thirds are subordinate to other power departments. 
     Moreover, the emphasis is made on the MVD troops, the 
     border troops, and the creation of numerous special 
     subdivisions. The power structure are being inflated to 
     unprecedented proportions, but this results, first of all, 
     in the dissipation of manpower and funds, and, secondly, 
     there is a lowering of the army's role as a factor that 
     cements together the state system and obedience to the 
     law. Meanwhile, all the state power institutions are being 
     used to create conditions for the normal functioning of 
     the state under the ordinary conditions that prevail, and 
     under the emergency conditions it is only the army that is 
     capable of fulfilling this task. From what has been stated 
     it clearly follows that at the present time we are waiving 
     the chief benefits to the advantage of the momentary ones. 
     How, then, can a military man who understands all of this 
     fail to go into politics?
       Before our very eyes, rather than in accordance with 
     anyone's ``command,'' as some people attempt to represent the 
     situation, but, rather, by virtue of objective reasons, a new 
     formation of Russian politicians is being born. What that 
     formation will consist of does not raise any doubts. It 
     should not be called the ``war party'' or the ``military 
     party.'' It is the party of patriots.
       The words ``military'' and ``patriot'' have always been 
     inseparable, because a nonpatriot cannot be a military 
     person. And if today there are so many people in shoulder 
     boards among those laying claim to seats in the Duma, that 
     means that the country is truly in a desperate situation.
       Currently we still have perhaps the last opportunity to 
     hold onto our Homeland's existing defense line.
                                                                    ____


          Petrov: 40,000 Tonnes of Chemical Weapons `Accurate'

                          (By Anatoliy Yurkin)

       Moscow.--Russia's store of 40,000 tonnes of chemical 
     weapons, reported by Russian General Staff chief General 
     Mikhail Kolesnikov, is an accurate figure, commander of 
     Russian radiation, chemical and biological protection forces 
     Colonel-General Stanislav Petrov told ITAR-TASS.
       Petrov said he was surprised by the statement of Aleksey 
     Yablokov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 
     intersectoral commission chairman of the Ecological Safety 
     Council, at a parliamentary meeting today that Russia has 
     produced a total of 100,000 tonnes of chemical weapons.
       Yablokov said they must have been dumped at secret sites.
       Petrov said the Russian Defence Ministry has no secrets 
     about the chemical weapons, and sites of its storage are 
     known to the Russian Academy of Sciences and Western experts, 
     who had visited the storage sites under international 
     accords.
       The general said Yablokov has any possibility to contact 
     Defence Ministry officials for information about chemical 
     weapons.
       Yablokov knows full well that Russia lacks the great funds 
     required for disposal programmes, Petrov continued, adding 
     that President Boris Yeltsin had issued a decree on November 
     6, 1995, setting up a commission on chemical weapons.
       The decree opens a prospect for Russia's meeting its 
     international commitments in the area of chemical weapons, 
     Petrov said.
       He said Yablokov undoubtedly knows that and exploits the 
     rostrum to his ends the election race.
                                                                    ____


        Official Confirms Security of Miniature Nuclear Weapons

                        (By Lyudmila Yermakova)

       Moscow.--Russia does have miniature nuclear ammunition, but 
     panic over possible theft of it is unfounded, the head of the 
     Russian Defence Ministry's ecological centre, Colonel Boris 
     Alekseyev, said in a statement today.
     
[[Page H15207]]

       His statement follows warnings by Aleksey Yablokov, the 
     intersectoral commission chairman of the Russian 
     Environmental Safety Council, at parliamentary hearings on 
     environmental safety.
       According to Alekseyev, a minimal weight of the nuclear 
     charges is over 90 kilogrammes, not 30-40 kilogrammes, as 
     asserted by Yablokov.
       The ammunition is stored in arch-secure settings and have a 
     fourth-degree protection system which precludes an accidental 
     explosion.
       Only the nuclear button, which is in the hands of the 
     Russian president, can trigger this ammunition, Alekseyev 
     said.
       The military official said a restricted number of people 
     have access to the nuclear charges. ``For this reason 
     Yablokov might be uninformed about the details,'' he added.
       The miniature nuclear ammunition is ``one of shields for 
     Russia's security, and this is known in the world'', he said.
                                                                    ____


         Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines Said to Pose Danger

       Moscow.--Over 140 nuclear submarines have been 
     decommissioned in Russia today, but 50 of them still contain 
     nuclear fuel, chairman of Russian Security Council's 
     commission for ecology and Corresponding Member of the 
     Russian Academy of Sciences Professor Aleksey Yablokov said 
     on Tuesday [21 November] in the Federation Council.
       Nuclear fuel cannot be extracted from 7-10 submarines ``for 
     technical reasons,'' he said. ``These submarines are the 
     source of super-high danger,'' said Yablokov.
       Deputy chief of the Russian Defense Ministry's nuclear 
     security inspection Viktor Kruglov confirmed for INTERFAX the 
     presence of ``submarines from which it is impossible to 
     unload nuclear fuel.'' However, he said those submarines do 
     not present ``danger of radiation for the population or the 
     environment.''
       ``The Defense Ministry has recommendations on how to scrap 
     those submarines,'' the spokesman said. It is necessary to 
     determine a burial site for them and earmark money for this 
     program.
       Kruglov said that there are four disaster submarines in 
     Russia: one in the North Fleet and three in the Pacific 
     Fleet.
