[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9664-H9669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    UNDERFUNDING OF OUR NATIONAL MILITARY AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
                               APPARATUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full 
hour but I do want to take some time to discuss what I think is the 
real scandal in

[[Page H9665]]

this city that we had better start to focus on a little more 
aggressively and coherently than we have done in the past.
  It seems as though all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
the national media and the administration, has focused on the process 
currently unfolding in the Committee on the Judiciary. While I am not 
going to diminish the seriousness of that issue and the challenges it 
presents to us, I want to focus on a lesser publicized issue that I 
think presents for us a scandal that is going to last well into the 
next century. That scandal involves the underfunding of our national 
military and our national security apparatus.
  Today, Speaker Gingrich, along with the leadership of the defense 
committees in the House, held a press conference and signed the 
legislation that we are now sending up to the President to both 
authorize and appropriate our defense funds for the next fiscal year. 
We have completed our part of the process in laying out our defense 
funding strategy for the year 1999.
  The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation was very tightly 
controlled by the budget numbers that we were given and does not really 
reflect the threats that we see emerging around the world and the 
commitments that we are involving our troops in around the world. In 
fact, Mr. Speaker, both bills, while the best that we could develop, 
were woefully inadequate in terms of funding our national security 
needs.
  This year, Mr. Speaker, we are into our 14th consecutive year of real 
defense cuts. Now when our colleagues talk about cutting the size of 
the Federal Government, they talk to their constituents and they talk 
to each other about what a great job we have done; we really have 
controlled spending. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the 
only real cuts that have occurred in a significant way in terms of 
workforce and in terms of budget size is in the area of national 
defense.
  In fact, if one compares what we are spending today versus what we 
spent, say, in the time of John Kennedy, it gives one a realistic view 
of where we are today. In the 1960s, when John Kennedy was president, 
it was a time of relative peace. It was after Korea and before Vietnam. 
We were spending 52 cents of every Federal tax dollar on the military, 
9 percent of our country's gross national product. In this fiscal year, 
we are spending 2.8 percent of our country's gross national product and 
just 15 cents of the Federal tax dollar on the military. So we have 
gone, in this short period of time, from 52 cents of every dollar sent 
to Washington to 15 cents of every dollar sent to Washington to pay for 
national security.
  We have to understand the context in which that cut has occurred, 
because back when John Kennedy was the President, there was the draft. 
We took young people out of high school, we paid them next to nothing, 
they served their country for 2 years, some stayed on for a longer 
tenure but the pay and the quality of life costs for our troops were 
much different than they are today.
  Today we have an all-volunteer force. Our young people are well 
educated. Many are married. We have housing costs, health care costs. 
We have the cost of travel and transportation to move people around. So 
a much larger portion of that smaller defense spending goes for the 
quality of life of our troops, and we in the Congress are always going 
to meet their needs. In fact, in today's bill, we increased the pay 
raise for the military personnel by a half a percent above what the 
President requested in his budget.

  Even beyond the quality of life differential between the sixties and 
today, some other things have changed. While we have cut our defense 
budget for the 14th consecutive year and while we are now at an all 
time low, very close to what we were pre-World War II, some other 
things have happened.
  In the last 6 years, Mr. Speaker, our commander in chief, the 
President, has deployed our troops 26 times around the world. 
Currently, he is talking about another deployment over in the Balkans 
and in the region that is so unsettled today. Twenty-six deployments 
and none of these deployments were budgeted for or paid for.
  If one compares that to the previous 40 years, Mr. Speaker, our 
troops were only committed to 10 deployments. So 10 deployments in a 
40-year time period; 26 in the last 6 years, since this President has 
been in office. None of those 26 deployments were paid for.
  Now, some might criticize my statement and say what about George 
Bush? He committed our troops to a very large operation in Desert 
Storm, which he did, to remove Saddam Hussein from the illegal 
occupation of Kuwait. But they must also remember that George Bush went 
out and convinced the allied nations of the world to help offset the 
costs of that deployment. In fact, we generated $53 billion in revenue 
to this country for an operation that cost us $52 billion.
  So Operation Desert Storm, in terms of dollars, did not cost the 
taxpayers any additional money. The 26 deployments in the last 6 years 
have cost us in excess of $15 billion. None of that was budgeted for 
prior to that deployment, and except for the actions of the Republican 
Congress the costs associated with those deployments were not paid for.
  So all of that money to pay for those deployments had to come out of 
an already decreasing defense budget. So to pay for those 26 
deployments we in the Congress had to take money out of modernization, 
out of research, out of quality of life, so that our defense budget and 
our priorities were that much further hurt by the actions that this 
Congress was forced to take.
  On top of all of that, we have to look at what has been the most 
rapidly increasing part of our defense funding. Back in the 1960s when 
John Kennedy was president we did not spend any significant amount of 
money on what we today call environmental mitigation. In this year's 
defense budget, we will spend $11 billion on environmental mitigation.
  Mr. Speaker, when one takes the changes that have occurred over the 
past 30 years, the deployment rate that has escalated dramatically, we 
see that we are forced into an impossible situation of trying to meet 
additional threats with decreased and continuing diminishment of our 
resources available for national security.
  The President has made the case that there are no longer the same 
threats that we faced when we were in the Cold War. I would argue that 
is not totally correct, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I would make the case 
that Russia is more destabilized today than at any point in time under 
Communism, when there was the tight control of a central government, 
when there was the rule of law, where there was a Soviet Army that was 
well paid and well cared for. Today we have economic chaos in Russia. 
We have generals and admirals being forced out of the military without 
being given their back pay, without being given housing, without being 
given the pensions that they have earned for all of these years; and in 
some cases, as General Alexander Lebed testified before my committee, 
are now involved in clandestine operations, selling off technology, 
chemical, biological, and perhaps even nuclear technology, to those 
rogue nations and states that will pay the right fee to get those 
secrets that Russia has within its control.
  So I would make the case, Mr. Speaker, that while the threat may be 
different today, it is actually in some cases much worse than what it 
was during the Cold War, because we all to realize, Mr. Speaker, that 
while we have seen some reduction in Russia's strategic offensive 
nuclear forces, Russia still has tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. 
They still have thousands of long-range ICBMs that can be launched from 
submarines or from mobile launchers inside of Russia. Those long-term, 
long range ICBMs may, in fact, be subjected to the concerns relative to 
the instability in the Russian military.
  It was just 3 years ago, in January of 1995, because of the 
degradation of Russia's internal intelligence monitoring capability, 
that even though Russia had been forewarned of a rocket launch by the 
Norwegians right next door to Russia, when that rocket launch occurred 
Russia mistook that for an attack by a U.S. submarine against Russia 
itself. As has been documented time and again, in the public media, in 
this country and around the world, Russia then for the first time ever, 
that we know of, activated its nuclear response which was aimed against 
the U.S., which meant that they had approximately 20 to 25 minutes to 
respond to a

[[Page H9666]]

weather rocket being launched by Norway that they had been warned of 
earlier.
  With a matter of minutes left, Boris Yeltsin overruled the two 
commanding officers who, along with him, control the system that 
controls the response of the ICBMs from Russia, at that time Defense 
Minister Grachev of Russia and General Klesnikov. He called off that 
nuclear response, which would have been an attack on our country, of a 
multistage rocket that was launched by Norway for weather sampling 
purposes.

                              {time}  1900

  These are the kinds of risks that we now face, Mr. Speaker, that were 
not a concern back in the days of the Cold War. We face the concerns 
brought to us by General Alexander Lebed last year when he told me in a 
face-to-face meeting that as Yeltsin's chief defense advisor several 
years prior, when he was asked to account for 132 suitcase-sized 
nuclear weapons, small atomic demolition munitions, he could only 
account for 48. He had no idea where the other 70 or 80 devices were, 
whether they were safe, whether they were secure, or, in fact, whether 
or not these devices had been sold or maybe, in fact, were on the world 
market available to be sold internationally.
  The point is that the instability in Russia today is cause for us in 
this country to be alarmed. Look at some of the evidence of what has 
occurred over this past year. We said last year that we thought the 
Russians, some of the Russian institutes that were so desperate for 
hard cash may, in fact, be cooperating with nations like Iran and Iraq 
to build next generation weapons systems. We were told by the 
Intelligence Community not to worry, that is not happening. That Iran, 
Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea would not have these kinds of 
technologies that threaten this country for decades, for years, so for 
us not to worry. We have time to prepare.
  It was last August when the leader of Israel Mr. Netanyahu challenged 
the U.S. by saying publicly that Israel had evidence that Russia had 
entered into secret arrangements and deals with their space agency and 
the Iranians to help Iran build a medium-range missile.
  We in the Congress responded to that. In fact, I introduced 
legislation which eventually passed, in spite of the administration's 
opposition, to give us short-term capability to protect our troops in 
the Middle East, to protect our allies like Israel and Kuwait, Bahrain, 
and the other Gulf countries, Egypt and Jordan and so forth.
  As late as February of this year, the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
wrote me a three-page letter and said, Congressman Weldon, your fears 
are unfounded. We will not see the Iranians deploy a medium-range 
missile for at least 2 years, and probably even longer.
  July 22 came, Mr. Speaker, and the world saw Iran launch a medium-
range missile, the Shahab-3. This missile, which appeared years earlier 
than what we were told by this administration, this capability would, 
in fact, be within the range and capability of Iran, was tested. We now 
assume it is deployed, which means that today, tomorrow, and for the 
next 12 to 18 months, the 25,000 troops that we have stationed in the 
Middle East, all of Israel, and all of our allies in the Middle East 
are at risk because we do not have the capability to defend those 
individuals against that system that Iran now has which they acquired 
with the help of Russian agencies and entities.
  That is why this Congress voted overwhelmingly in the House with 400 
votes, in the Senate with 96 votes, to force the administration to 
impose sanctions on the Russians for cooperating with the Iranians in 
terms of that technology.
  This was a threat that we did not see, that we did not feel, and did 
not realize just 1 and 2, 3 short years ago. Today it is reality.
  Then we saw North Korea, Mr. Speaker, at the end of August, on August 
31, take a step that none of us thought would occur, certainly not in 
this decade, in this century. And that action was to fire a three-stage 
rocket, which we were not even sure that North Korea had the technical 
capability to deploy, to fire a three-stage rocket across the mainland 
of Japan.
  Now, the trouble with that three-stage rocket, known as a Taepodong 1 
system, is that this capability, when one does the mathematical 
calculations to show the potential range of that system, now shows that 
North Korea has a system that can hit the outer fringes of Alaska and 
Hawaii.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unheard of. We always knew that Russia had long-
range ICBMs. We even knew that China had long-range ICBMs. Now we face 
the very difficult prospect that North Korea has tested a system which 
begins to touch the outer reaches of the 50 United States. Again, Mr. 
Speaker, we have no systems or capability today to defend this Nation 
against that threat.
  We heard the statements by General Lebed about small atomic 
demolition munitions. We know the increasing threat being posed by 
weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, nuclear 
weapons. We have seen, as I reported 2 months ago on the floor of this 
House, 37 violations of international arms control agreements by Russia 
and China in the last 6 years alone.
  Now, this administration claims that we can cut the Fed spending 
because they can rely on our arms control agreements to control 
proliferation. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this administration has the 
most abysmal record on arms control of any administration in this 
century. Of those 37 violations that I put in the record 2 months ago, 
this administration only imposed sanctions three times. In each of 
those three cases, they waived the sanctions.
  We saw the Chinese sending M-11 missiles to Pakistan. We saw the 
Chinese sending ring magnets for Pakistan's nuclear program. We saw the 
Chinese sending special furnaces for Pakistan's nuclear program, and we 
did not take the appropriate steps to stop it. We saw the Russians 
transferring accelerometers and gyroscopes to Iraq. In fact, we saw it 
happen three times.
  We saw the Russians transferring technology to Iran for their medium-
range missile. In fact, we saw it numerous times. And we have seen 
evidence, Mr. Speaker, of the transfer of chemical and biological 
technology to rogue nations and rogue states that now threatens our 
security and the security of our allies around the world.
  So the problem we have, Mr. Speaker, is that while this 
administration has cut defense spending dramatically to the point now 
where we are facing a situation much like the 1970s, they have also not 
enforced the very arms control agreements that they maintain are the 
heart of their ability to guarantee stability around the world. So we 
have been hit, in effect, by a double whammy. We have been hit by a 
lack of arms control enforcement, by a policy of proliferation that we 
have not controlled, that this Congress has acknowledged with its 
votes, coupled with a dramatic series of cuts in our defense spending.
  Now, how serious are these cuts, Mr. Speaker? Well, we have some 
wings of our Air Force capability where we have up to one-third of our 
fighter aircraft that cannot fly. We have to use one-third of the 
airplanes to cannibalize the parts to keep the other two-thirds flying.
  A few short months ago we had to ground our nationwide fleet of Huey 
helicopters because of lack of resources. We are asking our marines and 
our Navy personnel to fly the CH-46 helicopter until it is 55 years 
old. This helicopter was built during the Vietnam war, but because we 
had to pay for all of these deployments that this President got us 
into, we had to shift the money away from buying new helicopters to pay 
for those deployments, and more and more of our soldiers and sailors 
and marines are being subjected to increased threats because of the age 
of these aircraft, because of the age of these systems.

  The Joint Chiefs now, after 4 years of telling the Republican 
Congress we do not need this extra funding, have finally awakened, and 
just last week in the Senate the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the 
service chiefs each came in and said, we were wrong, we need more 
money. Our backs are against the wall. The troops are hurting. Morale 
is down.
  We have got the lowest retention rate in the last 20 years in terms 
of Navy pilots and Air Force pilots. We cannot pay them enough money to 
stay in to man these missions that this President wants to put our 
troops into harm's way with.

[[Page H9667]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is the real scandal in Washington, and this is 
where the American people need to focus their attention. The world is 
not all that safe. There are attempts to move weapons of mass 
destruction around the world. There are nations building medium- and 
long-range missile systems today. In fact, we have intelligence 
evidence not just showing North Korea, not just Iran and Iraq, but 
Syria and Libya and other nations that are desperately trying to get a 
capability to ultimately harm the U.S. and our allies.
  How could we be surprised in May of this year when India and Pakistan 
started to sabre rattle? One set off a nuclear detonation, and the 
other did. We saw that technology flowing there, and we did not stop 
it. But when it occurred, we raised our voices and said, how can these 
two nations be threatening each other in such a civilized world? 
Because of the insecurity that is now occurring around the world by the 
continual decline in our defense capability, coupled with the lack of 
enforcement of arms control regimes.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, most of my colleagues know that I am not advocating 
massive increases in defense spending. In fact, I was one of the only 
Members on my side that continuously opposed the B-2 bomber, not 
because I do not like the stealth technology, but because I felt we 
could not afford it. I have opposed weapons systems. I have criticized 
this administration for trying to do too much.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we are now between a rock and a hard place. As we 
approach the end of this century, we are facing a colossal train wreck. 
We have a ton of new weapons systems that need to be built to replace 
older systems that we cannot fund. The Navy wants a new aircraft 
carrier. That is a $6 billion price tag. They want new attack 
submarines. They want new surface ships.
  The Marine Corps wants the V-22 Osprey to replace the CH-46 
helicopter. The Army wants the Comanche helicopter. The Army wants to 
digitize its battlefield. They want the Crusader, and all four services 
want new tactical aviation, want new fighter planes, the F-22, the 
Joint Strike Fighter and the FA-18E/F.
  If we take that one area alone of tactical aviation, and if we 
proceed, as this administration wants us to do, to buy all three 
systems, the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget 
Office has estimated in congressional hearings to us that it would cost 
us between $14 billion and $16 billion a year to fund those three 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, this year we are spending about $2.5 to $3 billion on 
tactical aviation. How in the world are we going to fund $14 billion to 
$16 billion 5 years down the road? The answer is we cannot.
  Mr. Speaker, my prediction is that in the next century, in the first 
decade, we will look back on this 8-year period as the worst period of 
time in undermining our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not have a strong military to necessarily fight 
wars, but rather to deter aggression. No Nation in the world has ever 
fallen because it was too strong. When a Nation is strong, despots and 
tyrants do not think about challenging them. People like Saddam Hussein 
and the Ayatollah Khomeini, Muammar Gadhafi think twice when they know 
a Nation is strong and there is a price to pay for actions they take.
  When a nation begins to weaken itself militarily, when we cannot 
handle the level of our commitments around the world, when we do not 
enforce arms control regimes that control proliferation, that is when 
security becomes a major problem. That is what we are approaching 
today, Mr. Speaker. We are approaching a situation today where we 
cannot meet the demands that are being placed on our troops.
  When I traveled to Somalia a few years ago and talked to our troops, 
the one thing that those young Marines said to us was, you know, 
Congressman, we will go any place any time we are asked by our country, 
but we cannot keep having these back-to-back deployments. You send us 
from Haiti to Somalia, from Somalia to Bosnia. When do we get home to 
see our families? When do we get home to see our loved ones?
  Mr. Speaker, morale in our services is taking a nose-dive. That is 
not a front page story in the Washington Post. It is not the lead 
editorial in The New York Times. It is not even the lead story in the 
L.A. Times. But, Mr. Speaker, it is real.
  We are facing a situation today that we are going to pay the price 
for. Increasing deployments, decreasing dollars, increasing costs for 
quality of life, lack of commitment for the resources necessary, and a 
world that is increasingly more troublesome in terms of threats.

                              {time}  1915

  Now, we do not just need to restrengthen our military, but that is, 
in fact, a top priority. We need to reinforce our commitment to enforce 
arms control regimes; to make sure that nations do not send their 
technology to rogue operatives.
  Now, I am not saying we have to embarrass the Russians or embarrass 
the Chinese. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have been to Russia 16 times, and 
last year I led two delegations to China. I formed and chair the 
interparliamentary relationship with the Russian Duma. I do not want to 
recreate the Cold War. But in dealing with Russia and China, it is not 
just the engagement espoused by this administration, rather it is what 
I call the need for us to have disciplined engagement.
  When we deal with the Russians, they must understand we want to help 
stabilize their country economically, socially and politically, but we 
also want them to understand that, as a civilized nation in the 21st 
Century, they cannot allow technology to be sold to rogue nations, to 
rogue operatives. When we deal with China and engage them economically, 
they must understand that we are going to call into question their lack 
of control of sensitive technologies that they sell abroad. That is 
what this administration has not been doing well.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this administration when 
they come and ask this body, as they have, to replenish the IMF with 
money to help Russia stabilize itself. But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to 
make some clear differences between what this administration wants to 
do and what I think is necessary.
  Many of my colleagues in this body oppose helping Russia during this 
time of economic turmoil. I would say we have no choice. Because if we 
do not help Russia stabilize itself, I can tell my colleagues where 
they are going to turn, they are going to turn to those middle eastern 
countries, those Islamic nations who have the dollars, who have the 
hard currency to buy the kinds of technology that Russia has to offer, 
whether it is chemical, biological or nuclear; to buy the weapon 
systems that Russia has to sell.
  We need to have Russia understand that we want to constructively 
engage in a disciplined way our Russian friends. In fact, that is why, 
Mr. Speaker, I went to Moscow the first week of September. I met with 
the factions in the State Duma. In fact, I negotiated, with some of my 
friends, a series of eight principles that I think should be the 
conditions upon which we approve additional funding for Russia through 
the IMF. Those principles deal with simple facts, Mr. Speaker, and the 
irony is I came back to Washington with agreement on the part of the 
Russian Duma.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this administration has complained that the Duma in 
Russia has been the reason why the economic reforms have not gone 
forward, and that is because this administration has totally relied on 
a one-on-one relationship between our President and President Yeltsin. 
In fact, we have not established the kind of outreach to those other 
power centers in Russia that need to be addressed and need to be 
consulted. Well, that is what I did, working with my colleagues in the 
interparliamentary dialogue. We negotiated a series of principles that 
I think lay the foundation for a new relationship with Russia.
  The interesting point, Mr. Speaker, is that today, while many of my 
colleagues in the Congress oppose IMF funding, interestingly enough, so 
does the Russian Duma oppose IMF funding. Now, why does the Russian 
Duma oppose additional American money and western money going into 
Russia? Because their perception is that we are reinforcing corrupt 
institutions, that

[[Page H9668]]

are basically Boris Yeltsin's institutions in Moscow, that have wasted 
hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, as has been documented by 
both the IMF, by our own auditing entities in this country, and even by 
the internal Russian auditing agencies.
  So the Duma says, why should we support more money coming into our 
country in the form of loans when we are going to be stuck with the 
bill, and when those loans are going to simply bail out corrupt 
institutions that have not helped create a middle class in Russia. So 
the Duma is not stupid. They do not want more money coming into Russia, 
because they have seen where the money has gone up until now. It has 
gone down a hole. In fact, much of it has ended up in Swiss bank 
accounts, in U.S. real estate investments, by corrupt Moscow-based 
institutions that have not been thinking about the welfare and the 
needs of the Russian people and the Russian middle class.
  Now, there are some things the Duma has to do. They need to implement 
reforms. But they will not do it with Boris Yeltsin and they will not 
do it for President Clinton, because they see their policies as having 
failed. What, then, did we agree to?
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, we agree, this was on the part of the 
Russian Duma and the U.S. Congress representatives, that any additional 
IMF funding, any additional World Bank funding, any additional funds 
from the U.S. Government must first of all be preceded by the reforms 
necessary and called for by the IMF and by President Clinton. That 
means stable tax systems, that means aggressive tax collection, that 
means privatization of land, that means structural reform of Russia's 
economy. And the Duma agrees with that principle.
  The second principle, Mr. Speaker, was that the regions that have 
taken steps to implement reforms should be given proper recognition by 
the Moscow-based institutions where they, in fact, are taking steps to 
privatize the land, to stabilize the economy, and to make programs 
available for middle income people in Russia. In fact, this is one of 
the top priorities in Russia.
  And coupled with this is their initiative to begin the first housing 
mortgage financing system in Russia, a program I have been working on 
for the last 14 months, set up by my colleague, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Charles Taylor), one of our successful bankers in 
the Congress.
  The third principle is that there should be a new commission 
established, made up of Members of the U.S. Congress and the Russian 
Duma. This commission would monitor every dollar of money going into 
Russia to make sure the money is going for the intended purpose for 
which the money was allocated. There currently does not exist that kind 
of oversight, where we can have access to see where these dollars are 
ending up. And if we had had that, perhaps we would not have seen the 
hundreds of millions and billions of dollars from the IMF go into 
corrupt hands in Russia.
  Another principle, Mr. Speaker, is to force the IMF to reform itself; 
to suggest to the IMF board that it should convene an international 
blue ribbon task force to make specific recommendations to the IMF 
board about structural reforms that are necessary to deal with world 
economic problems like Russia is experiencing today, something that 
everyone agrees with. The IMF needs to reform itself and the way it 
doles out its dollars and its credits.
  Another principle agreed to by the Duma, Mr. Speaker, was to have a 
full accounting of the IMF and World Bank dollars and U.S. dollars that 
have already gone into Russia; to establish an appropriate auditing 
mechanism to see where those dollars went. And once that auditing was 
done, to make sure that no additional dollars from the IMF, the World 
Bank, or the U.S. Government went back to those corrupt institutions 
that took that money previously and wasted it.

  Now, that seems like it is common sense, Mr. Speaker, and that is why 
the Russian Duma felt this was so significant and such a high priority; 
that no additional dollars would go into corrupt institutions, in 
Moscow or anyplace else in Russia.
  Another initiative, Mr. Speaker, would have American business leaders 
making themselves available voluntarily to work with large corporate 
industries in Russia to assist them with their own corporate problems, 
whether they be management, fiscal discipline, marketing, whatever the 
problems would be, as a kind of mentoring relationship between American 
corporate leaders and Russian corporate leaders; to give them the kind 
of experiences that our corporate leaders have had such success with in 
this country and to be able to apply them in Russia.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, we agreed that we should establish the 
parameters for a new one-shot initiative to bring up to 15,000 college 
Russian students, undergraduate and graduate, into America to attend 
American business economic and finance schools; to get undergraduate 
and graduate degrees in the principles of our free market system so 
they can become the next generation of business leaders in Russia's 
free markets.
  The stipulation that would be required of each of these students is 
that they would come to America, but, when completing their degree, 
must go back to Russia to live and to work and not be able to stay in 
this country; to create a new generation of business leaders to help 
Russia move into the 21st Century in terms of a free capitalist system.
  So, Mr. Speaker, our point is a simple one. We want to stabilize 
Russia, just as we want to help China stabilize itself, but we must do 
it with no blinders on our eyes. When Russia violates agreements, we 
must call them on those violations. And when China does the same, we 
must call them. But in the end, Mr. Speaker, we must also be prepared. 
We must have a military capable of handling any situation.
  Listening to the chiefs testify before the Senate last week troubled 
me greatly, because the chairman of the joint chiefs and the service 
chiefs, who are now beginning to write to us about their shortfalls, 
are saying they are desperately close to not being able to meet the 
needs that they may be asked to respond to by the Commander-in-Chief of 
this country, whoever it might be.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the real scandal in America, a scandal that 
needs to be addressed, a scandal that needs to be looked at. It is not 
screaming from the front pages of our newspapers, but when we talk to 
those military personnel serving our country, they tell us of the 
seriousness of this issue.
  I encourage, I implore my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to focus on the 
real scandal in America, not just today but as we approach the end of 
this session and into a new election cycle, and as we move into the 
next new session of Congress; that we look at national security in the 
context of what is occurring today around the world.
  The threats in the 21st Century are going to be different from the 
Cold War. Missile proliferation and missiles are the weapons of choice, 
followed closely by weapons of mass destruction, be they chemical, 
biological or nuclear, that could be brought into our homeland or into 
our allies' territories and set off as we saw in the World Trade 
Center, the Murrah bombing in Oklahoma City, or the Atlanta bombing at 
the Olympics.
  And the threats of the 21st Century are going to involve asymmetric 
warfare, the use of computers, and capabilities beyond our imagination 
to compromise our smart systems. If I am an adversary and want to take 
out America in the 21st Century, I am not just going to think about 
missiles and weapons of mass destruction, I am going to try to find 
ways to compromise our smart systems. Not just our missiles, that are 
all controlled by computers; not just our battlefield, which will be 
digitized in the 21st Century; but our quality of life systems, our 
electric grid system for our cities, our air traffic control system for 
our airplanes, our subway systems for our large metro transit 
authorities. These are the areas that we expect to be challenged in the 
21st Century. And without the resources and the commitment, Mr. 
Speaker, this becomes the vulnerability of America in the 21st Century.
  I encourage and, again, I implore our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, because this is a bipartisan issue. And in the past our 
successes in plussing up defense spending have all been bipartisan. It 
has been Democrats and Republicans working together in fighting a

[[Page H9669]]

White House that has decimated our military's capability.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________