[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8572-8577]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           NATIONAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, 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 rise tonight to speak 
about national security, but I cannot help but respond to the plea of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), my colleague, that the 
State of California is the suffering State.
  I wonder why the rest of our States are not having the same level of 
problems. Perhaps our colleagues from California, when they were rah-
rahing tough environmental regulations, when they were rah-rahing 
limitations on offshore drilling, when they were rah-rahing the 
overwhelming control of the nuclear industry, perhaps now they are 
paying a price for that.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No, I will not yield. This is my time. 
You had your time. You get your own special order.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I yielded back some time.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for regular 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Regular order. The time is controlled by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I come from Pennsylvania, 
and we are having the same concerns that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman) has, but our State is doing fine. Perhaps, the State of 
California should have had its act together before this administration 
came in. It is too bad that my colleagues are shedding crocodile tears 
today.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I will not yield.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Or will his arguments not stand scrutiny?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I will not yield, and I will ask the 
Speaker to enforce the rules of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will suspend. The gentleman will 
suspend. The time is controlled by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania does not yield time.
  The Chair will return the time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would not have spoken on 
this issue, but for my colleague to get up here on the floor and rant 
and rave about the administration and what they have not done in 5 
months in office and talking about not giving them the hose to put out 
the fire, well, it was the California liberal establishment that was 
throwing gasoline on the fire, throwing gasoline and accelerants to 
burn down the State of California's economy.
  Now for those from California to say that somehow George Bush and 
Dick Cheney are responsible is utter hogwash. I, too, want to work with 
my colleagues from that State, but I am not going to sit here and 
listen to rhetoric coming out from one Member's mouth that somehow lays 
the blame at the feet of George Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
  So I make those comments to my colleagues, even though my major topic 
tonight is national security. In a way, it ties into national security, 
because we have not had a national energy policy for the past 9 years. 
We had an energy policy under Ronald Reagan. It was a very defined 
energy policy.
  We had no energy policy under President Clinton or Al Gore. We did 
not allow offshore drilling. We did not allow drilling in Alaska. We 
did not stop the incessant controls of the oil and gas industry. We did 
not permit new nuclear power plants. We did not license new refining 
operations.
  And we wonder why today certain States, where they were aggressively 
excessive in their regulations, we wonder why today they have energy 
problems.
  Mr. Speaker, this President and this Vice President have taken the 
lead. They have developed a detailed comprehensive energy strategy that 
just does not address the concerns of the oil and gas industry.
  They have addressed the need to look at lowering the amount of usage 
by sport utility vehicles. They have addressed cafe standards. They 
have addressed the need to encourage conservation to encourage 
alternative energy supplies and tax credits for those alternative 
energy resources, and I applaud them for that.
  But for one of our colleagues to come on the floor in a 5-minute 
unchallenged speech and rant and rave about how California's problem 
today is George Bush and Dick Cheney's problem is an absolute travesty, 
and I could not help but stand up and refute what the gentleman said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones), a friend and colleague.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania just said. But I wanted to take just a couple of minutes 
of the gentleman's time, the gentleman's one hour tonight, to talk 
about the needs of our military as it relates to readiness.
  I want to first say that I enjoyed very much being with the gentleman 
today. The Subcommittee on Military Readiness, both Republicans and 
Democrats, joined the gentleman in Philadelphia today for a hearing on 
the V-22 Osprey. I thought that went extremely well.
  Towards the end of the hearing that the gentleman held in 
Philadelphia today, we were able to question those in charge, the Navy, 
the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, to ask them about the readiness 
needs of their pilots.
  Being a member of Subcommittee on Military Readiness, I am imploring 
and encouraging this administration to please come forward with an 
emergency supplemental for our men and women in uniform. I do not think 
we have the luxury of time.
  I would wish the gentleman, as the expert on this issue and I mean 
that most respectfully, I wish the gentleman would speak to my concern.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to 
thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), my colleague, for 
joining me. He brings up a topic that I was going to start off this 
special order with tonight, which is our national security.
  Energy is a part of that, but I was not planning on discussing 
energy, per se, but rather three other issues. The gentleman has 
highlighted my first concern, which is the absolute need for an 
emergency supplemental.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, and as my 
distinguished friend and colleague knows, he heard it today from the 
mouths of the Marine Corps general in charge of Marine Aviation, 
General McCorkle, the Navy admiral in

[[Page 8573]]

charge of all Navy aviation, Admiral Dyer, and our special operations 
leadership, we are at a crisis situation right now.
  This administration, which I have just supported in terms of coming 
out with an aggressive energy policy and which I have supported, I know 
my colleague does as well, their plan to provide a comprehensive review 
of our national security needs, is failing to come to this Congress 
with a definitive short-term plan to fund the readiness shortfall that 
we are now experiencing.
  We have been told, Mr. Speaker, both my colleague, myself, the 
members of the Committee on Appropriations, the Armed Services 
Committees in both bodies have been told that unless this Congress 
responds with an emergency supplemental by June, we will have as of 
July 1 Navy units that will stop sailing, Air Force units that will 
stop flying, Army units that will stop training, because we will have 
run out of money.
  It is absolutely outrageous that we are facing a crisis situation. 
Even though we all respect the fact that Don Rumsfeld and President 
Bush are working on looking at reforms which I support, we have to deal 
with the needs that we know are going to be there. Those needs have to 
be addressed with an emergency supplemental.
  Our colleagues on the other side have recognized this. The gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has made this plea time and again. The 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has made this plea. The 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) has made this plea. Members of this 
body from all sides have said very publicly we have to have an 
emergency supplemental.
  So my colleague is right on the mark. He represents one of the 
largest military unit bases in the country. He knows better than any of 
us the impact, and perhaps he would like to elaborate on that impact in 
his own home installation in North Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Readiness, for yielding to me.
  The gentleman is absolutely right. I have the privilege to represent 
the Third Congressional District of North Carolina, which is the home 
of Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, New River 
Air Facility, and also Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, including the 
Coast Guard, they are all in my district, with a total of over 50,000 
retired military and veterans combined.
  I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the gentleman is 
absolutely on target. I am very proud of the Bush administration. But 
during the campaign, Mr. Bush, the President of the United States, and 
the Vice President, talked about we need to rebuild the military; they 
are absolutely right.
  The gentleman knows better than anyone, and in a few minutes the 
gentleman will be talking about this subject, this is a very unsafe 
world that we live in. My concern is that if we do not move quickly on 
this emergency supplemental, the morale of the men and women in 
uniform, who are going to have to stop taking care of those planes, the 
helicopters, or prepare those ships for sailing, they are going to 
become a little bit discouraged.
  I do not want to see that happen, because I know the men and women in 
uniform that live in the Third District of North Carolina are pleased 
as they can be that George Bush is the President of the United States. 
All I am asking, respectfully, is the same thing that the gentleman is 
asking, please, Mr. President, let us move forward on that emergency 
supplemental for our military sooner rather than later.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me; and I look forward to hearing the rest of his hour.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
being here. He is one of the most tireless advocates for the men and 
women who wear the uniform. And he is one of the most respected members 
of our Committee on Armed Services. He represents his district well, 
but, more importantly, he represents America's needs extremely well.
  My colleague is absolutely right. We are in a crisis situation right 
now. Now some might ask, well, how did we get to this situation? Why do 
we not have enough money to finish out the rest of this year to pay for 
the training and steaming and flying hours that our military needs?
  Part of the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we have overextended our 
military. Over the past 10 years, we have seen our troops deployed 36 
times. None of those deployments, except for one, was paid for in 
advance. Every time the President would assert our troops into Bosnia, 
Kosovo, Haiti, into East Timor, Macedonia, South America, all of those 
deployments, when our troops were put in, had to be paid for by the 
Congress finding other monies to reimburse those accounts to pay for 
the steaming and the flying and the airlift and sea lift costs that 
were associated with various deployments.
  As a result, having raided those procurement and R&D accounts, we do 
not have enough money for readiness for allowing our troops to be 
prepared, by providing the proper training, the proper flying time, the 
proper steaming time and training time on the ground to go into harm's 
way, and as a result, this year's budget is woefully inadequate.
  We have to have relief. We know there is money available, both the 
President and the leadership in the Congress have acknowledged that 
there are short-term dollars available to fix the shortchange of 
funding this year. And we, as a Congress, have to know what that number 
is.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing in this part of my special order, I would 
implore the Secretary of Defense, who I have the highest regard for, an 
outstanding leader and a perfect person to lead our military in today's 
environment, and I would implore the President and the Vice President, 
two outstanding leaders, to come forward and give us a number.
  Mr. Speaker, I talked to the staff director of the Committee on 
Appropriations just a few short minutes ago on the floor of the House 
and I talked to the chairmen and ranking members on the Committee on 
Appropriations who are very talented individuals. They think that 
perhaps they could turn around a supplemental within a month.
  We cannot wait through the entire month of June and then go into July 
and August or we are going to face an extremely serious, even more 
serious situation as our military has to take drastic actions and shut 
down training operations.
  I will say this, Mr. Speaker, as a loyal supporter of the President 
and a loyal member of his party, I will not hesitate as the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Readiness to speak out when those stop 
budgets start to occur; and I am not doing that to embarrass anyone, 
but our men and women in uniform deserve better.
  They deserve to have the funding they need and that dollar amount 
that they need to replenish those accounts needs to be given to us 
within the next week.
  So I ask my colleagues to continue to urge the White House and the 
Secretary of Defense to give us that number so that we can respond.
  Mr. Speaker, the second topic of my defense special order tonight I 
briefly discussed last week in part of a 5-minute speech, and I want to 
elaborate on that.
  It deals with another of President Bush's top priorities, and that is 
national missile defense. When President Bush came out with his major 
speech and when we came out with our bill that passed in the last 
session of Congress making it our national policy to deploy missile 
defense, there were those on the left who began to criticize the 
decision that the Congress made and, more recently, the decision that 
President Bush made to defend America.
  Now, last year in the height of the debate of the Presidential 
campaign, even though President Clinton reversed himself politically 
and came out in support of our missile defense initiative, there were 
those in the Congress who were opposed to missile defense.

[[Page 8574]]

  They largely based their opposition on the findings of one person. 
That one person is a scientist at MIT, one person who has consistently 
opposed America's efforts to defend herself from the standpoint of a 
long-range intercontinental ballistic missile.
  That individual was given prime air time on national TV by Dan Rather 
as he focused for 20 minutes on one professor's opposition to missile 
defense and one professor's public accusations that the missile defense 
organization leaders, General Kadish and our other top brass, as well 
as the Secretary of Defense were lying, were involved in a massive 
cover-up, were involved in giving the American people false 
information, were hiding information from the American people, were 
denying America's innocent citizens the right to know all the facts.
  This individual on national TV and also in national print media who 
gave him prime exposure went on to say, this is a massive cover-up. It 
is fraud against the American people. It is outrageous what is 
happening. All of these statements were made last year in the height 
and the midst of a Presidential election.
  Mr. Speaker, a few of our colleagues got together and decided even 
though they were the same ones who opposed our missile defense bill, 
even though it passed with a veto-proof margin earlier in the session, 
they came together as a group and signed a letter to the head of the 
FBI demanding a criminal investigation of the Department of Defense, of 
the ballistic missile defense organization, of General Kadish and of 
the contractors working on missile defense.
  They had a special order. They had a press conference out in the 
Triangle. They were on national TV. They were on talk radio and fed 
this story of one professor around the country saying that America was 
having this massive fraud committed against it, and that no one should 
support missile defense until the FBI had conducted a complete and 
thorough investigation of the allegations made by this professor.

                              {time}  1915

  That was what occurred last year, Mr. Speaker.
  Like so many other issues the media focuses on, the American people 
were sold a bill of goods. Now, amazingly, Mr. Speaker, with all of 
this rhetoric that spewed out of this city, claiming that there was 
fraud and abuse and lies and criminal activity, even in denying the 
facts, in fact, the professor cited a former TRW employee who claims 
they had hard evidence that one company was falsifying data, that one 
company was dumbing down the tests, that one company was, in fact, 
committing criminal activity.
  What has been amazing, Mr. Speaker, is that we are now into the 
middle of May. The silence since the end of February has been 
deafening, because we just found out within the last 2 weeks that, on 
February 26 of this year, the FBI concluded its investigation. The 
Department of Justice issued a statement.
  Now, we did not hear that professor go back on the Dan Rather show. 
We did not hear Dan Rather call for an update for the American people. 
We did not hear my colleagues on the other side stand up and present 
the statement.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I took the time tonight to go over what the FBI said 
in their memo dated February 26, 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the FBI memo for the Record as follows:

     National Missile Defense System Fraud Against the Government--
                         Department of Defense

       In a June 15, 2000, letter to Director Freeh, Dennis J. 
     Kucinich, U.S. House of representatives, and 52 other members 
     of Congress requested an FBI investigation into allegations 
     that the Department of Defense (DOD) covered up fraud 
     relevant to the experimental failure of testing involving the 
     National Missile Defense System. This anti-missile defense 
     system is designed to defeat nuclear warheads launched at the 
     United States by inexperienced nuclear powers such as Iran, 
     Iraq and North Korea by intercepting the warhead carrying 
     missiles in the air.
       Specifically the Congressional letter detailed allegations 
     by anti-missile critic Dr. Theodore Postol, a respected 
     scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
     that not only is the $50 billion National Missile Defense 
     System incapable of distinguishing between warheads of 
     incoming missiles and decoys, but the DOD and its contractors 
     have altered data to hide the failure. Dr. Postol also 
     contended that his letter to the White House, its 
     attachments, and all the information and data he used to draw 
     his conclusions of fraud and coverup, were derived from 
     unclassified material and were subsequently classified by the 
     DOD in an effort to conceal the fraud and wrongdoing.
       The Washington Field Office (WFO) of the FBI opened a 
     preliminary inquiry into allegations of fraud in the National 
     Missile Defense System to specifically address the following 
     items: (1) Coordinate with Defense Criminal Investigative 
     Service (DCIS) and obtain copies of material alleging fraud 
     and coverup prepared by Dr. Postol; (2) address DOD's 
     justification for classifying Dr. Postol's information and 
     (3) obtain details of a DCIS Qui Tam inquiry that 
     precipitated Dr. Postol's criticism of the National Missile 
     Defense System.
       WFO opened up a preliminary inquiry into allegations of 
     fraud in the National Missile Defense System on July 25, 
     2000. Contact was made with the DCIS who agreed to work 
     jointly with the FBI in conducting the preliminary inquiry. 
     WFO obtained a copy of Dr. Theodore Postol's letter to the 
     White House from Philip Coyle, Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation, at the Pentagon. Postol had sent Coyle a copy of 
     his letter to the White House.
       The Director of Security for the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization (BMDO) requested a line by line review of 
     Postol's package when it was suggested that classified 
     material may be attached to Postol's letter. This line by 
     line review revealed that four pages of Attachment B to 
     Postol's letter contained previously classified data, and 
     Attachment D contained 12 previously classified figures and 
     one classified table. All this material had been previously 
     classified and was not newly classified. Postol had obtained 
     this information from other individuals involved in a Qui Tam 
     law suit against TRW. Those involved in the Qui Tam suit 
     believed that the information they had was unclassified. A 
     good faith effort had been made by a DCIS investigator to 
     declassify a report that had been previously classified. In 
     the process, certain classified information was inadvertently 
     left in the report. Postol used this information believing it 
     to be unclassified.
       Postol's information was based on data he received from Dr. 
     Nira Schwartz, a scientist and former employee of TRW, a 
     defense contractor involved with BMDO. Schwartz had filed a 
     Qui Tam action in the Western District of California alleging 
     wrongful termination and false claims on the part of TRW. Dr. 
     Schwartz's allegations were scientific in nature and 
     concerned false claims made by TRW regarding the data 
     obtained from the first test flight, IFT-1A. Postol expanded 
     Schwartz's allegations to include criminal conduct. 
     Investigation revealed that Postol's claim that data had been 
     altered was unfounded. As to Postol's claim that the system 
     is incapable of distinguishing between warheads and decoys, 
     there is a dispute among scientists about the ability of the 
     system to discriminate based on scientific grounds. This is a 
     scientific dispute and Postol's attempt to raise it to the 
     level of criminal conduct had no basis in fact. A Department 
     of Justice civil attorney and an Assistant United States 
     Attorney in the Central District of California, both advised 
     that during the Qui Tam investigation, there was no 
     indication of fraud or criminal activity.
       The joint FBI/DCIS investigation failed to disclose 
     evidence that a federal violation has been committed. Since 
     all logical investigation has been completed, this matter is 
     being closed.

  The title of the FBI memo, dated February 26, Washington, D.C., is 
``National Missile Defense System, Fraud Against the Government, 
Department of Defense.''
  In the text of the FBI memo, they mention a June 15, 2000, letter 
directed to Director Freeh, signed by 53 Members of Congress, alleging 
that the Department of Defense covered up fraud relevant to 
experimental failure of testing involving the National Missile Defense 
System.
  Specifically, the letter detailed allegations by an antimissile 
critic from MIT, a scientist from MIT, that this entire process was 
ripe with fraud and that the DoD and its contractors had altered data 
to hide the failure. The professor was invited to submit all of his 
documents and all of his claims, as was anyone else, relative to fraud 
and cover-up. That data was both classified and unclassified.
  The FBI memo, it goes on to say, the Washington field office opened 
the preliminary inquiry, and they came to certain conclusions. The 
conclusions were that there were no criminal activities by anyone; 
that, in fact, there was no fraud committed against the people of 
America. In fact, I will quote

[[Page 8575]]

from the report: ``Investigation revealed that the professor's claim 
that data had been altered was unfounded.''
  Is Dan Rather listening out there? Because, Mr. Speaker, as we all 
know, the national media has a tremendous ability to affect what the 
American people think. When they have 20 minutes of totally controlled 
air time, that leaves a lasting impression on the American people.
  Now, why am I singling out one man, Dan Rather? It is because Dan 
Rather called my office and asked if he could interview me about 
national missile defense. As the author of the legislation, I said 
sure, I will be happy to talk about anything you want to talk about. He 
proposed, through his producer, to me that it would be a fair and 
unbiased analysis of national missile defense.
  Mr. Rather came into my office last fall and spent over 2 hours 
interviewing me on videotape. When I was into about 15 minutes of the 
interview, I knew then and there he had already written his story. He 
was just looking to get a quote from me that would further the fraud he 
was going to commit on the American people based on the allegations by 
one MIT professor. But I went on for 2 hours.
  When Mr. Rather ran his story, which was 20 minutes in length, the 
total amount of time that I appeared on that story was 30 seconds. The 
professor from MIT was on repeatedly for probably half the show. The 
report was totally biased, was totally ripe with allegations by one man 
that the Federal Government, in this case the Department of Defense, 
was committing fraud.
  I will repeat the statement that I take from the text of the FBI 
document: ``Investigation revealed that the professor's claim that data 
had been altered was unfounded.''
  When people make allegations in today's society and are allowed 
access to our national media that affects the public's understanding of 
what we are doing here, I think there is a responsibility for the media 
and the people who push that allegation to come out when the 
investigation is complete and give the American people the results.
  The final paragraph of the FBI memo says: ``The joint FBI/DCIS 
investigation failed to disclose evidence that a Federal violation has 
been committed. Since all logical investigation has been completed, 
this matter is being closed.''
  The silence has been deafening since February 26 because no one has 
acknowledged that the FBI finished its investigation of the charges 
made by one professor which resulted in 53 of our colleagues asking for 
a criminal investigation of individuals and leaders in our Department 
of Defense.
  Now, I could read some of the quotes from my colleagues and from 
others who spoke out in support of this professor; but, Mr. Speaker, I 
would rather insert into the Record a news article dated May 4 relative 
to the allegations and the actual results of the findings of the 
investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the article as follows:

              [From the Forbes CFO Forum, May 16-18, 2001]

      FBI Clears TRW Inc. of Fraud Charge in Missile Defense Test

                           (By Tony Capaccio)

       Washington.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation cleared 
     TRW Inc. of allegations it manipulated the test results in a 
     program for the U.S. missile defense system, according to a 
     government document.
       It's the second time the allegation has been dismissed. A 
     1999 review by the Justice and Defense departments in a 
     separate whistleblower lawsuit dealing with the same charge 
     also found no basis for fraud in TRW's testing.
       Last June, 53 members of the U.S. Congress asked the FBI to 
     investigate charges by Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
     professor Theodore Postol that TRW and Pentagon officials 
     committed ``fraud and cover-up,'' by tampering with the 
     results of program's first test flight to conceal that 
     company's warhead can't distinguish between decoys and the 
     real thing.
       Postol and another antimissile critic, Dr. Nira Schwartz, 
     alleged that TRW and the Pentagon manipulated the results of 
     a June 1997 flight test. Military and TRW officials said the 
     company's warhead succeeded.
       Postol and Schwartz claimed the data was manipulated to 
     indicate success after the test failed. The test was 
     conducted in a competition between TRW and Raytheon Co., 
     which TRW eventually lost. Their charges were aired in March 
     and June 2000 front page New York Times articles that became 
     the basis for the congressional request and fodder for arms 
     control critics.
       The FBI closed the case in late February, saying Postol's 
     charges were ``a scientific dispute and Postol's attempts to 
     raise it to the level of criminal conduct had no basis in 
     fact.''
       The FBI's action removes a cloud over the missile defense 
     program just as the Bush administration presses ahead with 
     plans to expand it.
       A spokesman for TRW said the company hadn't been told of 
     the finding and is ``delighted'' if it's true. Both Postol 
     and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who organized the 
     congressional opposition, said they too were unaware.


                               trw's role

       TRW is a top subcontractor on the National Missile Defense 
     program managed by Boeing Co. TRW provides the command and 
     control system, or electronic brains, that receive and 
     process target information to missile interceptors carrying 
     Raytheon Co. hit-to-kill warheads.
       The TRW system has performed well in the three missile 
     intercept tests to date, though two of them ended in failure 
     after glitches in technology unrelated to the basic system.
       Postol argues the Pentagon's system is fundamentally flawed 
     and is incapable of distinguishing decoys from real warheads. 
     He alleged the Pentagon watered down its decoy testing, 
     substituting simpler and fewer decoys that were easier for 
     the warhead to recognize. The Pentagon has acknowledged 
     shortcomings in its decoy testing and says it plans 
     improvements.
       The program needs to ensure the ability of the system to 
     deal with likely countermeasures,'' Pentagon program manager 
     Army Gen. Willie Nance wrote in an April 12 review.


                         `no federal violation'

       ``The investigation failed to disclose evidence that a 
     federal violation has been committed,'' the FBI said in a 
     February 26 memo to the Justice Department. ``Since all 
     logical investigation has been completed, this matter is 
     being closed.''
       The allegation was first made by Schwartz in an April 1996 
     False Claims Act whistleblower suit. Schwartz was a senior 
     staff engineer who worked on the project for 40 hours, 
     according to TRW. The federal government declined to join her 
     lawsuit after determining there was no evidence to support 
     criminal charges. The case is pending. Schwartz would 
     received a monetary award if TRW was found guilty.
       Schwartz alleged that TRW ``knowingly and falsely 
     certified'' as effective discrimination technology that was 
     ``incapable of performing its intended purpose.''
       ``Dr. Schwartz's allegations were scientific in nature and 
     concerned false claims made by TRW regarding the data 
     obtained from the first test flight,'' said the FBI memo. 
     ``Postol expanded Schwartz's allegations to include criminal 
     conduct. Investigation revealed that Postol's claim that data 
     has been altered was unfounded.''


                               gao review

       Postol said in an interview he was surprised by the FBI's 
     decision because he was under the impression that the Bureau 
     would wait to wrap up its review until the General Accounting 
     Office completed a separate non-criminal technical review of 
     the charges.
       The GAO review, which was requested by two Democrats, 
     Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Howard Berman 
     of California, won't be finished until later this year.
       ``I am amazed the FBI would have done this without checking 
     with the GAO,'' Postol said. ``It looks to me that the FBI 
     was simply not interested in doing anything except covering 
     its back.''
       Kucinich, who organized the June letter that prompted the 
     FBI inquiry, said he hadn't heard of the FBI's conclusion.
       ``It is interesting that the day after the president 
     announced plans to spend billions more dollars on a missile 
     defense system, it's revealed that the FBI had terminated its 
     fraud investigation of the missile defense program--despite 
     plain proof this technology doesn't work and substantial 
     evidence suggesting that the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization covered it up,'' he said in a statement.
       Kucinich was referring to President George W. Bush's May 1 
     speech outlining his plans for a missile defense shield that 
     will likely include the ground-based system.
       TRW spokesman Darryl Fraser in a statement said ``if this 
     report is accurate, we are delighted to hear that the FBI has 
     vindicated TRW for the years of hard work.''

  Mr. Speaker, I would hope my colleagues would look at the evidence 
provided by the FBI that there was no fraud and get back to facts when 
discussing, as we will this year, whether or not to support the 
President's missile defense request.
  My third national security issue, Mr. Speaker, is of grave concern to 
me. I also raised this briefly in a 5-minute

[[Page 8576]]

Special Order last week. All our colleagues need to pay attention to 
what has been happening with the Departments of Defense, Energy, 
Commerce, and the CIA.
  Mr. Speaker, I was one of nine Members assigned to the Cox committee, 
five Republicans and four Democrats, who spent 7 months of our lives 
behind closed doors, in some cases 6 days a week, through the holidays, 
working with the FBI and the CIA and our Defense Department, to answer 
a simple question for our colleagues in the Congress who had passed 
legislation creating our commission. The question that we were asked to 
provide an answer for to our colleagues was: Was America's national 
security harmed by the transfer of technology to China?
  Mr. Speaker, after the 7 months of deliberations, we came to a 
unanimous verdict. The vote was not five to four. It was not seven to 
two. It was nine to zero that America's security was harmed by the 
transfer of technology to China.
  Now, the spin by the administration at that time was that somehow 
China had stole the technology. That may have been true in a few 
isolated cases; but, Mr. Speaker, by and large, we gave the technology 
to China. We gave the technology to China.
  In fact, Janet Reno assigned one of her top prosecutors, Charles 
LaBella, to investigate in response to the Cox committee why that 
technology was transferred. He wrote a 94-page memorandum called the 
LaBella Memo back to her suggesting she should empower a special 
prosecutor. She chose to ignore his advice, and the American people 
will never know the full story as to why that technology was 
transferred to China. I have some strong suspicions.
  But one of the areas that we looked at was China's acquisition of 
high-performance computers. In fact, Dr. Steve Bryen, who was the first 
director of DTSA, the Defense Technology Support Agency, testified 
before the Cox committee that up until 1995 and 1996, China had zero 
high-performance computers, in the range above eight to 10,000 MTOPS, 
which is considered a high-performance computer, even by today's 
standard. Up until 1996, China had none.
  China wanted these computers desperately, and we looked at that issue 
in the Cox committee but were not given access to an individual who now 
has come forward as a lifetime, long-term Dealy employee. This employee 
by the name of Stillwell had access to China's nuclear program, in 
fact, traveled back and forth regularly to China, was able to gain the 
confidence of the Chinese leadership so that he could get access to 
information about China's nuclear program that was very helpful to 
America's military leadership and our security leadership in terms of 
where China was going with its nuclear program.
  Mr. Stillwell kept detailed notes of his trip to China. He has now 
reported that he knew the Chinese were desperate to acquire high-
performance computers. Because he has reported to us, Mr. Speaker, that 
Chinese nuclear leaders told him they did not have the ability to 
miniaturize their nuclear weapons, to do simulated nuclear testing for 
one reason; and that reason was that China lacked high-performance 
computers to do the significant calculations required to simulate 
nuclear testing and to miniaturize nuclear weapons. This was in the 
1990, 1992 and 1993 time frame.
  The reason why this is so critical, Mr. Speaker, is that we now have 
someone, an American citizen, a recognized expert on China's nuclear 
program, perhaps more an expert than anyone else in this country, who 
has come forward and who has tried to publish a book where he documents 
China's wanting and desire to obtain high-performance computers.
  Why is that so critically important? Because in 1996, in the middle 
of a Presidential reelection campaign, for reasons that are yet 
unknown, our administration unilaterally changed the policy and, in 
1996, allowed American firms that, up until then had been prohibited 
from selling high-performance computers, to sell those high-performance 
computers to China.
  Now, the reasons why those computers were allowed to be sold would 
make for an interesting investigation as to why the President all of a 
sudden unilaterally decided to reverse a policy decision that previous 
administrations had had in limiting high-performance computers to 
China.
  Now, piecing the facts together, if we get the comments from Mr. 
Stillwell, who now tells us that China was desperately in need of high-
performance computers and could not get them in the early 1990s, and 
then, 1996, we see a decision by the U.S. administration to lower the 
threshold and allow China to acquire something that they had been 
prohibited from acquiring up until that year.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Steve Bryen when he testified said, up 
until 1996, only two countries had companies manufacturing such high-
performance computers, Japan and the U.S. There was an unwritten 
understanding between the two countries that neither of us would sell 
high-performance computers to certain countries that might use them for 
questionable purposes. Dr. Bryen told us that we did not even consult 
with Japan. We simply changed the threshold in 1996 and allowed those 
companies to sell the high-performance computers to China.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to join with me in 
letters that I am sending to the Department of Defense, the Departments 
of Energy and Commerce, and to the CIA asking specifically for the 
following information and demanding that this information be made 
available to Members of Congress and to the American people.

                              {time}  1930

  From the period of time from January 1, 1994, to January 1, 1999, we 
demand the following information:
  Number one. Records of all license applications for computers that 
the U.S. Department of Commerce approved, suspended, denied, or 
returned without action for export to China, including Hong Kong.
  Number two. Information for each application showing the applicant, 
the case number, the date received, the final date, the consignee or 
end user, the ECCN number, the value, and the statement of end use.
  Number three. Information showing the Federal agencies to which each 
license application was referred for review, and each agency's 
recommendation on the application referred.
  In addition to the above, we want any information possessed by these 
agencies on the acquisition by China, including Hong Kong, of any 
computer operating at more than 500 MTOPS during the above period, 
whether such acquisition was made pursuant to an export license or not, 
and whether from the United States or some other country. And we need 
to demand this information, Mr. Speaker, immediately.
  I am going to ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join 
with me in demanding that we get some accountability because the 
American people deserve to know what happened.
  Mr. Speaker, today, China is working on simulation of nuclear 
testing. They are miniaturizing nuclear weapons. They are using 
American high performance computers in that process. When Dr. Bryen 
testified before the Cox Committee, he said up until 1996, China had 
zero high performance computers. Within 2 years after we lowered the 
threshold, China had acquired between 400 and 600 high performance 
computers, all from the United States of America.
  When those in this Chamber rail against spending more money on 
defense, I ask them to join with me, because if China had not acquired 
those high performance computers, they would not be where they are in 
developing their nuclear technology, in miniaturizing their nuclear 
capabilities, in designing new weapon systems.
  Mr. Speaker, my fear is that the bulk, if not all, of those high 
performance computers are not at Chinese universities doing academic 
research; they are not affiliated with technical institutions studying 
the weather of China; but, in fact, those American-sold high- 
performance computers are being used to design the next generation of 
weapons that we are now going to have to defend against.

[[Page 8577]]

  To me, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve some answers. And so 
all of us in this Chamber, I would hope, would join together in 
demanding that this administration give us access to answer the 
questions that I have posed relative to the transfer of high-
performance computers to China, the applications for those transfers, 
the agencies' recommendations, and the number of those computers in 
place today and who controls them.
  Mr. Speaker, the letter I referred to follows:

     To: the Departments of Defense, Energy and Commerce, and to 
         the CIA

       Please provide, for the period from January 1, 1994 to the 
     January 1, 1999, the following information:
       Records of all license applications for computers that the 
     U.S. Department of Commerce approved, suspended, denied or 
     returned without action for export to China, including Hong 
     Kong;
       Information for each application showing the applicant, the 
     case number, the date received, the final date, the consignee 
     or end user, the ECCN number, the value, and the statement of 
     end use;
       Information showing the federal agencies to which each 
     license application was referred for review, and each 
     agency's recommendation on the application referred.
       In addition, please provide all information that you 
     possess on the acquisition by China, including Hong Kong, of 
     any computer operating at more than 500 MTOPS during the 
     above period, whether such acquisition was made pursuant to 
     an export license or not, and whether from the United States 
     or some other country.
       Please submit this information in both electronic and hard-
     copy form no later
     than.
           Sincerely yours,

                          ____________________