[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1780-H1846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NATIONAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 83 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 7.

                              {time}  1427


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 7) to revitalize the national security of the United States, with 
Mr. Linder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. 
Torricelli] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are beginning general debate of a 
very important segment of the Contract With America, H.R. 7, the 
National Security Revitalization Act.
  H.R. 7 confronts issues of real concern to the American people.
  Take for example the issue of foreign command of U.S. Armed Forces in 
U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  The Clinton administration broke new ground in this area. Indeed, few 
aspects of their foreign policy have been pursued with as much vigor as 
their efforts to promote U.N. peacekeeping operations in which U.S. 
forces have been placed under foreign command.
  They did it in Somalia, they did it in the former Yugoslavia, and 
they were prepared to do it in Haiti.
  H.R. 7 restores a proper balance with regard to foreign command of 
U.S. forces in U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  H.R. 7 doesn't forbid foreign command in all cases; only in those 
cases where the President is unable to certify that the foreign command 
arrangement is necessary to protect U.S. national security interests 
and that the U.S. forces will not be required to comply with illegal or 
militarily imprudent orders.
  The American people would be shocked to learn that the administration 
and its allies in Congress think the President should have a free hand 
to put U.S. forces under foreign command, even when it's not in our 
national interest and even when our forces could be compelled to obey 
illegal or militarily imprudent orders.
  But that is the administration position, and today they will have 
time to defend it.
  The exploding cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations is another matter 
of concern to the American people that we address in H.R. 7. Last year, 
our total peacekeeping payment to the U.N. was almost $1.1 billion. In 
addition, the Department of Defense incurred incremental costs of more 
than $1.7 billion for U.S. support to or participation in U.N. 
peacekeeping operations.
  That's a total of $2.8 billion for peacekeeping.
  H.R. 7 tries to get a handle on these spiraling costs. It insists 
that at least some of our unreimbursed Defense Department expenditures 
in support of peacekeeping be deducted from our U.N. assessment.
  Critics of H.R. 7 say this is unreasonable. They accuse us of wanting 
to destroy U.N. peacekeeping.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Peacekeeping is an important 
tool that can serve our national interests. But because the U.S. 
taxpayer foots the largest share of the bill, we must ensure that it is 
only undertaken when it serves our interests and that it is carried out 
in a cost-effective way.
  A final issue address by H.R. 7 is the expansion of NATO.
  My efforts and those of my colleagues to facilitate the expansion of 
NATO--both in H.R. 7 and in the NATO Participation Act passed on the 
last day of the last Congress--are the final answer to those who claim 
that the Republican Party stands for a return to isolationism.
  To the contrary, we favor continued American engagement in the world, 
and flexible policies in response to the changes brought about by the 
end of the cold war.
  For these and other reasons, H.R. 7 is a good bill that deserves to 
be approved.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are beginning today to debate a 
very important element of the Contract With America, H.R. 7, the 
National Security Revitalization Act.
  In all probability our consideration of H.R. 7 will occasion a lively 
debate.
  For too long the Congress has avoided debating some of the toughest 
foreign policy issues confronting our country. Last year, for example, 
those of us who wanted to debate President Clinton's plan to invade 
Haiti were muzzled until it was too late.
  We're not going to avoid the tough issues any longer.
  That's what H.R. 7 is all about. We're going to confront issues of 
real concern to the American people.
  And it's our intention to turn around administration policy where it 
has been misguided, inept, or simply out of step with the wishes of the 
American people.
  Take for example the issue of foreign command of U.S. Armed Forces in 
U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  Before President Clinton took office, no President had ever put 
significant numbers of U.S. forces in a U.N. peacekeeping operation 
commanded by a foreign national.
  The Clinton administration broke new ground in this area. Indeed, few 
aspects of their foreign policy have been 
[[Page H1781]] pursued with as much vigor as their efforts to promote 
U.N. peacekeeping operations in which U.S. forces have been placed 
under foreign command.
  They did so in Somalia, they did it in the former Yugoslavia, and 
they were ready to do it in Haiti, until last November's election 
focused the attention of the U.N. bureaucracy and forced them to agree 
to put a U.S. commander in charge of the Haiti Operation.
  H.R. 7 restores a proper balance with regard to foreign command of 
U.S. forces in U.N. peacekeeping operations. Notwithstanding the 
rhetoric of administration spokesmen, H.R. 7's approach could hardly be 
more moderate.
  It doesn't forbid foreign command in all cases; only in those cases 
where the President is unable to certify that the foreign command 
arrangement is necessary to protect U.S. national security interests 
and that the U.S. forces will not be required to comply with illegal or 
militarily imprudent orders.
  The American people would be shocked to learn that the Clinton 
administration and its allies in Congress think the President should 
have a free hand to put U.S. forces under foreign command, even when 
it's not in our national interest and even when our forces could be 
compelled to obey illegal or militarily imprudent orders.
  But that is their position, and today they will have the opportunity 
to defend it.
  The exploding cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations is another matter 
of concern to the American people that we address in H.R. 7. Last year, 
our total peacekeeping payment to the U.N. was almost $1.1 billion. In 
addition, the Department of Defense incurred incremental costs of more 
than $1.7 billion for U.S. support to or participation in U.N. 
peacekeeping operations.
  That is an overall total of $2.8 billion for peacekeeping.
  And we all know that much of these funds are simply wasted. The 
billions of dollars we and the U.N. spent in Somalia accomplished 
precious little. And this month DoD expects to spend another $15 
million so that U.S. forces can cover the withdrawal of the last U.N. 
peacekeepers from the failed mission in Somalia.
  H.R. 7 tries to enable the Congress to get a handle on these 
spiraling costs. It insists that at least some of our unreimbursed 
Defense Department expenditures in support of peacekeeping be deducted 
from our U.N. assessment.
  Critics of H.R. 7 contend that this is unreasonable. They say, for 
instance, that we have no right to expect the U.N. to reimburse us for 
the $15 million we're spending this month to evacuate the U.N. 
peacekeepers from Somalia. They accuse us of wanting to destroy U.N. 
peacekeeping.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Peacekeeping is an important 
tool that can and does serve our national interests. But because the 
U.S. taxpayer foots the largest share of the bill, we must ensure that 
it is only undertaken when it serves our interests and that it is 
carried out in a cost-effective way.
  The critics of H.R. 7 favor the status quo, where the U.S. taxpayer 
gets double billed for U.N. peacekeeping. We demand a better deal from 
the U.N.
  We look forward to debating this issue here on the floor.
  A final issue addressed by H.R. 7 is the expansion of NATO.
  My efforts and those of my colleagues to facilitate the expansion of 
NATO--both in H.R. 7 and in the NATO Participation Act passed on the 
last day of the Congress--are the final answer to those who claim that 
the Republican Party stands for a return to isolationism.
  To the contrary, we favor continued American engagement in the world, 
and flexible policies in response to the changes brought about by the 
end of the cold war. We seek to adopt NATO to the new security 
requirements in central and eastern Europe, and we are pleased that our 
efforts have received considerable support from the other side of the 
aisle.
  Even the administration seems to be slowly coming around to our point 
of view.
  We welcome that change, and we look forward to further debate on that 
issue here on the floor.
  For these and other reasons, H.R. 7 is a good bill that deserves to 
be approved by our colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise, of course, in opposition to H.R. 7. I think the 
key point is that H.R. 7 really strikes right at the heart of the 
President's authority to protect our national security and to conduct 
American foreign policy. It does that in several different ways, first 
of all with respect to peacekeeping.
  This bill would end peacekeeping overnight. That may not be the 
intent, but it is the result of the language. That is the judgment of 
the Congressional Budget Office, it is the judgment of the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of Defense, and it is the judgment of the Deputy 
Secretary of State in the Reagan administration, Mr. Whitehead. It 
unilaterally abrogates our obligation to the United Nations to pay our 
share of peacekeeping expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, these peacekeeping operations that are in effect across 
the country are important across the world, not just to other nations, 
but to the United States. If we come along and unilaterally deduct 
these expenses, it just cancels our assessment. If we cancel our 
assessment, other nations are going to cancel their assessments, and 
peacekeeping is going to be destroyed.
  What does that mean? That means in Cyprus, in Jerusalem, in Angola 
and Kuwait and Rwanda peacekeeping comes to an end. It means the end of 
sanctions enforcement against Iraq, and it means the end of 
humanitarian relief in Bosnia.
  If we pass H.R. 7, Mr. Chairman, we give the President of the United 
States a choice: Act alone or do nothing. Often we are going to choose 
to act alone, and we should, but every single President has wanted the 
option to act in this collective security system, and we ought not to 
cut that option off. It is a valuable tool in American foreign policy. 
All of us agree that the United Nations is not a perfect institution, 
that it needs all kinds of reform. However, our goal should be to 
strengthen the United Nations, not to weaken it.
  My second concern, Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 7 is that it will lead to 
a major expansion of United States security and assistance commitments 
in Europe. Here again, Mr. Chairman, we all agree that NATO should 
expand. The question, however, is whether this Congress should try to 
dictate the details of that expansion. That is the question. We ought 
not to try to write that in the statute.
  Mr. Chairman, we see going on in Central Europe today a very complex 
historical process to develop a security regime for Central Europe. It 
is complex, it is diplomatic. This bill would jeopardize U.S. national 
security by unilaterally, arbitrarily, prematurely designating certain 
countries for NATO membership.
  This bill begins a vast new foreign aid program, but it does not 
provide any funding for it. It is an open-ended program of military and 
economic aid to four countries. It puts them at the top of the list. It 
makes winners and losers. We risk, then, discouraging the reformers in 
countries not named, and we risk fostering complacency in the countries 
that are named. We are trying to pick through legislation the winners 
and losers for NATO membership, and that will divide Europe into 
opposing camps.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill creates a dangerous gulf between our 
commitments and our resources. One of the things we ought never to do 
in foreign policy is to make commitments when we do not have the 
resources to pick them up.
  That is precisely what we do in H.R. 7. We expand our security 
commitments, or seek to. We provide no resources for it. We do it at a 
time when 
[[Page H1782]] we are cutting troop levels from 300,000 down to 100,000 
in Europe. We are doing it at a time when every single country in 
Europe is reducing their NATO and their defense establishments.
  How can we meet these new security commitments? Mr. Chairman, I urge 
Members here to think carefully before voting to set us on a course 
leading to a vast expansion of U.S. security commitments.
  Mr. Chairman, the House today takes up H.R. 7, the National Security 
Revitalization Act. This is the most far reaching foreign policy 
legislation to come before the House in several years.
  But titles are deceptive. This bill does not revitalize our national 
security--it weakens it.
  It strikes at the heart of the President's authority to protect 
national security and conduct foreign policy.
  It would end U.N. peacekeeping, a tool the President must have 
available to him in the conduct of foreign policy.
  It would force the President to act alone, or do nothing.
  It prematurely and unilaterally designates certain countries for NATO 
membership, picking winners and losers in a way that could actually 
slow down the process of NATO expansion.
  It micromanages foreign policy and undercuts Presidential authority, 
limiting his ability to respond to crises and protect national 
security.


                        Destroying Peacekeeping

  My first concern in peacekeeping. This bill would end peacekeeping 
overnight. It unilaterally abrogates our treaty obligation to the 
United Nations to pay our share of peacekeeping expenses.
  It would require the United States to deduct from its peacekeeping 
assessment all costs incurred by the Department of Defense in support 
of U.N. operations, even when those operations are conducted 
unilaterally by the United States, with U.S. forces under U.S. command 
and control.
  These expenses more than offset the annual U.S. peacekeeping 
assessment. if the United States unilaterally deducts these expenses, 
it cancels our assessment. Other countries would follow suit. U.N. 
peacekeeping would be destroyed.
  That would mean the end of all U.N. peacekeeping missions: in Cyprus, 
Jerusalem, Angola, Kuwait, and Rwanda. It would mean the end of 
sanctions enforcement against Iraq, and the end of humanitarian relief 
in Bosnia.
  If we pass H.R. 7, we leave the President with a choice: act alone or 
do nothing.
  Collective security is a tool that has been available to every 
President since Harry Truman. We must have that option for this 
President.
  The United Nations is not a perfect institution. It needs reform--
plenty of it. Our goal should be to strengthen the United Nations to 
better serve U.S. interests--not weaken it.


                        Premature NATO expansion

  My second concern is that H.R. 7 will lead to a major expansion of 
U.S. security and assistance commitments in Europe.
  Title VI of the bill does two things: it states that it will be U.S. 
policy to extend NATO membership to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic 
and Slovakia, and it mandates an assistance program to help these 
countries become NATO members.
  We all agree that NATO should expand. The question is whether 
Congress should seek to dictate the details of that expansion.
  NATO expansion is a complex diplomatic process involving 16 NATO 
members. H.R. 7 interferes with this process in ways that could be 
harmful both to the very goal the bill seeks--NATO expansion--and to 
other U.S. national interests:
  First, this bill could jeopardize U.S. national security by 
unilaterally, arbitrarily, prematurely designating countries for NATO 
membership.
  It short circuits the Partnership for Peace initiative, which aims to 
prepare countries for NATO membership.
  Second, this bill mandates an open-ended program of military and 
economic aid for four countries--Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, 
and Slovakia--without authorizing any funding. Let's be clear about 
this: if we pass this bill, we will be creating a new, costly, foreign 
aid program.
  Third, if we arbitrarily lock in advantages for some countries, we 
risk discouraging reformers in countries not named and fostering 
complacency in countries that are.
  By picking winners and losers for NATO membership, we are signaling 
to potential adversaries which countries we care about most.
  We will once again divide Europe into two opposing camps.
  Fourth, this bill will create a dangerous gulf between our 
commitments in Europe and the resources required to meet them. We have 
cut our military forces in Europe by two-thirds since 1990. Unless we 
are prepared to redeploy hundreds of thousands of troops, how can we 
meet new NATO security commitments by any means other than a nuclear 
commitment?
  Finally, there is no threat to European security that warrants 
speeding up the pace of NATO expansion.
  NATO membership involves a solemn treaty obligation. It means we will 
regard an attack on any member as an attack on the United States, and 
come to that nation's defense.
  I would urge Members to think carefully before voting to set us on a 
course leading to a vast expansion of U.S. security commitments.


          undermining the president's foreign policy authority

  Finally, I am concerned that this bill undercuts the President's 
authority to conduct foreign policy and undermines his power as 
Commander in Chief.
  As former Secretary of State James Baker told our committee, 
``Attempts at micromanagement were a bad idea when the Democrats were 
in control, and they remain a bad idea today.''
  Let me point out three examples of micromanagement:
  This bill requires an act of Congress before the President could send 
a single U.S. military observer to join a U.N. force.
  Yet we know that Congress has never voted to authorize a U.N. 
peacekeeping mission.
  This bill dictates the terms and conditions for U.S. military command 
and control, telling our military how to do its job.
  The bill prematurely picks winners and losers for future NATO 
membership. That's not our job. It's the job for the President, and 
other members of NATO. Passing this bill will only make it more 
difficult.
  This bill also undermines the ability of the President to act as 
Commander in Chief.
  It would prohibit the President from deploying a single U.S. soldier 
to a U.N.-authorized operation without an act of Congress.
  It would prohibit the President from placing U.S. troops under 
foreign command without specific congressional authorization unless he 
first reports to Congress that such action is not unconstitutional, is 
necessary to protect U.S. national security--and then meets a series of 
other requirements, detailed in five pages in the bill.
  This is an unprecedented assault on the President's authority as 
Commander in Chief.
  Had this been law, it would have prohibited President Bush's 
deployment of U.S. troops and ships in Operation Desert Shield and 
Desert Storm.
  It could have blocked President Clinton from deploying 30,000 United 
States troops to Kuwait in 1994 to counter Saddam Hussein's new threats 
of aggression against that country.
  It would effectively prohibit the President from sending a single 
soldier to participate in a U.N. peacekeeping activity--even as part of 
a medical team to help in Cyprus--without specific congressional 
authorization.


                               conclusion

  I urge the House not to pass this bill today. We cannot solve all the 
problems of U.S. national security today. The wisest course we can 
follow is to defeat this bill.
  I understand why Members are critical of some aspects of American 
foreign policy. I cannot remember a time when Members were not. And, of 
course, it is entirely appropriate that they voice those criticisms.
  But it is one thing to criticize. It is quite another to restrict, to 
constrain, and to hamstring the chief architect of American foreign 
policy--the President of the United States.
  This bill, if enacted, will not expire on the last day of Bill 
Clinton's Presidency, whenever that comes. It will restrict and 
constrain and undermine the authority of all future Presidents to 
protect the national security and conduct U.S. foreign policy.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 7.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  [Mr. SPENCE addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am shocked at this last comment. The beauty and the 
brilliance of this system is that we have different perspectives and 
different points of view. Is that not what we are saying to the entire 
world? Embrace the principles of democracy. Is that not why our 
colleagues challenge totalitarian governments because they said there 
should be competing ideas and competing principles? What is this? 
Liberal mind. We are all coequals here. We came here by the same 
process. We were elected by human beings who comprise America, 
ostensibly the greatest democracy in the world. This debate should not 
go forward with that kind of rancor.
   Mr. Chairman, it is not my prerogative to challenge you, sir. It is 
my responsibility to challenge ideas. This is 
[[Page H1783]] about democracy. And what does this mean? If this is how 
the debate is to begin, my friends, it brings tears to my eyes to think 
about how it will end, because if this is the top of the mountain, 
where is the valley on this debate?
  We should be about largeness, bigness, dignity, and respect for each 
other. I would have no problem challenging your ideas, challenging your 
politics. But let us not be condescending to each other. Let us not 
engage in this kind of folly with each other. I am prepared to deal 
with you intellectually. Let us see whether there is bankruptcy or 
currency in these ideas. But let us not characterize each other. The 
world is watching us. We should be large enough to be able to handle 
difference.
  I came here in January 1971 from Berkeley, CA, opposing the Vietnam 
war as a simple human being who tried to raise my voice in the name of 
peace. I cannot tell the new Members of Congress the scars that I faced 
from that, the beatings that I took on the floor of Congress for simply 
being a human being who had the audacity to try in good faith to 
represent my constituency on these issues. We all have a right to be 
heard here. Whether one perceives oneself as a liberal or conservative 
or a moderate or a progressive or whatever, that is the beauty of this 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to spend these moments talking about this 
bill, laying out the points, to engage. I beg of you, deal with each 
other with some kind of human dignity. I do not want to go back through 
24 years ago, where we kept casting aspersions upon each other because 
you had the audacity to say peace, or challenge nuclear armaments, 
challenge war, challenge big military budgets, that in some way you are 
unAmerican or unpatriotic. How incredible.
  How incredible, Mr. Chairman, when we can look out at the world and 
say we oppose totalitarianism and we cannot stand difference and handle 
and tolerate difference in this Chamber, considered the most 
deliberative body in the United States, in the world.
  We have to respect each other's difference. But let us engage. I have 
supreme confidence in ideas, and so should you. So let us engage on 
ideas, not on who has got what mind and how that gets conjured up. That 
should be beyond us.
   Mr. Chairman, it should be beyond all of us. I come to challenge 
your ideas. I did not come to challenge you. I did not come to 
challenge your label. But I will say this: In the context of a post-
cold war world, let us take off old labels. They do not work anymore. 
Let us move beyond old paradigms. They do not work anymore. Let us get 
beyond old ideas. The human mind changes slowly, but the post-cold war 
world challenges us to a higher order of being, to an imaginative way 
of looking at the world.
  Let us stop trotting out cold war ideas in the context of a post-
cold-war world. Let us stop trotting out these ideas of liberal and 
conservative and moderate. At this point, I do not know what those 
things mean anymore when we start talking about national security. We 
have got sides talking about isolationism. A few years ago in my 
earlier tenure, they would have once wanted to engage in ventures all 
over the world. Interventionists, now isolationists. Peace advocates 
sound like hawks when we start talking about peacekeeping and 
peacemaking. We are standing the world on its head. What should that 
communicate to us? That the world has substantively and substantially 
changed and it dictates to us that we change, Mr. Chairman. That we 
think afresh and we think anew.
  Let us stop engaging in the characterization. If you think we ought 
to have star wars, stand and defend that. If you think we ought to 
dictate to NATO, stand and defend that. If you think we should not be 
in the Somalias and the Haitis and the Rwandas and the Bosnias of the 
world as peacekeepers and peacemakers, stand and defend it. Then the 
debate can go forward rationally.
  Why this mean-spiritedness? It is not necessary, Mr. Chairman. The 
issues that confront us dwarf us as human beings. Do we have to then 
add in the folly of characterization, the folly of challenge 
ideologically? This is no longer an ideological world. It requires 
imagination and brilliance and the highest and the best in us. Lay down 
that yesterday madness and let us stand up and face each other on an 
intellectually honest basis and try to shape this legislation so that 
it speaks to the reality of a changing world.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Combest], the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. COMBEST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Intelligence Committee held one hearing on title V 
of the National Security Revitalization Act, partly in open session. 
The subsequent markup was conducted entirely in open session. During 
the markup, the committee unanimously approved amendments to sections 
502, 504 and 512.
  Section 512 was the focus of the committee's interest. As introduced, 
the section required that the United States may provide intelligence to 
the United Nations only pursuant to a written agreement between the 
President and the Secretary General of the United Nations. The 
agreement must specify:
  The types of intelligence to be provided to the U.N.;
  The circumstances under which intelligence may be provided; and
  The procedures to be observed by the U.N. concerning persons who 
shall have access and the procedures to be observed by the U.N. to 
protect the intelligence against disclosure not authorized by the 
agreement.
  As introduced, section 512 required that no agreement would have been 
effective for a period exceeding 1 year.
  Mr. Chairman, U.S. policymakers working with the U.N. use 
intelligence information as part of their broader diplomatic efforts to 
advance U.S. foreign policy interests with other governments and U.N. 
agencies. A significant portion of intelligence sharing with the U.N. 
includes support to peacekeeping activities. However, intelligence 
sharing also involves humanitarian missions, sanctions enforcement, 
nonproliferation, opposition to ethnic cleansing, and other issues 
clearly of importance to U.S. foreign policy objectives.
  Procedures have been developed by the intelligence community to 
provide intelligence information to the United Nations. Specific 
guidelines have been established for consideration on a case-by-case 
basis of what can be provided without compromising intelligence sources 
and methods.
  The committee recognizes that there are valid concerns about the 
U.N.'s ability to protect sensitive information, and when intelligence 
information is provided, these considerations are taken into account. 
Each request is carefully reviewed to assess the agency or operation 
involved, and when the United States does provide intelligence 
information, the least sensitive information is used to satisfy each 
requirement, and it is provided to a limited number of individuals. 
Moreover, much of the Intelligence provided has been redacted to 
include only information that is unclassified.
  The practical effect of section 512, as introduced, would have been 
to shut down intelligence sharing with the United Nations.
  A formal agreement would probably not be achieved as the U.N. 
leadership could find such an agreement with the United States 
politically unacceptable for a variety of reasons. Flexibility and 
discretion are afforded the United States under the current 
intelligence sharing process. A formal agreement would hamper our 
ability to share intelligence with the U.N. when we want to and how we 
want to, and might indeed create an obligation on the part of the 
United States to provide intelligence to the U.N. upon request. 
Moreover, every year we would
 face the possibility that a Secretary General unwilling to sign an 
agreement acceptable to the United States could, by his refusal, 
prevent our Government from sharing intelligence when it is in our 
interests to do so. Finally, the United States would be reluctant to 
accept the possible public disclosure of the details that such an 
agreement would require.

  Given these concerns and others, the committee adopted a substitute 
to section 512. The amendment sets out two 
[[Page H1784]] required responsibilities for the President.
  First, before intelligence is provided by the United States to the 
United Nations, the President must ensure that the Director of Central 
Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and 
Defense, has established guidelines governing the provision of 
intelligence to the United Nations that protect sources and methods 
from unauthorized disclosure.
  Second, the committee has strengthened its oversight of intelligence 
sharing arrangements with the U.N. The amendment requires periodic and 
special reports by the President regarding intelligence provided to the 
United Nations. These reports must be made not less frequently than 
semiannually to the Intelligence and International Relations Committees 
of the House and to the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees 
of the Senate. The reports must specify the types of intelligence 
provided to the United Nations and the purposes for which the 
intelligence was provided. The President must also report to the two 
Intelligence Committees any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence 
provided to the U.N. within 15 days after the disclosure becomes known 
to the President.
  The amendment further requires the Secretary of State, or the 
Secretary's designee, in consultation with the Director of Central 
Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, to work with the United 
Nations to improve its handling, processing, dissemination, and 
management of all intelligence information provided to it by its 
members.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee amendment to section 512 will accommodate 
the valid need for intelligence sharing with the U.N. where important 
U.S. national interests are served, while at the same time establishing 
stronger oversight over these activities.
  As amended, H.R. 7 is a good, workable approach to the need for 
intelligence sharing with the United Nations.
                              {time}  1450

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate my support for section 
512 of the bill which will permit the continuation of intelligence-
sharing with the United Nations. I think our history shows on certain 
occasions, the Cuban missile crisis for one, recently a situation in 
Iraq where sharing intelligence information, satellite imagery, has 
been vitally important to United States security interests.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas. We were able to work 
out our bipartisan concerns and differences on this legislation. We are 
working to develop a compromise which I felt was in the best interest 
of the country. I only regret that this was not achievable in other 
aspects of the bill.
  I think we have worked out most of the concerns that the intelligence 
community has. We have worked out a sharing relationship which will be 
on a case-by-case basis with the United Nations, which gives us the 
option of saying we do not want to share in certain instances, which I 
think is important.
  There is one last concern that I have that I hope we can address in 
conference, and that is that part of the responsibility here is given 
only to the President, and it said he cannot delegate this. I 
understand the concerns of the majority, but I hope that we can work 
this out so that it will be more acceptable to the President and to the 
administration. And I hope we can look at that again in the conference 
committee. But, on section 512, I think we showed that we can have 
bipartisan support and cooperation.
  There are many other reasons I will not be able to support the bill, 
but one of them clearly is not section 512.
  I will include the remainder of my statement in the Record.
  The statement referred to follows:
  The imagery shared with the United Nations revealed to the world the 
threatening activities of the Soviet Union and forced the Kremlin to 
acknowledge its placement of offensive missiles in Cuba despite its 
previous denials.
  More recently, it was the United States' contribution of intelligence 
to the United Nations which proved crucial in assessing Baghdad's post 
war disarmament activities and to the U.N.'s decision to maintain 
sanctions against Iraq.
  The National Security Revitalization Act as introduced contained a 
provision which would have required the President and the United 
Nations Secretary General to enter into a written agreement prior to 
any U.S. intelligence being provided. The Intelligence Committee 
received testimony from witnesses representing the State Department, 
the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were adamant in their 
opposition to that provision, noting that it would remove the 
flexibility which currently permits U.S. intelligence to be provided on 
a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the Acting Director of Central 
Intelligence informed the committee by letter that the requirement for 
a written agreement meant that ``the proposed legislation will make it 
difficult, if not impossible, to provide meaningful intelligence 
support to those U.N. activities which are supportive of U.S. foreign 
policy goals.''
  Based on the information it received, the Intelligence Committee 
rewrote the provision. In its current form, section 512 requires the 
President to ensure that the Director of Central Intelligence, in 
consultation with the Secretaries of State and Defense establishes 
guidelines governing the provision of intelligence to the United 
Nations which shall protect intelligence sources and methods from 
unauthorized disclosure. The Director of Central Intelligence has 
already established such guidelines and is under a statutory duty to 
protect all intelligence sources and methods from compromise.
  The Intelligence Committee is aware of no instance in which the 
current procedures governing the provision of intelligence to the U.N. 
has resulted in a compromise of any intelligence source or method. 
Nevertheless, the committee believes it is important that it be advised 
if a compromise of intelligence sources or methods should occur. To 
this end, section 512 requires the President to report to the 
congressional intelligence committees any unauthorized disclosure of 
intelligence information provided to the United Nations within 15 days 
after the disclosure becomes known to the President. Additionally, 
periodic reports describing the types of intelligence provided to the 
United Nations and the purposes for which such intelligence was 
provided are required. These periodic reports must be submitted to the 
designated committees at least on a semi-annual basis.
  While I support section 512, which is the product of a bipartisan 
effort of the Intelligence Committee, I want to note a separation of 
powers issue which the section raises, and which is of concern to the 
administration and several members of the committee. Section 512 
establishes certain duties for the President which are made non-
delegable. While I believe it is essential that the committee be 
assured that these duties are discharged in a manner which reflects 
their importance, I hope that we can agree on compromise language in 
conference which addresses the administration's constitutional 
concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, section 512 represents a substantial improvement over 
the manner in which this issue was treated in the original version of 
the National Security Revitalization Act. Although the bill as a whole 
is still objectionable to me, at least in the narrow area of 
intelligence support to the United Nations, this legislation, if it 
passes, will do no harm to a system which is currently working well in 
support of the national interests of the United States.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of H.R. 7 as reported by the Committee on 
National Security.
  Mr. Chairman, protecting the industrial base of strategic military 
programs is an issue that our Government must address in identifying a 
long-term strategy for defense procurement. There are three critical 
technology programs with an application that is dedicated exclusively 
to military procurement: conventional munitions, nuclear attack 
submarines, and long-range strategic bombers. Because these programs 
have no commercial benefit, it is of paramount importance that the 
Department of Defense act now to preserve these unique technologies.
  As many of us know, the administration requested funding for a third 
Seawolf submarine, largely because of the need to preserve the 
submarine industrial base in the future. In the area 
[[Page H1785]] of bombers, however, the administration appears content 
to cap production of long-range bombers at 20 aircraft, even though 
there is no successor program in either the research or development 
stage. Because there is no substitute for the strategic elements of the 
bomber industrial base, it would cost billions to reestablish existing 
production lines if these capabilities are allowed to dissipate.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this issue is of extreme national importance 
and am pleased that H.R. 7 acknowledges the fact that the current 
bomber force falls woefully short of meeting the baseline established 
in the bottom-up review.
  I urge a favorable vote on H.R. 7.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, later in the day I will support two amendments printed 
in the Record on this bill. One is by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Edwards] that supports ground missile development but strikes out the 
star wars in the bill.
  H.R. 7 on missiles will cost a lot of money that we really do not 
have, Mr. Chairman, I worry about if you have to look at other 
programs; if you look at the National Guard and Reserve and you have 
this big missile cost, it could come from the National Guard and 
Reserve, and also it could come from readiness of our forces.
  The other amendment that I will support and hope to get and make some 
remarks on is offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. 
Her amendment will eliminate title III of H.R. 7. Title III sets up a 
commission which would cost the taxpayers about $1,500,000. It is not 
necessary, Mr. Chairman, to have a commission. We have the roles and 
mission commission which will have a report in May. Basically that does 
the same thing that is in the commission title III of the bill. So I 
will be supporting both of these amendments, one by the gentleman from 
Texas and one by the gentle woman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Kim], a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I think the American people would be shocked 
to find out how much money we were contributing last year to the U.N. 
peacekeeping mission. The last year, fiscal year 1995, our 
administration submitted to us $533 million to support this U.N. 
peacekeeping effort. Halfway through, they asked for an additional $627 
million. Added together, we spent $1.2 billion. That is our assessment, 
just for the U.N. peacekeeping mission alone.
  This year they are asking for $445 million. Come on, I know well that 
they are going to come back midyear asking for another half billion 
later.
  Why do they do this? They are trying to keep overall budget numbers 
low.
  In addition to the $1.2 billion, the U.S. Government contributed a 
voluntary gift last year alone of $75 million. This year they are 
asking an additional $100 million gift.
  Our Government gets no credit for this voluntary gift contribution.
  Let us talk about how much money other countries are contributing for 
U.N. peacekeeping. Ninety countries paid less than 0.01 percent, one-
hundredth of 1 percent. Only 10 nations in the world pay more than 1 
percent; 10 countries pay more than 1 percent. Guess how much we pay. 
Thirty-two percent. Is that fair? Almost one-third of U.N. peacekeeping 
we pay.
  What are we getting back? I do not know.
  It used to be 25 percent. Why it has gone up to 32 percent is because 
we have got to pick up the tab from Russia. Russia was dissolved. They 
have not been able to pay their share. We pick up the tab. That is why 
we end up paying 32 percent.
  That is 2\1/2\ times more than the next highest contributor, which is 
Japan. They are paying 12\1/2\ percent.
  The American people did not know this. I know this is shocking to 
you, not to mention a gift, not to mention an in-kind contribution.
  Let me tell you about the in-kind contribution, by the way. We pay 
$1.7 billion in in-kind contributions in addition to U.S. assessment. 
Do you know what they are? Transport of foreign military to Somalia, 
airlift of supplies to Bosnia, Rwandan airlift of supplies, on and on 
and on. Right now we have got 13 such missions around the world. We 
spend $1.7 billion in in-kind contributions, which is absolutely no 
credit to us.
  H.R. 7 will send a strong message to the United Nations to shape up. 
There is no more bottomless pit.
  Second, we are asking to reduce to 25 percent from 32 percent. That 
is fair. Twenty-five percent, in my opinion, is still high. we will 
accept it.
  Finally, we are asking the United Nations to reimburse us those in-
kind contributions we made.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].
  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7. The authors of the bill 
claim it will revitalize national security. In fact, the bill does the 
opposite. This bill undermines the national security of the United 
States, by mandating extravagant spending on the star wars pipe-dream; 
by playing fast and loose with the NATO alliance and our role in the 
United Nations; and by short-circuiting the bipartisan foreign policy 
review process.
  The bill narrows, weakens, and confuses our national security by 
mandating huge expenditures for a national missile defense program. 
There is little justification for these expenditures in terms of our 
overall security strategy.
  Republicans talked the star wars talk in the 1980's, throwing huge 
amounts of money away with little to show for it. As a famous 
Republican once said, ``There you go again.'' Star wars II, the sequel, 
will not only waste money. It will take away from efforts to enhance 
military readiness.
  H.R. 7 also trifles with the pursuit of our national interest through 
NATO. It trivializes the precious and trusted relations we share with 
our NATO partners by playing politics with the process of NATO 
expansion. It names four specific countries, rather than supporting 
membership for countries only if and when they adhere to the values and 
goals of the NATO alliance.
  The bill also jeopardizes our leadership in the United Nations. The 
administration and Congress are working to reform the United Nations to 
improve its administration and peacekeeping operations. However, the 
bill cuts deeply into our U.N. contributions. It makes U.S. 
participation in U.N. peacekeeping activities practically impossible, 
even for small numbers of technical experts.
  The way in which H.R. 7 has been pushed through committees also 
erodes the process of careful debate and bipartisan discussion which 
has long typified the review of foreign policy in the Congress.
  The bill makes fundamental changes which will have potentially 
serious and dangerous consequences for national security and 
international peace and stability, but without adequate time for 
consideration.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 7.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel].
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible bill, my colleagues. We 
are moving here toward a dangerous isolationism.
  Some of my friends think, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, 
America need not remain engaged in the world. I believe America needs 
to remain more engaged now than ever before.
  If we have quarrels with the United Nations, we ought to fix them. 
Certainly now, as Ambassador Albright said, we ought to use the United 
Nations for U.S. purposes. Is that not what President Bush did in the 
Persian Gulf war?
  With this bill, the President has two choices: move alone, or do not 
move at all. I do not think that is the kind of era we ought to be in.
  If we deduct the cost of our voluntary actions against U.N. dues, the 
United Nations would wind up owing us money, and other nations would 
surely do the same, leading to the collapse of the U.N.
  [[Page H1786]] I want to address the issue of American command of 
U.S. troops. My colleagues, the President never relinquishes command. 
The issue is operational control. This bill would not even allow 
someone from our NATO allies to command U.S. troops.
  With that twisted thinking, D-day could not have been possible. Field 
Marshal Montgomery could not have commanded our troops.
  Let us take down all the statutes of General Lafayette, because he 
could not have helped us fight the Revolutionary War. World War I and 
World War II could not have been possible, and Desert Storm, which I 
supported, remember when President Bush mobilized the U.N. and nations 
for Desert Storm; Desert Storm could not have been fought under the 
constraints of this bill.
  Right now in Korea the Second Infantry Division is currently under 
operational control of a Korean commander. Should that not be allowed? 
No NATO commander of our troops at a time when we say we want to expand 
NATO? What is the sense of expanding the alliance if we are not going 
to trust the alliance?
  Star wars, Mr. Chairman, we need defense dollars in the area of 
theater missile defense, not in the area of star wars.
  We cannot retreat to a dangerous isolationism. The United States must 
remain engaged.
  Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes, President Clinton ought to veto it 
the way Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry said they recommend 
him to veto it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National 
Security Revitalization Act.
  For too long we have been walking down the primrose path of 
complacency--allowing our military capabilities to deteriorate and our 
defense priorities to be misplaced. The legislation before us today 
moves to correct these deficiencies.
  Figures from the General Accounting Office and the Congressional 
Budget Office show that between now and the end of the century, our 
defense establishment is underfunded by between $65 and $150 billion. 
H.R. 7 puts Congress on record that these shortfalls are unacceptable, 
and calls for U.S. forces to be provided with the means to successfully 
address two simultaneous regional conflicts.
  H.R. 7 also calls on the President to move ahead with theater and 
national ballistic missile defenses. We saw in the Persian Gulf war how 
devastating even primitive theater ballistic missiles can be if they 
reach their target. With adversaries around the world increasingly able 
to obtain sophisticated missiles, we must have viable defenses against 
these systems.
  Although this administration has moved forward somewhat on theater 
systems, it has not sufficiently focused on the threat to our own 
homeland from ballistic missiles launched by accident or by a rogue 
commander. Today we have no effective defense whatsoever against such 
an attack. H.R. 7 establishes a clear policy on a national missile 
defense, directing that robust efforts be undertaken now.
  H.R. 7 also establishes a clear policy on the involvement of U.S. 
forces in U.N. peacekeeping operations and the placement of U.S. forces 
under foreign command. While still giving the President authority to 
act unilaterally where a direct threat to U.S. national security 
exists, the bill establishes much needed Congressional oversight in 
these areas. It also sets prudent new limits on amounts that U.S. 
taxpayers provide for U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  Moreover, the bill calls for the reestablishment of defense budget 
firewalls, ensuring that the vital funds budgeted for national defense 
needs are not redirected to non-defense functions.
  Last, H.R. 7 reiterates the U.S. commitment to NATO, setting forth 
appropriate mechanisms for admitting new members.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 puts the defense policies of our Nation back on 
track. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the dozen or so Democrats on 
the National Security Committee who voted in favor of this bill. That 
is one indication that I have a somewhat different perspective on this 
bill than some of my colleagues.
  I do not want to get any of my Republican friends in trouble, but I 
have to confess that the committee leaders worked in the best 
bipartisan spirit to make this bill better than it was when it was 
first sent to the committee.
  I must also confess that I continue to debate in my own mind whether 
this bill is good or bad--and at the moment, I lean toward thinking 
that it is not the best way to achieve what its sponsors want to 
achieve. Let me tell you why.
  For years, one of my greatest concerns has been that legitimate 
debate about national security would become partisan and political. 
National security is one issue where I simply do not care about 
Republican or Democrat, I care about what is best for the country.
  I was proud the Armed Services Committee was truly bipartisan. I hope 
that will be true of the new committee. But bills like H.R. 872 
threaten to destroy that bipartisan spirit.
  Some say this bill is a partisan, political statement, cultivated 
like a mushroom in the basement of Republican campaign headquarters. It 
has been fertilized by sessions with pollsters and focus groups. We saw 
the results in campaign ads during the 1994 elections.
  Focus groups should not determine what we do about national security, 
and we do not need a new commission to do our job. That is the 
responsibility of Congress and the National Security Committee.
  Secretary of Defense Perry told the committee that if we lacked 
confidence in him, we should ask him to resign. But I do not see my 
friends on either side of the aisle calling for him to do so.
  That is because most of us know our military is ready, willing, and 
able to do whatever mission they are given--because Democrats have 
always worked with Republicans to build a strong defense.
  All of us can take pride in having built the strongest, most 
effective, most ready military in the world. Let us not tear down all 
we have been able to achieve in a frenzy of partisan politics.
  We should not play games by arguing about which side is tougher on 
U.S. command and control--when there are no U.S. troops under foreign 
command anywhere in the world.
  We should debate ballistic and theater missile defense where we have 
time to determine the real cost of what we want to achieve. We should 
not wreck our foreign policy by unilaterally changing U.N. assessment 
formulas or by forcing the admission of certain countries to NATO.
  I was in Munich two weekends ago with Secretary Perry, and I can tell 
you from firsthand experience: Our attempt to unilaterally redefine the 
boundaries of NATO has our allies on edge--and maybe even questioning 
our foreign policy sanity.
  When all is said and done, we will all have to go back to work 
together in the authorization and appropriations process. That is the 
appropriate forum for deciding these issues.
  I ask all my colleagues to think carefully about the votes they cast 
today. Continue to make decisions in the bipartisan spirit that we have 
always seen previously. If you take pride in not playing politics with 
national security--do not start now.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], a Member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, brave young American men and women volunteer in our 
Armed Forces in order to serve their 
[[Page H1787]] country and to protect her vital security interests.
  But in recent years, those soldiers have increasingly been put under 
foreign command and operational control--Americans ``peacekeeping'', or 
as it often becomes, defending themselves from attack--under the U.N. 
flag.
  Mr. Chairman, not one American should die serving the United Nations.
  When an American is sent in harm's way, that American deserves--and 
we in Washington have a moral obligation to provide--a clear 
understanding of the vital interests of the United States that justify 
putting that American at risk.
  No Utopian affection for the U.N. on the other side of the aisle 
should affect this solemn obligation.
  And, Mr. Chairman, they say that ``nature abhors a vacuum.'' While 
that may be true, it is also true that our adversaries love a vacuum.
  And now, where there was American leadership under Presidents Reagan 
and Bush, there is, in its place, a vacuum of leadership.
  Presidents Reagan and Bush understood that the United Nations was an 
important body that we could work with to advance America's vital 
interests.
  This administration believes that America's vital interests--and the 
safety of its fighting men and women--should take a back seat to the 
interests of the United Nations.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, this administration has it backwards, and we 
promised the American people we would correct it.
  This bill will restore our Nation's interests to the top of the 
equation.
  It does not, as our liberal critics contend, abandon the United 
Nations. But it does say--loud and clear--that our soldiers serve to 
protect the vital interests of the American people, not the interests 
of U.N. bureaucrats.
  And as long as I have a vote in Congress, I will oppose Americans 
going to war, or serving in so-called peacekeeping operations, when 
America's vital national interests are not present and clearly defined.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 7.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  I rise today to oppose H.R. 7. I believe it is penny-wise and pound-
foolish and also very shortsighted, specifically on the U.N. 
peacekeeping.
  It seems to me the issue has evolved into a question of whether we 
have legitimate U.S. interests in United Nations peacekeeping. I would 
submit we do. First, in terms of the global marketplace. We have 
committed ourselves to NAFTA, we have committed ourselves to GATT. In 
the post-cold-war era we have hitched our wagon to the notion of a 
global marketplace. International instability, localized terrorism, all 
disrupt that global marketplace and those global markets. We have an 
interest in U.N. peacekeeping to the extent it helps us to maintain the 
global marketplace.
  Second, we have a vital U.S. interest in fighting terrorism on a 
multilateral basis. Terrorism is perhaps the biggest threat of the 
coming century. We only have to look to New York City to see the 
potential.
  Clearly, it is in our interest to have the ability to act 
multilaterally to combat terrorism.
  And third, burden sharing: It used to be very much in vogue to 
suggest that our allies and other countries around the world ought to 
join with us in bearing some of this responsibility. It seems to the 
extent we undermine U.N. peacekeeping by reducing our own commitment, 
we undermine the ability to command a multilateral force to protect 
U.S. interests.
  Now, I am not ignorant of the concern that we may be paying too much. 
As a matter of fact, this Congress last year reduced our commitment 
from 30 to 25 percent. But I think if we take the unilateral action 
suggested in this bill, we will certainly harm our interest because we 
will set a reverse, negative precedent. Russia will want to decrease 
its commitment because of the things it has done in the former Soviet 
Union. France would want to decrease its commitment because of Rwanda.
  So the net effect will be that we will have an untenable choice: We 
will either have to act unilaterally or we will have to take no action 
at all. I suggest that is shortsighted.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the distinguished chairman of the 
Military Facilities Subcommittee and a key member of our national 
security team.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us feel that defense cuts proposed by the 
Clinton administration during these last couple of years are leading us 
to a hollow force again. That is the reason for this bill. We want to 
make a statement that we do not want a hollow force, that defense is an 
important part of our national security.
  There is a perception that defense spending has not been reduced. But 
nothing could be further from the truth. In 1992, candidate Clinton 
called for $60 billion in additional defense cuts beyond the cuts 
President Bush proposed. This year's represents the 11th straight year 
that we have decreased defense spending.
  What we are going to do with this bill, I think, is to make a 
statement that we are going to have a strong national defense in this 
country.
  Now, it is not the end-all of bills. I would like for it to be much 
stronger. I would like for it to speak more to the force strength and 
that kind of thing. But the National Security Restoration Act is a down 
payment on the Republican promise to restore national security. It does 
not do all that is needed, but it does begin to add to the blueprint. I 
would urge support of this legislation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  Ms. HARMAN. As the Representative of a district I call the aerospace 
center of the universe, I have consistently stood for a strong defense 
policy on a bipartisan basis, and I do so again today. I have supported 
the C-17; in fact, I coauthored the amendment to fund it fully; the F-
18; the B-2; ballistic missile defense and defense reinvestment 
programs.
  But I would make several points about this bill, which, unless it 
changes substantially, I will end up opposing. First of all, it is to 
my mind a campaign pamphlet, not a piece of legislation, and I think we 
must find more serious vehicles to legislate on defense issues.

                              {time}  1520

  Second and sadly, I think some of its advocates tend to label some of 
its opponents in wrong ways. I must say I was honored to listen to the 
comments of my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], 
a few minutes ago in which he said that the labels are misguided. We 
are not here to attack each other. We are here to address serious 
policy, and I would reiterate his point, and make it again coming from 
a very different part of the political spectrum.
  Finally let me say this: Some serious amendments will be offered 
during the course of this afternoon, this evening and tomorrow. I will 
speak for some of them and against some of them. But I urge all of us 
to approach this, not as part of a political campaign, but as part of 
our serious responsibilities to govern this country.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the first priority of the Federal Government 
is to protect its citizens by maintaining a military strong enough to 
fight and defeat any aggressor that threatens the United States. Since 
the end of the cold war the defense budget has been borrowed from to 
pay for social welfare programs and U.N. peacekeeping missions. As a 
result, our defense resources are at dangerously low levels. The 
Contract With America will put a stop to the practice of borrowing from 
the defense budget and reverse the past 2 years of neglect on this 
issue. H.R. 7 
[[Page H1788]] includes the strong sense of Congress to restore defense 
spending fire walls that prohibit the use of Department of Defense 
funds to pay for social programs unrelated to military readiness and 
restrict future defense cuts to deficit reduction purposes only.
  The thing that stirred me up so much, Mr. Speaker, was the fact in 
last year's budget we allocated $200 million for displaced Russian 
soldiers while our own Vietnam veterans are homeless in the streets of 
the United States of America. We cannot afford to become careless. The 
Federal Government has a duty to provide for the common defense of its 
citizens.
  I say to my colleagues, ``I urge your support of H.R. 7.''
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
the great State of New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, in my 20 years of public service I have 
never witnessed anything like what is going on now in the world's 
greatest deliberate body, the U.S. House of Representatives. And if you 
love American democracy like I do, you better be worried.
  I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do 
not agree with the extremist and isolationist provisions of H.R. 7. 
Several Republicans voted for a Democratic amendment to this bill that 
was passed by the International Relations Committee. They then called 
for a new vote and they all switched their votes.
  I know that some of them believe that the greatest and most powerful 
country in the world should lead, and not retreat, from the 
international community. I know that some of them do not believe that 
we need Star Wars II. And all of us know that we simply cannot afford 
it.
  But none of this seems to matter to my Republican colleagues. They 
have decided that marching in lockstep is in and voting independently 
is out. For the sake of kneeling before the altar of soundbyte bills 
written by pollsters, my Republican colleagues have abandoned the great 
American tradition of independent parliamentary debate. We must put 
patriotism ahead of polls and be serious about what we bring to the 
House floor.
  If this bill had passed the Democratic Congress of 1992, President 
Bush would not have been allowed to send a single American soldier to 
the Persian Gulf for Desert Shield or Desert Storm.
  If this bill passes in its present form, America will be forced 
either to place thousands more of our young soldiers in the line of 
fire to protect our vital national interest abroad--or not to act at 
all. America will be forced to spend millions of dollars alone, instead 
of sharing the costs.
  If this bill passes, we will create yet another unneeded commission 
that wastes $1.5 million for yet another study about military needs. 
Never mind that we already spend millions upon millions of taxpayer 
dollars every year to do just that.
  That is why I have sponsored an amendment with the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman] to strike that, and we hope we will get 
support.
  So, say yes to a strong and secure America, but say no to the 
national insecurity bill. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 7.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the statement we just heard regarding Desert Storm and 
other actions is absolutely, totally without merit and untrue. As a 
matter of fact, 45 minutes ago former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, a 
former Democrat turned Republican, just down the hallway totally 
endorsed this piece of legislation, and said it would have no impact on 
the President's ability to send our troops abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Thornberry], one of the newest stars from our committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
measure.
  Mr. Chairman, after more than a year of visiting with folks in my 
district about where this country is headed, I can tell my colleagues 
that they are very concerned about what is happening to our military. 
We are asking our men and women to do more and more and giving them 
less and less to do it with. This bill does not solve all the problems, 
but it does make a good start, and there are three areas key to me:
  One, establish an inspection commission to evaluate our needs and the 
resources to meet those needs because the administration has lost total 
credibility in being able to make that assessment; second, it is 
important to keep U.S. troops under the command of U.S. commanders, and 
this drift toward relinquishing control of our security to 
multinational organizations has got to stop; third, we have got to 
protect our people from missile attack, and it does not matter whether 
its short-range or long-range missiles. It is the fundamental purpose 
of this body to protect our people, and, if we do not make every effort 
to meet that threat, then we have not met our responsibilities to our 
constituents.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], another one of our bright stars on 
the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I believe all of us agree that a 
strong military was a prime factor in the end of the cold war and won a 
stunning victory in the Persian Gulf, but events over the past few 
years have shown that though the cold war is over, we still live in a 
very dangerous world. It is not just our side of the aisle that 
recognizes our military is stretched too thin. We have cut too far, too 
fast.
  And these massive cuts have been multiplied by our military being 
ordered to build nations in places where we have no vital national 
interest.
  Places like Somalia and Haiti.
  Meanwhile, even top Pentagon officials admit we need to commit more 
resources to training in places like Fort Knox in my district, 
facilities vital to keep our service men and women well prepared.
  H.R. 7 allows a bipartisan panel to review our military in light of 
yesterday's mistakes and tomorrow's challenges.
  And perhaps most important, H.R. 7 will keep our men and women in the 
armed services from being placed under command of another country. We 
are still the leaders of the free world, Mr. Chairman.
  The men and women in our armed services have given their all to our 
country. H.R. 7 is an important step toward ensuring we do the same for 
them.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, does this debate sound like a time warp? 
I would not be surprised if I heard evil empire, iron curtain, and 
Berlin Wall. Let me just remind my colleagues that that was yesterday, 
and now we need to talk about today and tomorrow.
  This bill is a prescription for disaster. The Republicans are rushing 
as a part of their contract to penalize the poor, discriminate against 
legal immigrants, pander to the rich, and now, through this national 
security part of their contract, they add insult to injury by also 
asking this House to invest scarce dollars in yesterday's boondoggle.

                              {time}  1530

  The Republicans have chosen to look through the rearview mirror as if 
blinded by the light of the future. Instead, they choose to look 
behind.
  This is the same party that says that Government is too big. This is 
the same party that says that kids do not deserve to eat subsidized 
lunch in school, that pregnant women do not need to have subsidized 
nutrition so that they can give birth to healthy babies. This is the 
same party that said we do not have enough money to put 100,000 cops on 
the streets. But Government spending for an elaborate and controversial 
missile defense in space, well, that is all right.
  Rather than asking for money for Star Wars, the Republicans could 
have asked for money to clean up the contaminated bases that coexist 
within our communities. And rather than railing on about foreign 
command and control, they could have focused instead on constructive 
engagement with the rest of the world through multilateralism and 
collective security. The specter of foreign command is not true. The 
President is and always 
[[Page H1789]] has been our Commander in Chief. Finally, they could 
have looked at promising weapons systems that bear more relation to the 
type of defense that we need in the future.
  This bill does not provide for the forward looking vision of this 
country. It robs us of our peace dividend, and I say vote ``no.''
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 7.
  Mr. Chairman, the results from the November 8 elections demonstrate 
the American voter's overall dissatisfaction with Congress. Recognizing 
this concern, many of us signed the Contract With America, to clearly 
illustrate our promise to eliminate weak leadership and destructive 
policies. Since January 4, we have been working very hard to bring 10 
bills compromising the contract to the floor during the first 100 
legislative days of the 104th Congress. We have passed several of these 
bills, however, and now we must address the next item, H.R. 7, the 
National Security Revitalization Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation which was 
successfully voted out of four committees of jurisdiction including the 
International Relations Committee, of which I am a member. The bill 
expresses many of my sentiments toward foreign policy, particularly 
regarding the current administration. Yes, the world of today differs 
tremendously from that of the 1980's, therefore our foreign policy must 
change and continue to change as we move into the next century. 
However, it is time we restore America's reputation as a superpower; we 
must repair our strength and credibility damaged by the policies of the 
Clinton Administration.
  The Clinton administration's bottom-up review of the U.S. military 
has severely undermined our readiness by reducing defense funding and 
personnel. The question that needs to be asked now is: Can the United 
States defend itself against an attack, or more than one attack? H.R. 7 
would address this inadequacy in several ways. First, it would renew 
the United States' commitment to an effective national missile defense 
by requiring the Department of Defense [DOD] to develop and deploy 
antiballistic missile and theater missile defense as early as 
practicable. Second, the bill would require the creation of the 
National Security Commission, a bipartisan panel of independent defense 
experts, to assess force structure, readiness, strategic vision, 
modernization, and personnel policies. In the end, these provisions 
would return our military to the level of force that is capable of 
protecting our shores and projecting our might anywhere in the world.
  As we have all witnessed, costly multinational peacekeeping 
operations, under the auspices of the United Nation in both Somalia and 
Bosnia have failed to produce the desired outcomes, and support for 
these operations has declined across America. Currently, the United 
States pays the cost of these missions sponsored by the United Nations, 
as well as peacekeeping operations we initiate. The United States is 
responsible for 25 percent of the U.N.'s normal operating budget and 
31.7 percent of the cost of each U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping operation. 
Our funding of U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping missions is not counted 
toward our contribution to the U.N. operating budget. Furthermore, 
although Congress appropriated $1.2 billion in 1994 to pay for 
peacekeeping, the State Department estimates that the United States 
could fall behind by another $800 million by the end of fiscal 1995. 
This arrangement clearly cannot continue. Under H.R. 7, the United 
States, while continuing to fund peacekeeping mission, we would begin 
to count this cost as part of our overall contribution to the United 
Nations. However, under this legislation, the United States will write 
off the cost of unilateral peacekeeping missions like the one in Haiti, 
from its U.N. bills.
  We have heard arguments that any provision requiring the U.S. 
Government to subtract costs incurred by the United States for 
participation in U.N. peacekeeping activities from the United States 
assessed U.N. contribution could be fatal to U.N. peacekeeping. 
However, according to a study conducted by the General Accounting 
Office [GAO], provisions to limit U.S. contributions to U.N. 
peacekeeping operations will not completely eliminate U.S. funds.
  Included in these U.N. provisions is a section that I find very 
intriguing. Section 511 requires the withholding of 20 percent of 
assessed U.S. contributions of the regular U.N. budget and 50 percent 
of all assessed and voluntary U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping 
operations each year until the President certifies: The creation of an 
independent office of the Inspector General chosen for his/her ability 
and integrity; the Inspector General has access to all records and 
officials at the United Nations; the United Nations will protect 
whistleblowers who cooperate with the Inspector General, and the 
reports of the Inspector General are made available to the General 
Assembly of the United Nations without change.
  The United Nations has a record of wasting money and at times has 
acted in a corrupt manner. However, with an Inspector General's office, 
we can carefully check to ensure U.S. taxpayers' dollars are put to an 
honest and proper use, reflecting American perspectives. This section 
fits perfectly into current efforts by Congress to review all levels of 
government for efficiency and costs.
  H.R. 7 would also make a fundamental change--one that has been 
advanced by former Joint Chief of Staff Colin Powell--that would 
restrict the ability of the
 President to place U.S. troops under foreign command. This step is 
taken because the American people do not trust nor have confidence in 
the United Nations. The lives of our young men and women should not be 
placed at risk somewhere in the world by a foreign commander. H.R. 7 
would change this policy.

  Lastly, the bill contains provisions to reemphasize the commitment of 
the United States to a strong and viable NATO alliance, urging that we 
assist the Eastern European democracies with the transition to full 
NATO membership. NATO must adapt to the reality of the post-cold-war 
Europe. Expansion would ultimately benefit these countries by 
encouraging integration into the West.
  In the contract, we made promises--promises we plan to keep. In the 
post-cold-war period, the passage of the National Security 
Revitalization Act marks an improvement in our foreign policy by 
acknowledging the Clinton administration precipitated the decline in 
military readiness; by restricting future participation in U.N. 
programs; by developing defense against ballistic missile attack, and 
pledging American leadership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
[NATO]. Join me in voting in favor of H.R. 7.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last 10 years, U.S. troops have been deployed 
for more operations per year than ever before. Currently, the United 
States has over 48,000 military personnel involved in 13 ongoing 
operations in unstable areas like Bosnia, Haiti, and Iraq. In Somalia, 
for example, there was no clear objective, no clear timeframe, and no 
clear plan to bring our military personnel home. In 1993, Congress 
appropriated $401.6 million for U.N. operations--President Clinton had 
requested $597 million.
  Mr. Chairman, we are reaching a troubling time in our defense policy. 
We are spending too much money in situations where we have very little 
control. The United States is responsible for 25 percent of the United 
Nations' normal operating budget. We pay 31.7 percent of the cost of 
missions sponsored by the United Nations.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a disturbing trend and patriotic Americans want 
to stop it. That is why we are asking our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to work with us in passing the National Security Restoration 
Act. Let's restrict U.S. troops to those missions that are in our 
national interests, reduce the cost of the United States of U.N. 
missions, and demand that U.S. troops be only deployed under U.S. 
commanders. Let us pass H.R. 7.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as relics of the cold war, 
when there was a serious nuclear threat, nuclear fallout shelters are 
being used to store garden tools. Yet the Republicans are suggesting we 
need to prioritize our national security interest and place greater 
emphasis on incoming ballistic missiles over the development of Scud 
defense, which poses certainly a considerably greater threat to U.S. 
lives. A nuclear warhead weighs about 270 pounds, is slightly larger 
than a water cooler bottle and does not need a missile for effective 
delivery. It can be brought across the Mexican border in a pickup 
truck. And if you doubt that ability, just check the incoming 
[[Page H1790]] from all over the world with cocaine as it arrives here 
every day.
  So why are we proposing the development of a multibillion dollar 
national missile defense that will take away resources from very 
important readiness, modernization, and quality of life programs for 
our defense? We will spend massive amounts of funds on a system that 
can be countered by a 1970 El Camino.
  What has happened to common sense? H.R. 7 is bad legislation. It 
directs our national defense priorities away from our troops. It 
restricts our peacekeeping participation and our capabilities there. It 
undermines the President's authority as commander-in-chief. It is a 
reckless expansion of U.S. defense commitments through our NATO 
participation.
  This bill certainly does not represent common sense. The common sense 
vote is no on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 7. This bill represents a very appropriate reordering of our 
priorities. I would like to reemphasize that although we do live in a 
post-cold-war world, it still is a very dangerous world. Within a 
decade, we expect some 27 countries will have nuclear weapons with 
increasing capabilities to deliver them. At this point in time, we have 
no meaningful defense against ballistic missiles. This bill very 
appropriately requires a reevaluation in this area. It is a good bill. 
I urge its support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, in 1939, the leader of the isolationist 
wing of the Republican Party, continuing a tradition of 20 years of 
Republican isolationism that started after the end of World War I, 
Senator Arthur Vandenburg said:

       We cannot be the world's protector or the world's 
     policeman. The price of such assignment would be the jeopardy 
     of our own democracy. Let us avoid entanglement in any chain 
     of circumstances which may be too strong for us to break.

  Seven years later, as the new leader of the internationalist wing of 
the Republican Party, the one that has dominated the Republican Party 
for the last 50 years, Senator Vandenburg said:

       If World War III ever unhappily arrives, it will open new 
     laboratories of death too horrible to contemplate. I propose 
     to do everything within my power to keep those laboratories 
     closed for keeps. There are two ways to do it. One way is by 
     exclusive individual action in which each of us tries to look 
     out for himself. The other way is by joint action in which we 
     undertake to look out for each other. The first way is the 
     old way, which has twice taken us to Europe's interminable 
     battlefields within a quarter of a century. The second way is 
     the new way in which our present fraternity of war becomes a 
     new fraternity of peace.

  The issue in sections 501 and 508 and title IV, of H.R. 872 no matter 
how many times it is denied, is do we continue with the 
internationalist perspective, or do we force ourselves into an 
isolationist, ``either do it alone or don't do it at all'' perspective.
  The National Security Revitalization Act is a rash and reactive 
attempt by a Republican congressional majority to supersede 
presidential prerogatives in the conduct of U.S. foreign and defense 
policy. Though aimed at circumscribing President Clinton's authority, 
its unintended consequences will come back to haunt future presidents, 
regardless of their party.
  It is Congress' role to question particular programs and policies of 
the executive branch, and it is imperative that the executive branch 
consult with Congress early and often on national security affairs. But 
the sort of partnership between the executive branch and the Congress 
necessary to the advance of American national interests cannot be based 
on hamstringing Presidential prerogatives.
  Vote ``no'' on H.R. 872.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] a cosponsor of the bill.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, tomorrow we have the opportunity to correct today's 
defense policy problems by passing the National Security Revitalization 
Act. I think it is important that the American people know what is at 
stake here and what the current administration is actually fighting 
against. Very simply, H.R. 7 would prohibit placing our military troops 
under the command or control of a foreign commander without 
presidential or congressional approval.

                              {time}  1540

  The men and women of the largest fighting force in the world do not 
want to have their lives placed in the hand of a foreign commander and 
neither do their families. H.R. 7 would also allow the United States to 
count our military peacekeeping operations as a contribution to the 
United Nations.
  It is just not right for someone in our districts to see their tax 
dollars spent on missions that currently are not allowed to be counted 
as a contribution to the United Nations.
  Quite frankly, we can no longer afford to undertake 13 peacekeeping 
missions with the use of some 48,000 personnel in countries like 
Bosnia, Haiti and Iraq. I must say that many of the people back in 
Tennessee that I represent do not agree with these questionable 
missions our military has been assigned, and they certainly do not 
believe that they should be paying for them.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 would strengthen our NATO alliance by bringing 
the countries of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia into 
the alliance. These countries are working toward democracy, and they 
deserve the opportunity to earn the protections that NATO could afford 
them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this National Security Revitalization 
Act.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
unnecessary, irresponsible and dangerous bill. The Republican defense 
bill is unnecessary because it is based on the false premise that our 
military is ill-prepared. That is an insult to our troops and an 
invitation to would-be aggressors.
  The truth is that we face no national security problem so urgent that 
it cannot be fixed through the much more thoughtful and much more 
bipartisan approach of the authorization process.
  This bill is irresponsible because it completely rewrites our defense 
and foreign policies after just as few brief hearings and only a 
limited amount of debate in this Chamber. What is the rush?
  The only rush is to check off another item on a political scorecard. 
Of all the issues, the national security policy of post-cold-war 
America demands more than that. Most of all, this bill is dangerous 
because it puts a higher priority on a boondoggle in the sky called 
star wars than on our troops on the ground. Star wars is going to cost 
billions of dollars and the people who are going to pay the highest 
price are our men and our women in uniform. The cost of Star Wars is 
going to come out of their training. It is going to come out of their 
salaries and their housing, and it is going to come out of the modern 
weapons that they need to reduce risk in battle.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, the price of the Republican defense bill may very 
well be paid with the lives of our troops. With this bill, the Contract 
With America literally becomes a contract on the men and the women who 
serve in uniform. It does them a disservice.
  Support our troops and vote no on H.R. 7.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on 
command and control. I have the feeling my argument will not change the 
minds here today, but as someone who 
[[Page H1791]] traveled to Somalia four times and sincerely cares about 
what happens there, I would like to provide some information for the 
historic record of this debate.
  Since Somalia seems to be the genesis of the command and control 
issue, it would be helpful to review the events of the tragic loss of 
the 18 U.S. Army Rangers.
  It is my understanding that the U.N. Commander in Somalia was Turkish 
General Bir who was in charge.
  The operational commander was U.S. General Montgomery, who at the 
time reported solely to General Bir.
  The United States combat forces in Somalia were under the command of 
General Garrison who reported to General Hoar, Commander in Chief, U.S. 
Central Command in Miami.
  As the Washington Post brought out in their investigative reporting, 
U.S. General Montgomery assigned to the U.N. command did not encourage 
the assault on the building were Aideed was thought to be on the day 
the casualties occurred.
  The Post reported U.S. unit commanders were saying ``our boys have 
cabin fever''. They want to get out where the action is. The U.S. 
Rangers force carried out this assault at the initiative of, and with 
the approval of the U.S. central command in Miami.
  In no way should we make the U.N. the scapegoat for this tragic 
incident that killed 18 of our fine young men.
  I would also remind Members that a larger number of Pakistani troops 
gave their lives in previous actions. Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, 
Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria and Zimbabwe also lost troops in Somalia.
  But they did not call for withdrawal.
  I was impressed that at the beginning of the Gulf war when President 
Bush talked about a new world order in which the strong must protect 
the weak. Congress also approved similar words.
  If these words are to have any meaning, then I feel our participation 
in peacekeeping and peacemaking is a responsibility the U.S. must bear.
  And, in bearing this responsibility it makes sense to share the 
burden with other countries through the United Nations.
  What are we doing here today is to dismantle the peacekeeping 
capability of the United Nations which has served with distinction for 
50 years.
  Surely, this is not the intention of America.
  I urge the defeat of H.R. 7.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] have 11\3/4\ minutes; the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has 11\1/4\ minutes remaining; 
and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has 16\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, men and women do not join the Armed 
Forces to fight and die for the United Nations. They join to serve 
their own country, the United States. In the past 2 years, the United 
States has been involved in more peacekeeping missions under the U.N. 
flag than ever before. Many of these missions are not in our best 
national interest, they put our men and women in danger and inflate our 
budget. Typically, we contribute 32 percent of the total funds of each 
U.N. operation.
  H.R. 7 would force the President to receive the authorization of 
Congress before a peacekeeping mission and notify them of the 
expenditures. It would also not allow for U.S. troops to be placed 
under U.N. command. Mr. Chairman, we need to maintain our autonomy 
throughout the world. We need to be responsible for securing our 
national interests. H.R. 7 is a positive step toward a positive goal--
keeping our defenses strong. Let us pass H.R. 7.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill might be better known as the National 
Security Retribution Act instead of the National Security 
Revitalization Act.
  It is a travesty of sound defense policy, wasting tens of billions of 
dollars on a revived star wars effort while shorting funds for 
readiness or truly needed procurement.
  This legislation is a travesty of sound budget policy, proposing to 
borrow tens of billions of dollars just after we have passed a balanced 
budget amendment.
  And this legislation is a travesty of sound international security 
policy, undermining START II Treaty ratification and the ABM Treaty, 
while jeopardizing our ongoing efforts to achieve further arms 
limitations.
  But even more fundamental, this legislation is a constitutional 
tragedy, putting a power grab, driven by mindless bumper-sticker 
politics, ahead of the historic and critical authority of the President 
of the United States to manage our foreign relations and to command our 
Nation's Armed Forces.
  If the Democrats had been so unprincipled as to try a stunt like this 
when a Republican was in the White House, the Republicans would have 
been absolutely and rightly outraged. Yet they have no shame in 
perpetrating this today.
  This bill is so deeply flawed that, if adopted, it would deprive this 
President, any President, of his ability to protect and promote our 
national interests. It should be defeated.
  This legislation should better be titled the National Security 
Retribution Act.
  This legislation is a travesty of sound defense policy, wasting tens 
of billions of dollars on a revived star wars effort while shorting 
funds for readiness or truly needed procurement.
  This legislation is a travesty of sound budget policy, proposing to 
borrow tens of billions for star wars when we just passed a balanced 
budget amendment.
  This legislation is a travesty of sound international security 
policy, undermining START II treaty ratification and Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty compliance while jeopardizing our ability to achieve 
further arms limitations agreements.
  But even more fundamental, this legislation is a constitutional 
tragedy, putting a power grab, driven by mindless bumper-sticker 
politics, ahead of historic and critical authority of the President to 
manage the Nation's foreign relations and to command its armed forces. 
If the Democrats had been so unprincipled as to try a stunt like this 
against a Republican President, the Republicans would properly have 
been outraged. Now, they show no shame.
  This measure is deeply flawed and, if adopted, would unwisely deprive 
the President--any President--of the ability and flexibility to protect 
and promote our national interests. Like so much of the Republican's 
Contract With America, this bill would shackle the Government and shred 
the Constitution.
  Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states that the ``President 
shall be Commander in Chief'' of the U.S. Armed Forces. The bill 
ignores the Constitution by placing severe limits on the President's 
ability to carry out his central national security duties. It should be 
defeated for this reason, if no other.
  The bill's prohibition on the placing of U.S. troops under foreign 
command plays to the frustration many citizens feel about increasing 
U.S. participation in United Nations, but it ignores the real world 
requirements of dealing with threats to international security. In most 
of the conflicts we've been involved in since--and even during--the 
Revolution, we have conducted joint military operations with allies, 
and these arrangements have to work in both directions. We can't expect 
to work effectively with our allies without sharing operational control 
in appropriate cases.
  Most recently in Operation Desert Storm, General Swartzkopf placed a 
United States brigade under the operational control of the French, just 
as other allied forces were under the operational control of United 
States forces. By restricting the President's authority to share 
operational command, this bill would have greatly hampered President 
Bush's effort to bring the international community along with us in 
meeting Saddam Hussein's challenge. Members should also be aware that 
right now a United States Army division serves under the U.N. flag in 
Korea under operational control of a South Korean general. If this bill 
passes, this sort of arrangement, and the essential international 
cooperation on security matters it facilitates, would be history.
  A second huge problem is what the bill would do to U.N. peacekeeping 
operations. The bill says we must count against our peacekeeping 
contribution the cost of any separate U.S. military effort pursuant to 
U.N. Security Council resolutions. The costs of these operations--
supporting humanitarian relief and deterring aggression in places like 
Bosnia and 
[[Page H1792]] Iraq--far exceed our annual peacekeeping assessment. So 
this means we would no longer pay any of the peacekeeping costs we have 
agreed by treaty to pay.
  If we take this step, the other nations like France, the United 
Kingdom, and
 Japan, who also make major separate expenditures, would almost 
certainly follow our lead in canceling their peacekeeping payments. And 
U.N. peacekeeping would end. We would then face the option of doing 
nothing in the face of serious threats to international peace and 
security, or going it alone. America would be forced to play global cop 
alone, or nobody would.

  A third flaw in H.R. 7 is its attempt to legislate a timetable for 
new states to obtain membership in NATO. The bill would attempt to take 
away from America's most important national defense alliance the 
ability to decide, through the agreement of the members of the 
alliance, who can and should join the alliance. The legislative 
timetable would also prevent the President from acting through normal 
foreign policy channels to set standards for membership. All this is a 
patently unconstitutional intrusion of Congress into the foreign policy 
jurisdiction of the President. Reformers in countries not named would 
be discouraged, and the governments of those named might become 
complacent. Finally, by bringing NATO up against Russia's borders too 
rapidly the bill could have serious unintentional consequences.
  A final, and significant failing in this bill is its return to a 
crash deployment of a national missile defense. More than $30 billion 
has already been spent on the star wars initiative, and it is estimated 
by the Congressional Budget Office that at least $30 billion more--
probably $50 to $100 billion more--would have to be spent to deploy the 
system. Although star wars is claimed to promise a defense against 
missile attacks for rogue states, it could be outflanked by an enemy 
using any number of alternative delivery systems. The massive cost 
would divert scarce defense dollars and other resources from more 
pressing needs such as a theater-missile defense or military-readiness 
programs. And both the bill and votes in committee, make it clear the 
Republicans are willing to be cavalier about violations of the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty in their rush to test and deploy such a 
system. That attitude would surely be the undoing of START II, and 
other pending efforts to restrain weapons of mass destruction.
  The National Security Revitalization Act is a hastily constructed 
attempt to legislate a change in our national security strategy. Rather 
than revitalize U.S. national security, it would undermine it. If 
enacted, this bill will politicize national security and destroy the 
Presidency's ability to make effective foreign policy decisions. If the 
United States is to remain a leader on the world stage, Congress must 
continue to allow the President--every President--the constitutionally 
mandated authority in deciding how to deploy American forces, manage 
alliances, and set strategic priorities.
  This bill goes in precisely the wrong direction on almost all counts. 
It deserves defeat.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, has, on this 
date, received a letter from five former members of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. In their correspondence they state, and I quote, ``This 
legislation will impose onerous and unnecessary restrictions on the 
President's ability to place U.S. forces under the operational control 
of the Nation's military leaders for U.N. operations.''
  It continues, ``Throughout our history, presidents have found it 
advantageous and prudent for forces to participate in coalition 
operations. During the Gulf War, Korea, and during 50 years of the NATO 
alliance and in multilateral peacekeeping operations, our armed forces 
have successfully worked side by side with those of other nations.''

                              {time}  1550

  The letter concludes ``Mr. Chairman, this would force the 
administration to choose between acting unilaterally and doing nothing. 
Accordingly, we urge rejection of the restrictions on the President's 
command and control,'' and his military authority, in this legislation. 
It is signed by David C. Jones, General, U.S. Air Force; David E. 
Jeremiah, U.S. Navy; Glen Otis, General, U.S. Army; W.E. Boomer, 
General, U.S. Marine Corps; B.E. Trainor, Lieutenant General, U.S. 
Marine Corps.
  For the Record, Mr. Chairman, I include this letter in its entirety:

                                                February 15, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: As retired flag and general officers, we 
     are writing to express our serious reservations about HR 872, 
     which is now under consideration by the House of 
     Representatives. We are especially concerned about provisions 
     in the bill that would impose onerous and unnecessary 
     restrictions on the President's ability to place U.S. forces 
     under the operational control of other nations' military 
     leaders for UN operations.
       As you know, throughout our nation's history Presidents 
     have found it advantageous and prudent for U.S. military 
     forces to participate in coalition operations. During the 
     Gulf War, in the U.S.-led UN operation in Korea, throughout 
     the nearly 50 years of the NATO alliance, and in multilateral 
     peacekeeping operations, our armed forces have successfully 
     worked side-by-side with those of other nations to advance 
     our national security.
       In the post-Cold War world, it will remain essential that 
     the President retain the authority to establish command 
     arrangements best suited to the needs of future operations. 
     As commander-in-chief, he will never relinquish command of 
     U.S. military forces. However, from time to time it will be 
     necessary and appropriate to temporarily subordinate elements 
     of our forces to the operational control of competent 
     commanders from allied or other foreign countries. As retired 
     military officers, we can personally attest that it is 
     essential to the effective operation of future coalitions 
     that the President retain this authority. Just as we will 
     frequently have foreign forces serving under the operational 
     control of American commanders, so must we be able to 
     negotiate reciprocal arrangements freely.
       HR 872 would place unprecedented and, in our view, 
     burdensome limitations on this authority. By narrowing the 
     President's options and complicating the process of building 
     a coalition during a crisis, the bill could, in effect, force 
     the Administration to choose between acting unilaterally and 
     doing nothing. Accordingly, we urge rejection of the 
     restrictions on the President's command and control authority 
     contained in this portion of HR 872 as unnecessary, unwise, 
     and militarily unsound.
     David C. Jones,
                                      General, US Air Force (Ret).
     David E. Jeremiah,
                                           Admiral, US Navy (Ret).
     Glenn K. Otis,
                                           General, US Army (Ret).
     W.E. Boomer,
                                              General, USMC (Ret).
     B.E. Trainor,
                                                LtGen, USMC (Ret).

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
  (Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, under the current administration, the defense of this 
country has declined greatly. Defense spending has been dramatically 
reduced to its lowest level since World War II and modernization 
programs cut to a 45-year low. These defense cuts have put our military 
forces at their lowest levels of readiness in over a decade, cut 15,000 
reserve and civilian personnel every month and in addition, 1.2 million 
defense-related private sector jobs will be eliminated. These cuts will 
be used to fund wasteful social programs. The Republican Congress plans 
to change all that.
  Our Nation's security must not be neglected as it has been the past 2 
years. Americans should have faith that their Armed Forces are ready 
and equipped with the most modern defense systems. We need to keep our 
promise to the American people. We need to keep our defenses strong. We 
need to maintain our credibility around the world. We need to pass this 
bill.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague who just 
preceded me in the well.
  Mr. Chairman, with the end of the cold war, with the demise of the 
Warsaw Pact and the evisceration of the Soviet Union, what drove 70 
percent of the budget is now no longer a major threat. Yet, in fiscal 
year 1996 we are contemplating spending 75 percent of what we spent in 
1990.
  Stated a different way, Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 1996 we will be 
spending almost as much as the entire world military budget combined in 
1 year. If we add what we spend, what our allies in Asia and Europe 
spend, we will be spending in excess of 80 percent of the world's 
military budget allocation, so even those persons who potentially could 
be adversaries to us are spending less than 20 percent of their 
dollars. Where is the threat? To talk about some weak nation, we are 
the No. 1 superpower in the world with the greatest military capability 
in the 
[[Page H1793]] world, with the greatest readiness in the world, and we 
are spending exorbitant amounts of money on our military budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, title I of this bill professes alarm at the downward 
spiral of defense spending. It raises the specter of hollow forces. 
However, when we turn to title II of the bill, to see what it would do, 
we find what it wants to do is sink billions of dollars into a new 
national defense missile defense system.
  Mr. Chairman, one sure way of fulfilling the dire prophecies in title 
I, the preamble of this bill, is to sink huge sums into a national 
defense, system especially if it deploys space-based interceptors at 
the earliest practical date.
  That is why, when the bill comes up for amendment, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and I 
will offer three related amendments.
  We support a strong defense. I support and believe in ballistic 
missile defense. However, I first want to make sure that our forces, 
although downsized smaller, are ready to fight. I want to make sure 
that the equipment they fight with is second to none. I want to ensure 
quality of life to our troops and their families.
  Mr. Chairman, we offer these three amendments, because if title II 
becomes law without them, it could be taken to mean that deployment of 
a national missile defense system made up of space-based interceptors, 
such a system could easily cost $25 billion, and that $25 billion can 
only be funded at the expense of other priorities, like readiness and 
theater missile defense.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to make sure that a national missile 
defense system is not put ahead of other priorities. I do not mean to 
preclude it, I simply mean to put it in its right order. My amendment 
will require that readiness and modernization should be funded first 
and should take priority over national missile defense; second, that 
theater missile defense should take priority over national missile 
defense, because it deals with a threat here and now; third and 
finally, that any national missile defense system should start with a 
ground-based system and not a space-based interceptor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has a 
disproportionate amount of time remaining. The Chair would ask if the 
gentleman would like to yield some time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 7. The President 
has charged this bill will unfairly inhibit the country's ability to 
respond to international crises, that it will hamper his constitutional 
responsibility. However, I am not aware of any clause in the 
Constitution that states that when the U.N. decides that peacekeeping 
troops are needed, that it is America that responds. We are not the 
world's 911 emergency hotline.
  Unfortunately, the President has bought into this thinking at grave 
expense. U.S. troops should not be placed under foreign command. We are 
not at war. U.S. taxpayers should not be expected to keep paying more 
than our fair share of U.N. peacekeeping expenses. This bill takes a 
huge step in curtailing both those misguided policies.
  Passage of the National Security Revitalization Act is a good step 
toward redefining our relationship with the United Nations, redirecting 
precious U.S. tax dollars toward legitimate national security concerns, 
and regaining the confidence of the American people. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on H.R. 7.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  (Mr. QUINN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 7, I rise today in 
strong support of its provision to urge the United States to do 
everything possible to help Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
other Eastern European nations, become members of NATO.
  I think it is important to remember NATO's history while considering 
this necessary resolution. On April 4, 1949, 10 European governments, 
the United States, and Canada signed the North Atlantic Treaty, 
creating NATO. The Organization was established to deter potential 
Soviet aggression in Europe and to provide for the collective self-
defense of the alliance.
  It is widely recognized that East Central European Nations, 
particularly Poland, have often been caught between a hammer and an 
anvil. This was seen not only in the historic expansion of the former 
Prussian, Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires, but also during World 
War II when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union divided the nations 
between themselves. More recently, Russia's actions in Chechnya, and 
its prior reluctance in withdrawing from the Baltic States, show the 
need for NATO's expansion.
  The inclusion of Eastern European Countries in NATO is a crucial step 
toward creating stability in an important region of the world. Further, 
it will provide the emerging democracies of those Eastern European 
countries with an opportunity to flourish.
  NATO was a stabilizing influence on Western Europe during the cold 
war. The expansion of NATO to include Eastern European nations will 
provide the same stabilizing influence during the post cold war era.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 7's 
provision to help Poland, Hungary, and other Eastern European nations 
gain membership in NATO, while cooperating closely with Russia.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], a new member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 7.
  First, let me commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], for his leadership during the International 
Relations Committee's leadership during the International Relations 
Committee's consideration of H.R. 7. Our committee put considerable 
effort into the crafting of this legislation and I believe we've 
produced a sensible, responsible and much-needed effort to strengthen 
our national defense and set a clear, new national security policy.
  The America people have grave concerns about both the Clinton 
administration's weakening of our military and its haphazard foreign 
policy. The National Security Revitalization Act seeks to reverse the 
dangerous trend of the last two years and refocuses U.S. defense and 
foreign policy priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, when we pass H.R. 7, we will be keeping another promise 
we made to the American people. And it will serve as further notice 
that this Congress is serious about revitalizing and strengthening U.S. 
security policy.
  I urge support of H.R. 7.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLIS. Mr. Chairman, what we are about today is at the very 
heart of the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years--our Nation's 
defense.
  I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that our military has been cut too 
deeply and too quickly. With U.S. troops being deployed more often and 
to more locations, it is wrong to expect our military men and women to 
do more with less.
  In September, 1993, the administration released its recommendations 
within the Bottom-Up Review and called for cuts of an additional 10 
percent from the defense budget. I question the conclusions of the 
Bottom-Up Review based on inconsistencies between the administration's 
strategy, recommended force structure, and projected budgets. The 
discrepancies have become increasingly evident as readiness problems 
mount and as reports come in from military leaders in the field.
  [[Page H1794]] It is time to call this administration to task for its 
inadequate efforts to provide for this Nation's defense. Support H.R. 
7, support the creation of a review commission, and send a message to 
the White House.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a Democrat who has worked very 
hard for the last 4 years to balance the budget and continue to make 
that one of my highest priorities in this body. So oftentimes over the 
last 4 years, balancing the budget has been like trying to take a sip 
out of a fire hydrant, you are pushed back every time you think you are 
making some progress.
  We have made some progress in the last month. We have passed a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget and a line-item veto, 
both of which I have voted for. But H.R. 7 firmly plants down now 
additional fire hydrants, opening the gates to spend more money that we 
do not have and spends this money in ways which is not in the best 
interests of the taxpayer nor in the best interests of our national 
defense.
  Title II of this bill, the strategic defense initiative says, ``It 
shall be the policy of the United States to deploy at the earliest 
practicable date.'' Not evaluate, not analyze, deploy and spend the 
money. That is $29 to $30 billion, $10 billion more than we currently 
have in this bill. Where are we getting that $10 billion? Where did it 
say in the Contract for America to spend $10 billion that you did not 
have?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I will not yield at this time.
  Second, title VI of the bill says that we want to expand NATO to the 
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, provide additional economic 
support assistance, nonproliferation and disarmament assistance. Where 
does it say that in the Contract for America, to increase foreign 
assistance?
  You have some good provisions in here that I might be able to 
support. But if we are going to work on a balanced budget amendment, if 
we are going to work to take away the fire hydrants of spending more 
and more money in this place, H.R. 7 is not moving us in that 
direction.
  Let it be clear to Members on both sides of this aisle, this says we 
are going to spend the money.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, the folks from the other side of the aisle 
always knew we were different. But they could always put up with it 
because we could not do anything about it.
  The difference in this debate and previous years is that we think our 
defense policy needs direction, and we think it needs a new direction. 
Let me tell you why we think it needs direction.
  Let me quote from the President's speech of January 25, 1994.
  He said, ``The budget I send to Congress draws the line against 
further defense cuts. It protects the readiness and quality of forces. 
We must not cut defense further.''
  Republicans on this side of the aisle stood and applauded that night. 
Now, just 12 short months later, Congress received the President's 
proposed budget which seeks to cut defense spending by 5.3 percent, to 
the lowest level since 1950.
  At the core of the Clinton national security strategy is a policy 
which is in conflict with itself. That is why we need to set a new 
direction.
  On the one hand, the President has ordered our military engaged in 
more peacekeeping missions around the world than any other President in 
history. On the other hand, he has cut defense spending to the historic 
and dangerous low.
  We need to take care of our armed services, we need to take care of 
our people, we need to provide for the national security of our 
country. We note that a 12.8-percent gap exists between military pay 
and comparable civilian pay. We note that last year the Clinton 
administration did not request a military pay raise. We note that it is 
estimated that 17,000 junior enlisted personnel have to rely on food 
stamps.
  How can we provide for the defense of our country and our national 
security with facts like those emerging?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us cut through all of 
the rhetoric we have heard here today. Why is H.R. 7 before us in this 
body today? Is it only because of Republicans?
  I think back to last summer when this bill was first drafted. It was 
not drafted in January of this year. It was drafted because Members of 
both sides of the aisle said the President made a fundamental mistake. 
He cut defense spending by $128 billion over 5 years which Democrats 
and Republicans alike acknowledged was not achievable, and we said we 
had to do something about that. In fact, here we are today with the 
General Accounting Office saying we are $150 billion short over 5 
years, the Congressional Budget Office saying we are $67 billion short 
over 5 years and our good colleague and friend Ike Skelton saying we 
are $44 billion short over 5 years.
  That is why we empower a commission. Because the leadership does not 
know what shortcomings we have in terms of spending. No one can agree. 
So we have to have an independent assessment look at that.
  The President was wrong in the cuts that he made. While cutting our 
defense spending over 5 years by 25 percent, he has increased 
nondefense spending in the defense budget by 361 percent. Can you 
believe that? The biggest increase in defense spending are non-defense 
items. We could go through as our good friend suggested just a moment 
ago who would not yield to me, our good friend from Indiana, we could 
certainly free up $2 billion to $3 billion a year more just by cutting 
the waste and the garbage out of the defense bill without adding one 
dime more money in, and that is where we want to start.
  This President also made a fundamental mistake when he abandoned 
national missile defense. He is shortchanging the American people. They 
think they are being protected from some kind of a rogue missile 
attack. They are not. There is no protection.
  Lest we misstate what has been said here, no one on our side is 
talking about star wars. Our colleagues on the minority regret the 
labeling that is occurring. I am announcing today as we go through this 
debate, I am donating $1 to the Science Fiction Writers Foundation for 
every time our colleagues on this side mention the term ``star wars.'' 
It has nothing to do with this debate.
  We are talking about deploying a program that Secretary Perry has 
said he could deploy over 5 years at a cost not to exceed $5 billion. 
It is deployable and even the Secretary's own tiger term recommended to 
him last week that it is doable. It will provide a layer of defense 
that we do not now have for the entire Nation. We think we should move 
forward on that.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is not and should not be a partisan debate. 
This debate should be bipartisan as it was in the committee. Because 
the reasons why this bill is before us, the reasons are that Members of 
both sides feel that this administration has been shortchanging our 
military, has been shortchanging our national defense in terms of 
missile defense, has been shortchanging us in terms of an isolationist 
defense budget trying to fund an internationalist foreign policy. It 
just does not work.
  I urge passage of H.R. 7.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, America just cannot afford H.R. 7 and it certainly 
cannot afford star wars 2. Star wars 2 sounds like a movie sequel but 
unfortunately 
[[Page H1795]] it is a living nightmare. This is a program----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Can the gentlewoman point to me where in 
H.R. 7 the term star wars is?
  Ms. FURSE. Reclaiming my time. This program, this star wars program 
really makes me go ballistic. It is the biggest waste of taxpayers' 
money around. We have already spent $30 billion and we have nothing to 
show for it. What is even worse is, we are not the least bit safe with 
it, nor safer than we were.
  I am sure that all the new Members who put themselves out as security 
experts would like to tell us why they need star wars.

                              {time}  1610

  But I want to tell you what a real expert has said. Former CIA 
Director William Colby said, ``The most likely way a nuclear warhead 
will enter the United States in the next 10 to 20 years is in the hold 
of a tramp freighter.''
  Instead of wasting billions that the SDI will require, some tough 
augmentation of antiterrorist intelligence would be a much more direct 
defense.
  Mr. Chairman, throwing money at star wars is like putting 10 locks on 
the front door when the back door is left open.
  Now, if we honestly want to revitalize national security, let us look 
at some places where we could make our own armed services feel more 
secure. We could pay them a living wage, for one thing, keep them off 
food stamps. We could live up to the contract that we signed with our 
veterans. We could live up to that contract. We could invest in things 
like college loans; 6\1/2\ million students would invest back into this 
country, make it more secure economically.
  Star wars, star wars is a bill of goods. It is a bill of goods I am 
not willing to pass on to the American people.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Leach], a distinguished member of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that while rooted in a quasi-
party platform, the contract, the issues in this bill must not be 
considered partisan. There is a great Republican as well as Democratic 
tradition of internatinalism.
  As a Republican I would stress that my party should take great care 
not to weaken the Presidency just because we have a weak President; not 
to eviscerate the United Nations just because of one or another 
mistaken U.N. policies; and above all, not ignore the Constitution's 
separation of power doctrine just because we now control the 
legislature.
  For three quarters of a century, the United States has exercised 
preeminent world leadership in cooperative efforts to build a civilized 
international policy based on the rule of law. American leadership 
conceived the League of Nations to replace a shattered European 
balance-of-power system after World War I. American leadership was 
crucial to the establishment of the United Nations system in the 
aftermath of World War II.
  Yet there is an ambivalence, if not tension, in the American psyche 
between isolationism and internationalism, between hubristic go-it-
alone-ism and the sharing of global responsibilities. Thus an 
isolationist America rejected the League in the 1920s. And in this bill 
this Congress is contemplating the placement of profound roadblocks in 
multilateral peacekeeping.
  Conservatives, in particular, should support the United Nations 
because it implies burdensharing in security relations as well as 
development activities, thus shielding the United States from 
disproportionately being accountable for global woes.
  At issue with the philosophical debate covering this bill is whether 
we want to be the policemen for the world or the leading member of an 
international highway patrol. The second option is more realistic and, 
I might add, cheaper.
  In America today there should be no dominant place in either party 
for self-centered isolationism. With a sense of sadness, I accordingly 
urge the defeat of this legislative vehicle, which not only hamstrings 
the constitutional prerogatives of the Presidency, but undercuts 
serious prospects of expanding the rule of law.
  In any regard, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman 
Gilman for his efforts to ameliorate some of the extraordinary counter-
productivity of earlier drafts of this bill, and to accommodate some of 
this Member's concerns.
  For example, I am appreciative that the Chairman was willing to 
accept this Member's modest suggestion that the findings section of the 
bill underscore that credible and effective collective security 
mechanisms are profoundly in the national interest of the United 
States. After all, the principle of collective security has been a 
linchpin of the U.S. national security policy of every administration 
since 1945.
  Nevertheless, I would stress as strongly as I can that the 
legislation in its current form is in sharp contrast to the 
philosophical precepts that shape this Member's view of responsible 
internationalism and the conduct of American foreign policy.
  There should be no misunderstanding. The intent of this bill is to 
constrain U.S. involvement in multilateral military operations under 
U.N. auspices. The effect of this bill, if left substantially 
unamended, is to diminish U.S. leadership in the U.N. and elsewhere and 
force Presidents in emergency settings to either do nothing or rely 
exclusively on unilateral actions.
  Let me just summarize my major disagreements with this bill:
  It unnecessarily returns the United States to rapid development and 
deployment of a costly strategic missile defense system that is not 
justified by any exigent national security threat and in so doing, 
gives a false impression that the nuclear beast can be constrained by 
one technique of defending against one kind of delivery system;
  It would cripple, if not destroy, financing for U.N. peacekeeping 
operations, thus having the effect of requiring the United States 
either to adopt an isolationist posture of doing nothing or bearing a 
singular unilateral burden of maintaining international peace and 
security;
  It would impose unprecedented, unconstitutional, unnecessary and 
capricious restrictions on the office of the presidency and the 
President's authority to place U.S. troops under the operational 
control of another country--even a NATO ally--for U.N. operations; and
  By mistaking belligerent naysaying for genuine leadership and U.N. 
reform it risks repudiating our own heritage, undercutting our own 
self-interest, and tragically rending a half-century of bipartisan 
consensus that has sustained a generally successful and effective U.S. 
approach to multilateral diplomacy.
  While the United States and other nations have increasingly turned to 
multilateral institutions to deal with certain of the most intractable 
problems of our time, the resulting costs and occasional policy 
failures--such as Somalia--have renewed doubts at home and abroad about 
the future of the United Nations.
  While we may not like all that the United Nations or its individual 
members do, we no longer have the capacity, even if we so desired, to 
successfully go it alone. The manifest limits of American power and the 
contrasting global reach of American interests; they make U.S. 
leadership in an effective United Nations essential.
  The realist critique of the American tradition of responsible 
internationalism--the suggestion that multilateral diplomacy is doomed 
to failure, that the United Nations is not a viable global body--offers 
a profoundly unrealistic prescription for the advancement of American 
interests. Members must understand that for the United States to 
default leadership in the world's principal arena of multilateral 
diplomacy amounts to nothing less than strategic retreat.
  In the twilight of the 20th century nothing is more naive than to 
suggest that the U.S. national interest should rely on the advancement 
of a narrow, nationalistic foreign policy that shuns cooperative 
problem solving, pooh-poohs peaceful resolution of disputes, pillories 
attempts at political and economic institution-building and scorns 
collective enforcement of the peace based on the rule of law.
  With the health of the American and world economy dependent on open 
markets and free trade, with the potential proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction, and with ethnic, religious, and racial divisions 
rising in the geographic cockpits of historical conflict, U.S. national 
purpose cannot afford to be diverted by uncertain leadership or 
ideological posturing.
  An unbridled nationalist might contend that expanding international 
law and building international institutions of conflict resolution is 
unacceptable because it implies the ceding of slivers of sovereignty by 
nation-states. Yet the 
[[Page H1796]] reverse--the refusal to allow law to be established with 
third-party arbitration and enforcement--entails jeopardizing that very 
sovereignty because of the greater likelihood that disputes will be 
resolved only through force. Just as peoples within nation-states have 
come to understand the need for laws that impinge on individual 
discretion so that basic liberties can be better safeguarded, 
governments the world over must come to accept an obligation on behalf 
of their citizens to accelerate rather than retard the development of 
civilizing institutions of international polity.
  This is not to suggest that the United Nations has an unblemished 
track record, or that criticism of the world body and its individual 
members should be stifled.
  Yet the U.N. system is more than bricks and mortar in New York, more 
than General Assembly debate and Secretariat bureaucracy-building. The 
United Nations is a system based on the assumption that states and 
peoples can work together to solve transnational problems. In one 
sense, the United Nations symbolizes as much an idea and ideal as a 
structure. Nevertheless, institutional arrangements are the crux of 
governance, and just as shortcomings abound within the system, U.N. 
institutional achievements stand out.
  There is a profound debate in this country and abroad about the 
nature of the unfolding post-cold-war world: Will it be hallmarked by a 
strengthening of the bonds of international society or a disintegration 
of those bonds within and between nation-states? Will forces of 
localism, nationalism and regionalism abet or curb trends in favor of 
an international society sharing common values? While the two great 
``isms'' of hate of the century--fascism and communism--have been 
defeated, a civilized international polity still begs establishment.
  Any neutral assessment of the United Nations to date must record the 
impressive strides that have been taken toward the development of a 
framework in which international law is advanced and global problems 
are addressed.
  Writing in 1950, the theologian Reinhold Neibuhr noted that the price 
of our survival was the ability to give leadership to the free world. 
Today, the price of the prosperity of the free world still depends on 
the willingness and ability of the United States to lead. No other 
society has the capacity or inclination to light freedom's lamp in 
quite the same way; is any other as capable of combining self-interest 
with a genuine historically-rooted concern for others. For the United 
States to deny its transnational responsibilities and thwart the 
development of internationalist approaches to problem-solving is to 
jeopardize a future of peace and prosperity for the planet.
  In a country in which process is our most important product, the 
challenge is to lead in expanding international law, economic as well 
as political, to advance new approaches to conflict resolution and to 
help institutionalize a civil international society capable of 
peacefully managing change in such a way that all countries derive 
benefit.
  Never in the course of human events has it been more important for 
individuals in public life to appeal to the highest rather than the 
lowest instincts of the body politic. Whether the issues be social or 
economic, domestic or international, the temptation to appeal to the 
darker side of human nature must be avoided. The stakes are too high. 
When it comes to national security the realist is always right to 
prepare for the worst, but a policy rooted in cynicism too easily leads 
to nihilism. With morality anchored in faith, man's destiny must be 
understood to be in man's hands. The implicit duty of public officials 
is to inspire hope rather than to manipulate fear. The health of 
nations is directly related to the temperance of statecraft.
  In the final measure the debate surrounding this bill involves issues 
of vision, of internationalism, of leadership. This Congress has an 
obligation, above all else, to understand the past and prepare for the 
future. This legislation fails on both counts.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, one of the prime functions of the Federal 
Government of the United States is to maintain a strong national 
defense. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise to voice my 
wholehearted support for this measure.
  Passage of H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act, is a 
vital step toward maintaining our Nation's military status in the 
world. Its passage will assure that U.S. troops are only deployed to 
support missions in the United States national security interests. It 
also would reinvigorate the national missile defense system, and ensure 
that there be no threat to our military readiness as we move toward the 
next century.
  U.S. defense spending--as a percentage of GDP--is at its lowest since 
the end of World War II. Despite severe personnel reductions and 
shortfalls in funding, U.S. troops are being deployed more often and 
are taking part in more operations than ever before. This legislation 
will ensure that our forces will be deployed under American command and 
not under the flag of the United Nations or any other political entity.
  We have the finest and most professional military force in the world, 
and our country's security depends on their readiness. However, study 
after study is beginning to describe our forces as ``hollow''. 
Enactment of this measure is a good first step toward restoring our 
national defense back to its proper levels.
  As I went door-to-door in Oklahoma's Sixth District last fall, I 
heard at every corner concerns about this Administration's defense 
policies. I am sure most of my colleagues heard the same thoughts. I 
would urge my colleagues to heed their calls for passage of this 
measure.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National 
Security Revitalization Act.
  This bill is an important first step in the Congress reasserting its 
constitutional prerogative to control the Nation's purse.
  Currently, the American taxpayer is footing over half of the United 
Nations peacekeeping bill. Last year alone, the American taxpayer paid 
$2.9 billion to U.N. peacekeeping--$1.2 billion in direct payments, and 
$1.7 billion in donations through the Defense Department.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The United States can no longer 
afford to be so generous. We want, and demand more equitable 
burdensharing at the United Nations. This bill does just that, and I 
applaud my colleagues, Mr. Spence, and Mr. Gilman, for their leadership 
on this important issue. But, we must go further.
  Some people believe peacekeeping is an entitlement, and are treating 
it as such. The administration obligates us to a new mission, and sends 
the Congress the bill, with no concern over whether the funding is 
available.
  Just last week, at the same time the United States was voting for yet 
another peacekeeping mission, the administration requested that 
Congress provide a $672 million emergency supplemental for U.N. 
peacekeeping, without any offsets, because it had run out of money.
  Well, peacekeeping is not an entitlement. Peacekeeping, like any 
other program, must be based on the availability of funds to pay for 
the program. If the Congress has not already provided funds for the 
mission, please understand that there can be no assurance that the 
United States will be able to pay the bill.
  In 1945, the Congress passed the U.N. Participation Act on the 
understanding that we would be a full partner in financing decisions 
for the United Nations, as our Constitution provides.
  This bill represents an important first step in Congress exercising 
its constitutional prerogative to control the Nation's purse. And, I 
can assure my colleagues, that, as the subcommittee chairman 
responsible for U.N. peacekeeping assessments, we will not treat 
peacekeeping as an entitlement. And, we will continue to exercise our 
power over the purse as we proceed with the difficult task of matching 
domestic and international priorities with shrinking budgetary 
resources.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to emphasize the point that H.R. 7 undercuts the President's 
authority to conduct foreign policy, undercuts his ability as Commander 
in Chief.
  Trying to micromanage command-and-control policies as we do in this 
bill is a bad idea whether it is under a Democrat President or a 
Republican President. This bill, for example, requires an act of 
Congress before the President can send a single military observer to 
join a U.N. force, and the Congress has never, ever authorized a U.N. 
peacekeeping mission. The bill dictates the terms and conditions for 
U.S. military command and control.
  We try to tell the United States military in this bill how to do 
their job, 
[[Page H1797]] and that is why the flag and general officers that the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] cited a moment ago say that 
H.R. 872 is unnecessary, unwise, and militarily unsound.
  Now, we ought not to try to substitute our judgment about military 
command and write the details into this bill. That is a very unwise 
thing to do. It is one thing to criticize the policy of the U.S. 
Government on foreign policies. We all do that. We should do it. It is 
part of our responsibility.
  But it is quite another thing to enact into law constraints, 
restrictions on the President of the United States to act as Commander 
in Chief, and that is what we are doing here. Under sections 401 and 
402, it prohibits any U.S. troops from serving under U.N. command, even 
if the U.N. commander is an American, without prior congressional 
approval. We have got to give them congressional approval before a 
President can move one soldier into U.N. peacekeeping.
  If this were in effect, we would have to pull out our people from 
Korea, from the Western Sahara, from Georgia, from Kuwait, from 
Jerusalem. We would have said President Bush could not carry out Desert 
Storm and Desert Shield. I think we are right about that, because one 
of the things that happened there is we had the 82d Airborne Brigade 
which served under French command. That is a judgment our military 
commanders in the field and in Washington made was in our national 
interest to let that happen.
  Now, I do not know, militarily, whether that was the right or the 
wrong decision. But the point is let us not restrict our commanders to 
the point where they do not have these options. I think this bill 
greatly constrains and restrains the President in the exercise of 
Commander in Chief powers.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].
  (Mr. LONGLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, when this administration took 
office, they commissioned a study of the military and our defense needs 
from the bottom up. The Bottom-Up Review sought to identify 
specifically the objectives that the administration wanted to protect 
this country against in order that we might have an adequate defense 
strategy.
  Now, 2 years later. Independent studies are showing that that 
strategy has been unfunded to the tune of anywhere between $65 and $150 
billion over the prospective budgets.
  At the same time, we were just presented with a defense budget which, 
for the 11th consecutive year, presented real cuts in defense spending, 
or $10.6 billion below the current year's fiscal authorization.
  That is a real cut in defense spending of almost 40 percent over the 
last 10 years, at the very same time that vital installations and 
programs are being threatened because of drastic underfunding. This 
administration has committed at the end of the last year over 70,000 
U.S. personnel in places like Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Macedonia, the 
Adriatic Sea, Rwanda, Haiti, Cuba; and if the press is to be believed, 
shortly we will have Americans back on a temporary mission in Somalia.
  Mr. President, you cannot have it both ways. If there is a deep 
concern about defense, let us see that it is adequately funded, and if 
it is not going to be adequately funded, then let us not send American 
forces hither and yon all over the world. One way or the other, our 
defense spending and our needs should be consistent with our resources, 
or our resources need to be consistent with our commitment. You cannot 
have one without the other.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to admonish any Member to keep 
from making statements instructing the President or making similar 
references to the President.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is in fact a very strange debate, and I can fully 
understand why 62 percent of the American people did not bother to vote 
in November and why millions and millions of Americans have so little 
respect for this situation.
  Mr. Chairman, as we discuss today spending ten's and ten's of billion 
dollars more on star wars and other military gadgetry, there are 
congressional leaders in this building today who are talking about 
major cutbacks in nutritional programs for hungry children, who are 
talking about cutbacks in Medicare for the elderly, in Medicaid for the 
sick, who are talking about cutbacks in veterans programs.
  I sincerely hope that my friends who are proposing billions more for 
star wars tell the veterans of this country why they want to cut back 
on their programs so that the quality of service in the VA hospitals 
will deteriorate. Have the courage, get up here and tell the parents of 
kids who are attending the Head Start Program that we do not have 
enough money for them but we have more money for military spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a startling revelation to make which will 
clearly change the nature of this debate. I am hereby announcing to my 
friends who have not yet heard about it, the cold war is over. I know 
you did not know that. The Soviet Union does not exist. China is now 
our trading ally.
  Mr. Chairman, we are now spending 17 times more than all of our 
enemies--so called enemies--combined. Enough is enough. Let us defeat 
this bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an old adage that politics stops at the 
border. My colleagues, we would all be wise to remember that adage at 
this time. Do not consider this bill as a Republican bill or as a 
Democrat bill, but as an American bill.
  This bill, in a dramatic and fundamental way, affects American 
independence and liberty. It puts a stop to the U.N. commanding 
America's fighting men and women.
  Recently, some of our leaders have been lost, they have abandoned the 
lessons of our past and allegiance to our traditions, and they have 
forgotten or ignored America's chosen role as freedom's leader in this 
world. Instead they have made America a follower, much like a dog 
following its master, always loyal to every whim and command. So have 
our leaders abandoned our independence and answered the call and the 
demands of the United Nations, an organization unsuited to military 
command and unable to take a firm position of principle.
  Mr. Chairman, America's pride and tradition demand we assert our 
independence. America's fallen heroes demand that America no longer 
serve the whims of foreign tyrannies and dictators. America's destiny 
to lead must never be compromised.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a reality check that needs to occur. The 
original draft to the bill included, frankly, NATO; could not operate 
American forces under anybody else's command. But then they figured 
NATO could cause us some trouble, so they restricted it to United 
Nations. The U.N., where the United States has veto power, where the 
United States designs most of the major actions of the last 4 decades, 
and where today American soldiers operate under General Chang. When 
General Luck is out of the country, American soldiers operating in the 
Korean Peninsula are under the control operationally of a non-American. 
You had better come forward and offer an amendment to exempt Korea, or 
else, if this becomes law, you will find yourself in the position of 
undercutting our military security on the Korean Peninsula.
  If you read the language as you have drafted it from line 9 on page 
34 to line 
[[Page H1798]] 5 on page 36, it clearly states that if the American 
soldiers are not controlled in every way by American commanders, it is 
illegal under this act. This act, if it becomes law, is not simply a 
statement of principles, it says the United States could no longer 
operate the way we have operated since the Truman administration on the 
peninsula of Korea.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a senior member of our 
committee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong 
support for H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act. The facts 
and figures set forth in the legislative findings to H.R. 872 make it 
clear that the United States may well be on its way back to the hollow 
forces of the 1970's. But this is not the whole story. Even as we have 
committed less to the national defense, we have spent more and more of 
these precious resources on operations which are at best peripheral to 
the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces. During the first 100 days of this 
Congress we can change this course and put America back on the road to 
peace through strength--the successful strategy of the Reagan years, 
which made the world both more peaceful and more free.
  Mr. Chairman, we need the things this bill will provide and 
encourages. We need to seriously pursue an anti-ballistic missile 
system, which is not only more practical but also more moral than a 
system of mutual assured destruction. Most Americans are woefully 
unaware of the fact that we have no defense against incoming missile 
attacks. We need to adapt NATO, which Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has 
described as the most successful collective security arrangement in 
modern history, to provide for the security of European nations which 
are newly free. We need a relationship with the United Nations that 
allows that organization to do the things it does best while also 
preserving the sovereignty and effectiveness of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing in this world is perfect. Many Americans would 
say that things designed by Congress are even more imperfect than other 
things. Members of the International Relations Committee, including 
this member, made suggestions for improving this bill. Our 
distinguished Chairman, Ben Gilman and members of the Committee staff 
encouraged these suggestions and worked hard to accommodate them. We 
amended the bill to meet many of the objections that are now being 
reiterated on the floor. Mr. Chairman, the National Security 
Revitalization Act as amended will go a long way toward the restoration 
of a strong America. This, in turn, will make for a safer and freer 
world. I hope we can move quickly to final enactment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], our top gun on the committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, why do many of us object to the 
stringent control of our forces under the U.N.? First of all, I take a 
look at Bosnia. We have men and women committed to war, and committed 
and executed that war, and the President of the United States, the 
Secretary of Defense, and the Vice President did not know that we had 
troops at war until after the fact. That was in Bosnia, and that is a 
fact.
  Second, in Somalia. I resent the gentleman that suggested and 
characterized our rangers as just wanting to get into action in 
Somalia. A democratic majority extended Somalia. That cost us billions 
of dollars. The administration changed that policy from humanitarian to 
go after Aideed. That was wrong. The administration then reduced our 
troops levels, making us very vulnerable. That was wrong.
  Three times the commanders asked for help. Why? For armored help. 
Because on two different occasions we had our troops captured, and cut 
and quartered, and their quartered bodies drug through the streets of 
Somalia. That was wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, we had 100 rangers pinned down, that it took us 7 hours 
to get to, and why? It is a 20-minute car ride to where they are. Take 
a look at it. Why? Because the U.N. tanks that were there would not 
commit. The U.N. troops had never used night goggles. Many of them were 
not English-proficient. It cost us 22 dead rangers and 77 wounded. That 
is wrong, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker.
  I take a look at Haiti. Although a U.S. operation, the great 
multinational force that we were supposed to have, not a single 
multinational force was there when we hit Haiti, only U.S. troops. And, 
Mr. Speaker, there are many of us that feel very strongly about not 
having U.S. control, and it is logical it is not partisan.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], a member of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this legislation makes a loud and 
clear statement to the world. As we have heard earlier, the cold war is 
over. The United States bore the burden for decades. Our troops were 
put in harm's way to save the peoples of the world from fascism and 
then communism. In the postcold war world we will no longer require our 
people to carry an unfair burden for the sake of the rest of humanity.
  This is not isolationism. This is America comes first as policy. This 
is not anti-United Nations. This is pro our national interests. 
Americans have sacrificed their lives and well-being for an ungrateful 
world for far too long.
  Our troops should not be put under U.N. command because the United 
Nations does not care as much about them as American commanders will 
care about them. If our President does put them under U.N. command, we 
should be informed.
  That is what this legislation says, and, if our troops are sent on 
long-term, costly operations, Congress should be in on the 
decisionmaking. We will no longer be making military commitments like 
we did in Somalia, or Rwanda, or Haiti unless Congress approves.
  This administration has been depleting our limited defense resources 
on United Nations and other missions that have little to do with our 
country's security. The cold war is over. The American people deserve a 
break. Our military personnel deserve our total support if they are put 
in harm's way. We will not see the funds for their weapons or their 
training drained for altruistic international adventurism of a liberal 
elite.
  This is our way of saying that we care about others, but our loyalty 
is first to the American people, then to our defenders, and the United 
Nations and international benevolence comes in a distant third.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, before we end this road race to the finish 
line of H.R. 7, let us stop, look, and listen.
  This bill takes something that is not broken and breaks it. This bill 
moves from peacekeeping to war making. Where peace exists, this bill 
creates conflict. Where order reigns, this bill creates chaos. This 
bill makes false assumptions. It says where we have troops under 
foreign command, and we all know that the President never relinquishes 
his command. Where Congress has eliminated spending for star wars, 
billions of dollars, this bill reinstates it. The Republicans say, 
``Spend it.''
  The worst part of this bill is to undermine the constitutional role 
of the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy. It 
says, ``If you don't like the President, cripple his powers.''
  I say to my colleagues, Don't cripple our country. Don't retreat from 
leadership. Reject this isolationist bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill the Republicans bring before the House today 
destroys the underpinnings of our country's dedication to peace around 
the world.
  By slashing the U.S. commitment to the United Nations, this bill says 
to the world community: we don't care about maintaining peace. Got a 
war? That's your problem.
  The role of the United States in peacekeeping around the globe, 
unilaterally and in concert with the United Nations, is far from an 
exact science, but it is a system that works well and has worked well 
within the construct 
[[Page H1799]] of an international community dedicated to conflict 
resolution.
  But in a perverse twist on an old cliche, the Republicans today ask 
us in H.R. 7 to take something that ain't broken, and break it.
  Where peace exists, this bill creates conflict.
  Where order reigns, this bill creates chaos.
  This bill begins with a premise that is wholly false, then creates 
solutions to problems that do not exist. For example:
  Though we don't have troops under foreign command, this Republican 
bill says: stop putting our troops under foreign command.
  Though we don't have problems sharing in peacekeeping 
responsibilities, this Republican bill says: no more peacekeeping--it 
causes too many problems.
  H.R. 7 ignores the Republicans' own plea to reduce the deficit by 
calling for unnecessary and wasteful spending. For example:
  Now that we have eliminated spending billions and billions on star 
wars weapons system, this Republican bill says: spend it.
  The gist of this bill is supposed to be to restore America's 
leadership role in the world. But it does just the opposite. For 
example:
  Where we have played a leadership role in the United Nations--as we 
should, given our status as the remaining global power--this Republican 
bill says: no more United Nations involvement.
  The worst part of this bill is that its real purpose is to undermine 
the constitutional role of the President to conduct foreign policy. In 
essence, if you don't like the person who is the Command in Chief, this 
Republican bill says: cripple his powers.
  Mr. Chairman, what are we doing here? What in the world is going on? 
Has this body stooped so low that in order to flex its partisan 
political muscle it will destroy the framework of peace that this 
Nation has dedicated itself to for years and years?
  This bill makes a mockery of the tenets of peace and accommodation 
that men and women have died to enforce.
  Mr. Chairman, to pass this bill is to bring shame on this House. To 
pass this bill is to move from disarmament and peace and return to cold 
war hostilities. To pass this bill is to leave the global community 
without the benefit of American input to resolving international 
conflict. To pass this bill is to snub the world community and retreat 
into our own isolationist shell.
  Mr. Chairman, this world has grown too small to ignore our neighbor's 
problems, for surely if we do, they will spill over into our backyard. 
America deserves better than what H.R. 7 offers. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this bill.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, through the myriad of provisions of this legislation 
there is one common thread, one unmistakable common purpose, and that 
is to reverse nearly one-half century of U.S. leadership, abdicating a 
leadership that through some of the most dangerous times in history has 
kept the peace, kept the peace through a system of international 
security.
  This is not, Mr. Chairman, a new debate in this Chamber. Democrats 
and Republicans through our history exchanged the mantle of 
isolationist leadership many times. But his legislation makes clear 
that that unfortunate title of leadership now strongly belongs to the 
Republican Party.
  Our Republican colleagues have every reason to be proud of the 
international leadership of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and 
Bush. But there was another republican Party of Lodge who argued 
against a League of Nations and brought it to its death, of Burrow who 
argued against rearmament before the Second World War, and Vandenberg, 
to the very day of Pearl Harbor, argued against American involvement in 
the great international conflict. There is now no other interpretation 
of H.R. 7 available than that this Republican Party, having abandoned 
the traditions of the last generation, has returned to that earlier 
age.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no other interpretation because, when the 
United States refuses to have our forces under international command, 
not simply the nations of the Third World, with which I could identify 
and sympathize, but even of our NATO allies, meaning the great struggle 
in Korea and the Persian Gulf would no longer be possible.
  Mr. Chairman in this great Chamber we reserve the honor of a portrait 
to only two men in the history of our country, George Washington, our 
first President, and General Lafayette, a French General who came to 
these shores to secure our independence, but who by this legislation 
would no longer be allowed to command our forces.
  Mr. Chairman, ironically, as we debate this legislation, we celebrate 
the 50th anniversary of Field Marshal Montgomery who led British and 
American forces across the Rhine to defeat Nazi Germany. He would be 
prohibited from leading those forces today under this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, as we speak we celebrate the fourth anniversary of the 
Persian Gulf war, when Italian and French and British Generals of war 
led our forces to victory in combined command, but would be prohibited 
under this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no other interpretation than that we are 
losing our leadership to isolationism, because under this legislation 
our U.N. contributions would virtually end for peacekeeping, ending our 
ability to appeal to the Security Council to undertake peacekeeping in 
our own national interests, and forgetting that the best defense for 
the United States is no weapon system, but in the nuclear age it is the 
ability to preserve the peace.
  It is a great irony, Mr. Chairman, that the same people who would 
spend anything on any weapons system would now propose to spend nothing 
to keep the peace, even though a generation has proven that the 
international system of peacekeeping through the United Nations works. 
Just as we proved with the death of millions, the failure of the League 
of Nations could consume as many lives.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a great tradition in this country that 
partisanship ends at the water's edge. With this legislation the 
Atlantic and Pacific are merged, and this Nation is awash in a new 
partisanship that consumes our foreign policy.

                              {time}  1740

  Defeat H.R. 7.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the chairman of the procurement 
subcommittee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Let me respond to my friend from New Jersey, who mentioned a number 
of great Americans and characterized the Republicans as isolationists 
in some way. Let me just respond that I can think of another great 
American, and I think that his opposition, those who opposed his idea, 
were in some way analogous to the Democrat Party today.
  That gentleman was Gen. Billy Mitchell. And Gen. Billy Mitchell 
dragged us kicking and screaming into the age of air power. And he did 
that by proving that aircraft could sink ships. And when he did that, 
it totally frustrated the thinking inside the Beltway, so-to-speak, in 
Washington, DC, in the power establishment, when he sunk 4 ships, 
including a major German battleship, with air power. It was greatly 
resisted by the politicians of his time. They did not want to hear 
that. They did not want to hear that we had entered the age of air 
power.
  Now, my friends, we have entered the age of missiles. And I 
understand that it was the political position of the other side of the 
aisle, of the Democrat Party, to refer to shooting down incoming 
ballistic missiles as star wars, as if it was some kind of a divorced 
contact and conflict that in no way defended people on this Earth. I 
can remember Walter Mondale standing in the San Francisco convention 
declaring he would have no part in what he called war in the heavens. 
But I think that Walter Mondale, great Democrat that he was, if he was 
watching CNN and watched those American Patriot missiles shooting down 
ballistic missiles, very slow, but ballistic nonetheless, Scud 
missiles, incoming to American troops, and he saw those destroyed in 
midair by our Patriot missiles, would have said instead of saying I 
will not participate in war in the heavens, he would have said thank 
heavens.
  H.R. 7 pulls the United States squarely into a reality that we live 
in an age of missiles. And it is just as much a matter of readiness, 
which a number of the Members on the other side have talked about, 
clothing for our troops, quality of life for our troops, pay for our 
troops, fuel and training exercises for our troops, I would offer to my 
friends that it is just as important to our troops to be defended 
against incoming ballistic missiles as it is to be 
[[Page H1800]] well paid, well fed, and have good quarters for their 
families.
  Now, for those who said it would cost tens and tens of billions of 
dollars to defend against incoming ballistic missiles, let me just 
refer my friends to the statement made by the Secretary of Defense, 
William Perry, a few days ago. He said we can have a national missile 
defense for a relatively small cost, probably about $5 billion, in very 
round figures; by the end of the decade, he said a few sentences later.
  The fact is we are in the age of missiles, H.R. 7 recognizes that, 
and I would call on all of my friends to support this bill, Democrats 
and Republicans.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  (Mr. EVANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is more nostalgia from the same people 
who in the eighties gave us the skyrocketing Federal deficit.
  The Soviet threat is long gone. The Russian military debacle in 
Chechnya should be a clear reminder of this. Yet, this blueprint for 
more defense spending would have us waste tens of billions of dollars 
on cold war weapon systems that make no sense in this new era.
  Billions on a star wars missile defense system that is not needed and 
will never work. Billions on exotic cold war programs, and billions on 
unnecessary operations funding when our forces are first rate and 
combat ready. Billions that we all know we just don't have.
  The Republican majority would like to have it both ways. They can 
promise all the money in the world on a shopping spree of unneeded 
programs and weapons. The hard part is coming up with the funds to do 
it or a threat to justify spending it.
  We have been down this road before. Let's not make the same mistake. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say to my distinguished 
colleague from California, each of the last 2 years we have spent 
nearly $3 billion per year on ballistic missile defense, $400 million 
on national missile defense, $120 million on Brilliant Eyes, a space-
based sensor program, and all of the remaining of that nearly $3 
billion has gone to theater ballistic missile defense. The point of the 
statement is it is presently now the policy that theater ballistic 
missiles is the priority. So that is my response to the gentleman.
  In the remaining comments I would say, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a 
national security bill, foreign policy bill and national intelligence 
bill, with enormous budgetary implications, treaty implications, 
constitutional implications and foreign policy implications. Yet we 
have been reduced to the absurdity of yielding 1 and 2 minutes to each 
of our coequal colleagues on the floor of Congress on a bill of this 
gravity and a bill of this magnitude. I would continue to assert that 2 
hours of general debate on a bill of this magnitude with such enormous 
implications is wholly and totally inadequate, and 10 hours of debate 
on substantive and critical issues that challenge our budget, challenge 
our form of government, challenge our Constitution and our 
relationships with the world, is totally inadequate to deal with these 
issues. If you could break the crime bill down into six pieces, giving 
them 10 hours apiece, how can you cram all of this together and give 10 
hours of debate apiece and call that maintaining the fiduciary 
responsibility to the American people. We are not doing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of our 
time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a senior member of our 
Committee on International Relations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a question: Do you feel, do you think, that the 
American people, the people that have placed their trust and confidence 
in us, are treated fairly under the current system of United Nations 
funding?
  We have today $150 billion trade deficits. Other countries are 
ravaging us. Other countries are very rich. Yet are you satisfied that 
last year 80 percent, 80 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping costs, 
according to your own General Accounting Office, 80 percent was paid by 
your voters?
  It is not only that the people you represent are paying the lion's 
share of the bills. Their sons and daughters are doing most of the 
fighting and most of the work, too. The Americans at the behest of this 
Congress, you have the control, the American taxpayer and the American 
soldier are doing all of the heavy lifting.
  Do you think it is right that the American soldier carries the burden 
in most of these operations? Do you really believe that all of these 
peacekeeping activities have anything to do with national security? If 
you really believe that the current system is fair to America, that it 
is fair to your voters, that it is fair to your people, then vote for 
this bill and bring in amendments on this legislation.

                              {time}  1650

  But if you believe, as I do, as most of the American people do, that 
we Americans are carrying just too much of the burden, that we have too 
much of the cost, that we have too much of the risk, then you should 
support this bill because this bill is only restoring basic fairness to 
our role in the United Nations.
  The criticisms you have heard here today are totally off the mark. 
Jeane Kirkpatrick just had a news conference an hour and a half ago 
where she said in no way does this legislation inhibit the President.
  This bill, far from ending our peacekeeping role, merely sets a fair 
distribution. We will still be paying 25 percent, yes, 25 percent of 
all of the U.N. peacekeeping under this legislation. We are not 
hamstringing the President of the United States. He has discretion in 
every portion of this bill.
  But there are some, I fear, in this body who would have our taxpayers 
pay everything, who would have our soldiers do everything. Short of 
that, nothing will satisfy the liberal elitists and the American people 
said there is time for a change.
  I and a vast majority of the American people say, yes, it is time for 
a change. Vote for basic fairness. Vote for our taxpayers. Vote for our 
troops. Vote for common sense. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support 
for the Bereuter amendments which passed tonight. I think these 
amendments remove a significant flaw in an otherwise sensible and 
balanced approach to enhance the national security of this country. I 
commend Chairman Spence and Chairman Gilman for their good work on this 
legislation. As others have eloquently stated, the Bereuter amendments 
are needed to ensure we do not cross the line--encroaching on the 
President's constitutional power as Commander in Chief.
  Having worked as a lawyer in the White House counsel's office at the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I may have a different perspective on 
this issue than some of my colleagues. I have serious questions about 
the War Powers Act, and section 508 of this bill seems to go even 
further by requiring congressional approval of deployment of U.S. 
troops without any grace period.
  As a practical matter, I think this may even create a perverse 
incentive on the part of the administration not to turn over U.S. 
operations to the U.N. where such a transfer may well be in our 
national interest. I give you 2 examples--one recent, one on-going.
  In Somalia, I believe it was in our interest to move from unilateral 
United States occupation to a U.N. operation. More immediately, at the 
end of this month, it is my understanding that in Haiti the United 
States command will become a U.N. peacekeeping operation. We don't want 
to continue to occupy Haiti. The shift to the U.N. is in our national 
interest and gives us a way out. Yet, were section 508 to be enacted 
into law, I believe any administration would have every incentive not 
to discontinue the unilateral U.S. mission in favor of U.N. 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an inadvertent and very realistic 
effect of section 508. I commend my colleagues for correcting this 
problem tonight improving an otherwise good bill by passing the 
Bereuter amendments.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7, as it is written, is bad 
legislation. It should be defeated. If America insists on spending 
countless billions on Star Wars at the expense of our troops, if 
America retreats from global economic and military cooperation, if 
America refuses to feed, educate, and house her own 
[[Page H1801]] troops and citizens at risk--the children, the sick, and 
the elderly--a bankrupt America will fall into economic and social 
ruin.
  For years, respected Members of Congress, such as former Congressman 
Charles Bennett who represented some of my district, have opposed 
funding for star wars. Instead, these members believed that troop 
readiness was a top priority.
  Currently, many of our troops live in substandard housing, they are 
forced to use food stamps, because they cannot stretch their pay to 
cover even the most basic needs for their families. This does not 
contribute to our readiness.
  Let's reassure America that we in Congress are an intelligent group 
because we are interested in funding military programs that benefit our 
troops and our military families. We want our military dollars spent to 
keep our troops ready in every way.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has deployed 
U.S. forces on more humanitarian missions per year than any other 
administration in history. At the end of last year, over 70,000 U.S. 
personnel were serving in unstable regions such as Iraq, Bosnia, and 
Haiti--48,000 military men and women remain in these areas today.
  The United States is supposed to be the world's only Super Power, 
when in fact we are becoming nothing more than a paper tiger. H.R. 7 
reverses the Clinton administration's drastic reduction of our Nation's 
defense and revitalizes the United States military might.
  Our military personnel are being stretched to the limit. They are 
being sent to areas that are not in the United States national security 
interests. Since Desert Storm, U.S. forces have been cut by 27 percent, 
which means there are less people to do more jobs.
  Some of the finest men and women serve in the Armed Forces in North 
Carolina from Fort Bragg to Camp Lejeune, and numerous other facilities 
across the state. U.S. defense spending is at its lowest level since 
World War II and the President wants to cut $10.6 billion more from 
defense. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, Republicans are working hard to keep our 
Contract With America on track. We continue to keep our promises. We 
passed our crime package to take back our streets. Now we will work to 
restore our military.
  The best defense is a strong defense. H.R. 7, the National 
Restoration Act, ensures that our Armed Forces will be strong enough to 
fight and win. Republicans pledge that our defenses will be prepared to 
protect our country and national interests.
  Providing for common defense is the first duty of the Federal 
Government. The decline in military readiness over the past years must 
stop. We must act now to prevent our military from becoming a hollow 
force.
  Military readiness funds should be used for just that--to keep our 
American soldiers ready for military action. Dipping our hand into the 
cookie jar for dollars to send our troops here, there, and everywhere 
undermines American security and peace of mind. We cannot be the 
world's peacekeepers.
  Our Armed Forces are the best in the world. Our Republican defense 
package makes sure that we remain that way. Defense spending has been 
cut too far and too quickly in order to pay for expensive social 
programs and frivolous international policing expeditions.
  Republicans will set priorities and restore the vital elements our 
defenses need to maintain our credibility around the world. We are 
keeping our promise. American troops should not be used as a substitute 
for sound foreign policy.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 872, the 
National Security Revitalization Act. This bill serves to curtail the 
cost and scope of U.N. missions, provide a framework for congressional 
consultation, and discipline the seemingly haphazard deployment of 
American troops.
  If enacted, this legislation will allow the United Nations to focus 
on missions and roles it is capable of fulfilling. Recently, the United 
Nations has expanded its role, perhaps in response to prodding from the 
Clinton administration, to include peacemaking, nationbuilding, and 
even chasing warlords. This action does the United Nations and the 
United States a disservice, as public confidence in international 
operations declines and questions arise concerning the focus and intent 
of U.S. foreign policy.
  Members supporting H.R. 872 are not opposed to all U.N. operations, 
because we do believe the United Nations is capable of achieving 
limited missions on a reduced scale. The United Nations is quite 
capable of delivering humanitarian aid and acting as a moderator when 
all sides in a dispute request the U.N.'s presence. The United Nations 
gets into trouble when it has attempted to expand its mission.
  This bill will ensure that we receive credit for our expenditures on 
behalf of U.N. operations, guarantee that U.S. troops are placed under 
foreign command only in emergencies or when a pressing U.S. security 
interest merits such a deployment, and should result in a reassessment 
of the U.N.'s capabilities and limitations and U.S. involvement with 
that organization. Throughout the process, we have attempted to 
compromise on certain details to improve the legislation, but we have 
refused to compromise on principle issues.
  Fundamentally, the administration wants to enhance the power of the 
United Nations and our participation in that organization. We want to 
restrict our participation, temper our costs and involvement, and 
discipline our foreign policy. If you support the aggrandizement of the 
United Nations at the literal expense of United States, then you should 
oppose this bill. But if you support a limitation on U.N. missions and 
our participation in them, and desire the United Nations to focus on 
missions it is capable of achieving, you should support the bill. I 
urge all Members to approve this important legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 872 is considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment and is considered as having been read.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
                                H.R. 872

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Security Revitalization Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                TITLE I--FINDINGS, POLICY, AND PURPOSES

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Policy.
Sec. 103. Purposes.

                       TITLE II--MISSILE DEFENSE

Sec. 201. Policy.
Sec. 202. Actions of the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 203. Report to Congress.

 TITLE III--ADVISORY COMMISSION ON REVITALIZATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY

Sec. 301. Establishment.
Sec. 302. Composition.
Sec. 303. Duties.
Sec. 304. Reports.
Sec. 305. Powers.
Sec. 306. Commission procedures.
Sec. 307. Personnel matters.
Sec. 308. Termination of the Commission.
Sec. 309. Funding.

               TITLE IV--COMMAND OF UNITED STATES FORCES

Sec. 401. Limitation on expenditure of Department of Defense funds for 
              United States forces placed under United Nations command 
              or control.
Sec. 402. Limitation on placement of United States Armed Forces under 
              foreign control for a United Nations peacekeeping 
              activity.

                        TITLE V--UNITED NATIONS

Sec. 501. Credit against assessment for United States expenditures in 
              support of United Nations peacekeeping operations.
Sec. 502. Codification of required notice to Congress of proposed 
              United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 503. Notice to Congress regarding United States contributions for 
              United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 504. Revised notice to Congress regarding United States assistance 
              for United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 505. United States contributions to United Nations peacekeeping 
              activities.
Sec. 506. Reimbursement to the United States for in-kind contributions 
              to United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 507. Limitation on payment of United States assessed or voluntary 
              contributions for United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 508. Limitation on use of Department of Defense funds for United 
              States share of costs of United Nations peacekeeping 
              activities.
Sec. 509. Codification of limitation on amount of United States 
              assessed contributions for United Nations peacekeeping 
              operations.
Sec. 510. Buy American requirement.
Sec. 511. United Nations budgetary and management reform.
Sec. 512. Conditions on provision of intelligence to the United 
              Nations.

  TITLE VI--REVITALIZATION AND EXPANSION OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY 
                              ORGANIZATION

Sec. 601. Short title.
[[Page H1802]] Sec. 602. Findings.
Sec. 603. United States policy.
Sec. 604. Revisions to program to facilitate transition to NATO 
              membership.

                      TITLE VII--BUDGET FIREWALLS

Sec. 701. Restoration of budget firewalls for defense spending.
                TITLE I--FINDINGS, POLICY, AND PURPOSES

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Dramatic changes in the geo-political and military 
     landscape during the last decade have had significant impacts 
     on United States security.
       (2) Those changes include the breakup of the Warsaw Pact 
     alliance, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and an 
     increase in regional instability and conflict.
       (3) While the magnitude and implications of these and other 
     changes continues to evolve, the world remains an unstable 
     and dangerous place. This uncertainty mandates the need for 
     an on-going process to establish an appropriate national 
     security strategy and the forces needed to implement that 
     strategy.
       (4) The centerpiece of the defense strategy of the 
     Administration, the review of the Department of Defense 
     conducted by the Secretary of Defense in 1993 known as the 
     ``Bottom Up Review'', determined that United States forces 
     must be--
       (A) prepared to fight and win two nearly simultaneous Major 
     Regional Conflicts;
       (B) able to sustain robust overseas presence in peacetime;
       (C) prepared for a variety of regional contingencies; and
       (D) able to deter and prevent attacks with weapons of mass 
     destruction against United States territory and forces and 
     the territory and forces of our allies.
       (5) The Bottom Up Review also recommended significant 
     reductions in military forces, including reduction in the 
     number of Navy ships by one-third, the number of Air Force 
     wings by almost one-half, and the level of funding for 
     missile defenses by over 50 percent.
       (6) The General Accounting Office and the Congressional 
     Budget Office have estimated that the mismatch between even 
     the restrictive Bottom Up Review force and the Administration 
     defense budget may be up to anywhere from $65,000,000,000 to 
     $150,000,000,000.
       (7) Since January 1993, presidential budgets and budget 
     plans have set forth a reduction in defense spending of 
     $156,000,000,000 through fiscal year 1999.
       (8) The fiscal year 1995 budget is the 10th consecutive 
     year of reductions in real defense spending and, with the 
     exception of fiscal year 1948, represents the lowest 
     percentage of gross domestic product for any defense budget 
     since World War II.
       (9) During fiscal year 1995, the number of active duty, 
     reserve component, and civilian personnel of the Department 
     of Defense will be reduced by 182,000, a rate of over 15,000 
     per month or over 500 per day. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     estimates that 1,200,000 defense-related private sector jobs 
     will be lost by 1997.
       (10) Despite severe reductions and shortfalls in defense 
     funding and force structure, since 1993 United States 
     military forces have been deployed more often and committed 
     to more peacetime missions per year than ever before. Most of 
     these missions involve United Nations peacekeeping and 
     humanitarian efforts. At the end of fiscal year 1994, over 
     70,000 United States personnel were serving in such regions 
     as Iraq, Bosnia, Macedonia, the Adriatic Sea, Rwanda, and the 
     Caribbean Sea for missions involving Haiti and Cuba.
       (11) Despite the dramatic increase in the pace of 
     operations and the diversion of training and exercise funds 
     to cover the costs of unbudgeted contingency operations, the 
     Armed Forces of the United States remain the most capable, 
     motivated, and effective military force in the world. The 
     ability to successfully deploy and maintain support for the 
     range of on-going contingency operations demonstrates the 
     continued quality and professionalism of our troops.
       (12) However, persistent indictations of declining 
     readiness demonstrate that military units are entering the 
     early stage of a long-term systemic readiness problem. This 
     downward readiness trend risks a return to the ``hollow 
     forces'' of the 1970s.
       (13) At the end of fiscal year 1994, one-third of the units 
     in the Army contingency force and all of the forward-deployed 
     and follow-on Army divisions were reporting a reduced state 
     of military readiness. During fiscal year 1994, training 
     readiness declined for the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific 
     fleets. Training funding shortfalls also resulted in a 
     grounding of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft squadrons and 
     cancellation and curtailment of Army training exercises. 
     Marine and naval personnel are not maintaining the standard 
     12- to 18-month respite between six-month deployments away 
     from home.
       (14) The significant increase in deployments in support of 
     peacekeeping, humanitarian, and contingency operations has 
     placed great personnel tempo stress on many critical 
     operational units.
       (15) A real commitment to equitable compensation and 
     protection of quality-of-life programs for servicemembers and 
     their families is an esssential component to ensuring high 
     personnel morale and sustaining force readiness. However, as 
     of January 1, 1995, military pay is approximately 12.8 
     percent below comparable civilian levels. As a result, it is 
     estimated that close to 17,000 junior enlisted personnel have 
     to rely on food stamps and the Department of Defense will 
     soon begin providing supplementary food benefits to an 
     estimated 11,000 military personnel and dependents living 
     overseas.
       (16) Critical long-term modernization programs continue to 
     be delayed or cancelled as resources are diverted to cover 
     short-term personnel and readiness shortfalls resulting from 
     an underfunded defense budget and an overextended force, 
     threatening the
      technological superiority of future United States forces.
       (17) The fiscal year 1995 defense budget failed to meet the 
     current force structure goal of 184 modern long-range 
     bombers, as established in the Bottom-Up Review. Unless this 
     long-range bomber capability shortfall is addressed promptly, 
     the Nation's ability to project force will be undermined and 
     the existing bomber industrial base may be placed at risk.
       (18) The Administration has initially agreed to or proposed 
     treaty limitations, or has unilaterally adopted positions, 
     that prohibit the United States from testing or deploying 
     effective missile defense systems.
       (19) United Nations assessments to the United States for 
     peacekeeping missions totaled over $1,000,000,000 in 1994. 
     The United States is assessed 31.7 percent of annual United 
     Nations costs for peacekeeping. The next highest contributor, 
     Japan, only pays 12.5 percent of such costs. The Department 
     of Defense also incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in 
     costs every year for United States military participation in 
     United Nations peacekeeping or humanitarian missions, most of 
     which are not reimbursed by the United Nations. For fiscal 
     year 1994, these Department of Defense costs totaled over 
     $1,721,000,000.
       (20) Credible and effective collective action on 
     international security concerns through the United Nations 
     and regional organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization can, in appropriate cases, advance world peace, 
     strengthen the national security of the United States, and 
     foster more equitable burden-sharing with friends and allies 
     of the United States in military, political, and financial 
     terms.
     SEC. 102. POLICY.

       The Congress is committed to providing adequate resources 
     to protect the national security interests of the United 
     States, including the resources necessary--
       (1) to provide for sufficient forces to meet the national 
     security strategy of being able to fight and win two nearly 
     simultaneously major regional conflicts;
       (2) to provide pay and benefits necessary for members of 
     the Armed Forces (including members of the National Guard and 
     Reserve as well as active duty members) to begin closing the 
     gap between rates of civilian pay and rates of military pay;
       (3) to maintain a high quality-of-life for military 
     personnel and their dependents;
       (4) to maintain a high level of military readiness and take 
     all necessary steps to avoid a return to the ``hollow 
     forces'' of the 1970s;
       (5) to fully provide for the necessary modernization of 
     United States military forces in order to ensure their 
     technological superiority over any adversary; and
       (6) to develop and deploy at the earliest practical date 
     highly effective national and theater missile defense 
     systems.

     SEC. 103. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to establish an advisory commission to assess United 
     States military needs and address the problems posed by the 
     continuing downward spiral of defense spending;
       (2) to commit the United States to accelerate the 
     development and deployment of theater and national ballistic 
     missile defense capabilities;
       (3) to restrict deployment of United States forces to 
     missions that are in the national security interest of the 
     United States;
       (4) to maintain adequate command and control by United 
     States personnel of United States forces participating in 
     United Nations peacekeeping operations;
       (5) to reduce the cost to the United States of United 
     Nations peacekeeping activities and to press for reforms in 
     United Nations management practices; and
       (6) to reemphasize the commitment of the United States to a 
     strong and viable North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
                       TITLE II--MISSILE DEFENSE

     SEC. 201. POLICY.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to--
       (1) deploy at the earliest practical date an antiballistic 
     missile system that is capable of providing a highly 
     effective defense of the United States against ballistic 
     missile attacks; and
       (2) provide at the earliest practical date highly effective 
     theater missile defenses (TMDs) to forward-deployed and 
     expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States and to friendly forces and allies of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 202. ACTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

       (a) ABM Systems.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop 
     for deployment at the earliest practical date a cost-
     effective, operationally effective antiballistic missile 
     system designed to protect the United States against 
     ballistic missile attacks.
     [[Page H1803]]   (b) Advanced Theater Missile Defenses.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall develop for deployment at the 
     earliest practical date advanced theater missile defense 
     systems.

     SEC. 203. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a plan for the 
     deployment of an antiballistic missile system pursuant to 
     section 202(a) and for the deployment of theater missile 
     defense systems pursuant to section 202(b).
       (b) Congressional Defense Committees.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``congressional defense committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on National Security and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.
 TITLE III--ADVISORY COMMISSION ON REVITALIZATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY

     SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is hereby established an advisory commission to be 
     known as the ``Revitalization of National Security 
     Commission'' (hereinafter in this title referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').

     SEC. 302. COMPOSITION.

       (a) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members, appointed as follows:
       (1) Four members shall be appointed by the President.
       (2) Four members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, one of whom shall be appointed upon 
     the recommendation of the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) Four members shall be appointed by the president pro 
     tempore of the Senate, three of whom shall be appointed upon 
     the recommendation of the majority leader of the Senate and 
     one of whom shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the 
     minority leader of the Senate.
       (b) Qualifications.--The members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed from among persons having knowledge and experience 
     in defense and foreign policy.
       (c) Term of Members; Vacancies.--Members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy 
     on the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be 
     filled in the same manner as the original appointment was 
     made.
       (d) Commencement.--The members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed not later than 21 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. The Commission shall convene its first 
     meeting to carry out its duties under this section 14 days 
     after seven members of the Commission have been appointed.
       (e) Chairman.--The chairman of the Commission shall be 
     designated jointly by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate (after 
     consultation with the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the minority leader of the Senate) from 
     among members of the Commission appointed under subsection 
     (a)(2) or (a)(3).

     SEC. 303. DUTIES.

       (a) Comprehensive Review.--The Commission shall conduct a 
     comprehensive review of the long-term national security needs 
     of the United States. The review shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the need for a new national security 
     strategy and, if it is determined that such a new strategy is 
     needed, identification of such a strategy.
       (2) An assessment of the need for a new national military 
     strategy and, if it is determined that such a new strategy is 
     needed, identification of such a strategy.
       (3) An assessment of the military force structure necessary 
     to support the new strategies identified under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2).
       (4) An assessment of force modernization requirements 
     necessary to support the new strategies identified under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (5) An assessment of military infrastructure requirements 
     necessary to support the new strategies identified under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (6) An assessment of the funding needs of the Department of 
     Defense necessary to support the long-term national security 
     requirements of the United States.
       (7) An assessment of the adequacy of the force structure 
     recommended in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review in executing the 
     national military strategy.
       (8) An assessment of the adequacy of the current future-
     years defense plan in fully funding the Bottom-Up Review 
     force structure while maintaining adequate force 
     modernization and military readiness objectives.
       (9) An assessment of the level of defense funds expended on 
     non-defense programs.
       (10) An assessment of the costs to the United States of 
     expanding the membership of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization.
       (11) An assessment of the elements of military pay and 
     allowances constituting the regular military compensation of 
     members of the Armed Forces and the development of 
     recommendations for changes in those elements in order to end 
     the dependence of some members of the Armed Forces and their 
     families on Federal and local assistance programs.
       (12) An assessment of the need to revise the command and 
     control structure of the Army Reserve.
       (b)  Matters To Be Considered.--In carrying out the review, 
     the Commission shall develop specific recommendations to 
     accomplish each of the following:
       (1) Provide members of the Armed Forces with annual pay 
     raises and other compensation at levels sufficient to begin 
     closing the gap with comparable civilian pay levels.
       (2) Fully fund cost-effective missile defense systems that 
     are deployable at the earliest practical date following 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Maintain adequate funding for military readiness 
     accounts without sacrificing modernization programs.
       (4) Maintain a strong role for Guard and Reserve forces.
       (5) Provide a new funding system to avoid diversions from 
     military readiness accounts to pay for peacekeeping and 
     humanitarian deployments such as Haiti and Rwanda.
       (6) Support security enhancing measures in the Asia-Pacific 
     region, including support for the Association of Southeast 
     Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum.
       (7) Reduce the level of defense expenditures for non-
     defense programs.

     SEC. 304. REPORTS.

       (a) Final Report.--The Commission shall submit to the 
     President and the designated congressional committees a 
     report on the assessments and recommendations referred to in 
     section 303 not later than January 1, 1996. The report shall 
     be submitted in unclassified and classified versions.
       (b) Interim Report.--The Commission shall submit to the 
     President and the designated congressional committees an 
     interim report describing the Commission's progress in 
     fulfilling its duties under section 303. The interim report 
     shall include any preliminary recommendations the Commission 
     may have reached and shall be submitted not later than 
     October 1, 1995.
       (c) Designated Congressional Committees.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``designated congressional 
     committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on National Security, the Committee on 
     International Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       (d) Limitation Pending Submission of Interim Report.--The 
     Secretary of the Army may not, during the period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the date 
     on which the interim report under subsection (b) is 
     submitted, take any action to implement the plan to 
     reorganize the Army Reserve's continental United States 
     headquarters structures that was announced by the Secretary 
     on January 4, 1995.

     SEC. 305. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, conduct such hearings, sit and act 
     at such times, take such testimony, and receive such 
     evidence, as the Commission considers appropriate.
       (b) Assistance From Other Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any department or agency of the Federal 
     Government such information, relevant to its duties under 
     this title, as may be necessary to carry out such duties. 
     Upon request of the chairman of the Commission, the head of 
     the department or agency shall, to the extent permitted by 
     law, furnish such information to the Commission.
       (c) Mail.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as the 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (d) Assistance From Secretary of Defense.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall provide to the Commission
      such reasonable administrative and support services as the 
     Commission may request.

     SEC. 306. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet on a regular basis 
     (as determined by the chairman) and at the call of the 
     chairman or a majority of its members.
       (b) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

     SEC. 307. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     serve without compensation, but shall be allowed travel 
     expenses including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as 
     authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, 
     when engaged in the performance of Commission duties.
       (b) Staff.--The Commission shall appoint a staff director, 
     who shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate of 
     basic pay under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, 
     and such professional and clerical personnel as may be 
     reasonable and necessary to enable the Commission to carry 
     out its duties under this title without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and without regard 
     to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 
     53 of such title, or any other provision of law, relating to 
     the number, classification, and General Schedule rates. No 
     employee appointed under this subsection (other than the 
     staff director) may be compensated at a rate to exceed the 
     maximum rate applicable to level 15 of the General Schedule.
       (c) Detailed Personnel.--Upon request of the chairman of 
     the Commission, the head of any department or agency of the 
     Federal Government is authorized to detail, without 
     [[Page H1804]] reimbursement, any personnel of such 
     department or agency to the Commission to assist the 
     Commission in carrying out its duties under this section. The 
     detail of any such personnel may not result in the 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege of 
     such personnel.

     SEC. 308. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate upon submission of the final 
     report required by section 303.

     SEC. 309. FUNDING.

       Of the funds available to the Department of Defense, 
     $1,500,000 shall be made available to the Commission to carry 
     out the provisions of this title.
               TITLE IV--COMMAND OF UNITED STATES FORCES
     SEC. 401. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   FUNDS FOR UNITED STATES FORCES PLACED UNDER 
                   UNITED NATIONS COMMAND OR CONTROL.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 20 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 404 the following 
     new section:
     ``Sec. 405. Placement of United States forces under United 
       Nations command or control: limitation

       ``(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsections (b) 
     and (c), funds appropriated or otherwise made available for 
     the Department of Defense may not be obligated or expended 
     for activities of any element of the armed forces that after 
     the date of the enactment of this section is placed under 
     United Nations command or control, as defined in subsection 
     (f).
       ``(b) Exception for Presidential Certification.--(1) 
     Subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of a proposed 
     placement of an element of the armed forces under United 
     Nations command or control if the President, not less than 15 
     days before the date on which such United Nations command or 
     control is to become effective (or as provided in paragraph 
     (2)), meets the requirements of subsection (d).
       ``(2) If the President certifies to Congress that an 
     emergency exists that precludes the President from meeting 
     the requirements of subsection (d) 15 days before placing an 
     element of the armed forces under United Nations command or 
     control, the President may place such forces under such 
     command or control and meet the requirements of subsection 
     (d) in a timely manner, but in no event later than 48 hours 
     after such command or control becomes effective.
       ``(c) Exception for Authorization by Law.--Subsection (a) 
     shall not apply in the case of a proposed placement of any 
     element of the armed forces under United Nations command or 
     control if the Congress specifically authorizes by law that 
     particular placement of United States forces under United 
     Nations command or control.
       ``(d) Presidential Certifications.--The requirements 
     referred to in subsection (b)(1) are that the President 
     submit to Congress the following:
       ``(1) Certification by the President that--
       ``(A) such a United Nations command or control arrangement 
     is necessary to protect national security interests of the 
     United States;
       ``(B) the commander of any unit of the armed forces 
     proposed for placement under United Nations command or 
     control will at all times retain the right--
       ``(i) to report independently to superior United States 
     military authorities; and
       ``(ii) to decline to comply with orders judged by the 
     commander to be illegal, militarily imprudent, or beyond the 
     mandate of the mission to which the United States agreed with 
     the United Nations, until such time as that commander 
     receives direction from superior United States military 
     authorities with respect to the orders that the commander has 
     declined to comply with;
       ``(C) any element of the armed forces proposed for 
     placement under United Nations command or control will at all 
     times remain under United States administrative command for 
     such purposes as discipline and evaluation; and
       ``(D) the United States will retain the authority to 
     withdraw any element of the armed forces from the proposed 
     operation at any time and to take any action it considers 
     necessary to protect those forces if they are engaged.
       ``(2) A report setting forth the following:
       ``(A) A description of the national security interests that 
     require the placement of United States forces under United 
     Nations command or control.
       ``(B) The mission of the United States forces involved.
       ``(C) The expected size and composition of the United 
     States forces involved.
       ``(D) The incremental cost to the United States of 
     participation in the United Nations operation by the United 
     States forces which are proposed to be placed under United 
     Nations command or control.
       ``(E) The precise command and control relationship between 
     the United States forces involved and the United Nations 
     command structure.
       ``(F) The precise command and control relationship between 
     the United States forces involved and the commander of the 
     United States unified command for the region in which those 
     United States forces are to operate.
       ``(G) The extent to which the United States forces involved 
     will rely on non-United States forces for security and self-
     defense and an assessment on the ability of those non-United 
     States forces to provide adequate security to the United 
     States forces involved.
       ``(H) The timetable for complete withdrawal of the United 
     States forces involved.
       ``(e) Classification of Report.--A report under subsection 
     (d) shall be submitted in unclassified form and, if 
     necessary, in classified form.
       ``(f) United Nations Command or Control.--For purposes of 
     this section, an element of the armed forces shall be 
     considered to be placed under United Nations command or 
     control if--
       ``(1) that element is under the command or operational 
     control of an individual acting on behalf of the United 
     Nations for the purpose of international peacekeeping, 
     peacemaking, peace-enforcing, or similar activity that is 
     authorized by the Security Council under chapter VI or VII of 
     the Charter of the United Nations; and
       ``(2) the senior military commander of the United Nations 
     force or operation--
       ``(A) is a foreign national or is a citizen of the United 
     States who is not a United States military officer serving on 
     active duty; or
       ``(B) is a United States military officer serving on active 
     duty but--
       ``(i) that element of the armed forces is under the command 
     or operational control of subordinate commander who is a 
     foreign national or a citizen of the United States who is not 
     a United States military officer serving on active duty; and
       ``(ii) that senior military commander does not have the 
     authority--

       ``(I) to dismiss any subordinate officer in the chain of 
     command who is exercising command or operational control over 
     United States forces and who is a foreign national or a 
     citizen of the United States who is not a United States 
     military officer serving on active duty;
       ``(II) to establish rules of engagement for United States 
     forces involved; and
       ``(III) to establish criteria governing the operational 
     employment of United States forces involved.

       ``(g) Interpretation.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed--
       ``(1) as authority for the President to use any element of 
     the armed forces in any operation;
       ``(2) as authority for the President to place any element 
     of the armed forces under the command or operational control 
     of a foreign national; or
       ``(3) as an unconstitutional infringement on the authority 
     of the President as commander-in-chief.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter I 
     of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``405. Placement of United States forces under United Nations command 
              or control: limitation.''.

       (b) Report Relating to Constitutionality.--No certification 
     may be submitted by the President under section 405(d)(1) of 
     title 10, United States Code, as added
      by subsection (a), until the President has submitted to the 
     Congress (after the date of the enactment of this Act) a 
     memorandum of legal points and authorities explaining why 
     the placement of elements of United States Armed Forces 
     under the command or operational control of a foreign 
     national acting on behalf of the United Nations does not 
     violate the Constitution.
       (c) Exception for Ongoing Operations in Macedonia and 
     Croatia.--Section 405 of title 10, United States Code, as 
     added by subsection (a), does not apply in the case of 
     activities of the Armed Forces as part of the United Nations 
     force designated as the United Nations Protection Force 
     (UNPROFOR) that are carried out--
       (1) in Macedonia pursuant to United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 795, adopted December 11, 1992, and 
     subsequent reauthorization Resolutions; or
       (2) in Croatia pursuant to United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 743, adopted February 21, 1992, and subsequent 
     reauthorization Resolutions.
     SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON PLACEMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED 
                   FORCES UNDER FOREIGN CONTROL FOR A UNITED 
                   NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287d) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``Sec. 6. (a) Agreements With Security Council.--(1) Any 
     special agreement described in paragraph
      (2) that is concluded by the President with the Security 
     Council shall not be effective unless approved by the 
     Congress by law.
       ``(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is an 
     agreement providing for the numbers and types of United 
     States Armed Forces, their degree of readiness and general 
     locations, or the nature of facilities and assistance, 
     including rights of passage, to be made available to the 
     Security Council for the purpose of maintaining international 
     peace and security in accordance with Article 43 of the 
     Charter of the United Nations.
       ``(b) Limitation.--(1) Except as provided in subsections 
     (c) and (d), the President may not place any element of the 
     Armed Forces under United Nations command or control, as 
     defined in subsection (g).
       ``(c) Exception for Presidential Certification.--(1) 
     Subsection (b) shall not apply in the case of a proposed 
     placement of an element of the armed forces under United 
     Nations command or control if the President, not less than 15 
     days before the date on which such United Nations command or 
     control is to become effective (or as provided in 
     [[Page H1805]] paragraph (2)), meets the requirements of 
     subsection (e).
       ``(2) If the President certifies to Congress that an 
     emergency exists that precludes the President from meeting 
     the requirements of subsection (e) 15 days before placing an 
     element of the armed forces under United Nations command or 
     control, the President may place such forces under such 
     command or control and meet the requirements of subsection 
     (e) in a timely manner, but in no event later than 48 hours 
     after such command or control becomes effective.
       ``(d) Exception for Authorization by Law.--Subsection (b) 
     shall not apply in the case of a proposed placement of any 
     element of the Armed Forces under United Nations command or 
     control if the Congress specifically authorizes by law that 
     particular placement of United States forces under United 
     Nations command or control.
       ``(e) Presidential Certifications.--The requirements 
     referred to in subsection (c)(1) are that the President 
     submit to Congress the following:
       ``(1) Certification by the President that--
       ``(A) such a United Nations command or control arrangement 
     is necessary to protect national security interests of the 
     United States;
       ``(B) the commander of any unit of the Armed Forces 
     proposed for placement under United Nations command or 
     control will at all times retain the right--
       ``(i) to report independently to superior United States 
     military authorities; and
       ``(ii) to decline to comply with orders judged by the 
     commander to be illegal, militarily imprudent, or beyond the 
     mandate of the mission to which the United States agreed with 
     the United Nations, until such time as that commander 
     receives direction from superior United States military 
     authorities with respect to the orders that the commander has 
     declined to comply with;
       ``(C) any element of the Armed Forces proposed for 
     placement under United Nations command or control will at all 
     times remain under United States administrative command for 
     such purposes as discipline and evaluation; and
       ``(D) the United States will retain the authority to 
     withdraw any element of the Armed Forces from the proposed 
     operation at any time and to take any action it considers 
     necessary to protect those forces if they are engaged.
       ``(2) A report setting forth the following:
       ``(A) A description of the national security interests that 
     require the placement of United States forces under United 
     Nations command or control.
       ``(B) The mission of the United States forces involved.
       ``(C) The expected size and composition of the United 
     States forces involved.
       ``(D) The incremental cost to the United States of 
     participation in the United Nations operation by the United 
     States forces which are
      proposed to be placed under United Nations command or 
     control.
       ``(E) The precise command and control relationship between 
     the United States forces involved and the United Nations 
     command structure.
       ``(F) The precise command and control relationship between 
     the United States forces involved and the commander of the 
     United States unified command for the region in which those 
     United States forces are to operate.
       ``(G) The extent to which the United States forces involved 
     will rely on non-United States forces for security and self-
     defense and an assessment on the ability of those non-United 
     States forces to provide adequate security to the United 
     States forces involved.
       ``(H) The timetable for complete withdrawal of the United 
     States forces involved.
       ``(f) Classification of Report.--A report under subsection 
     (e) shall be submitted in unclassified form and, if 
     necessary, in classified form.
       ``(g) United Nations Command or Control.--For purposes of 
     this section, an element of the armed forces shall be 
     considered to be placed under United Nations command or 
     control if--
       ``(1) that element is under the command or operational 
     control of an individual acting on behalf of the United 
     Nations for the purpose of international peacekeeping, 
     peacemaking, peace-enforcing, or similar activity that is 
     authorized by the Security Council under chapter VI or VII of 
     the Charter of the United Nations; and
       ``(2) the senior military commander of the United Nations 
     force or operation--
       ``(A) is a foreign national or is a citizen of the United 
     States who is not a United States military officer serving on 
     active duty; or
       ``(B) is a United States military officer serving on active 
     duty but--
       ``(i) that element of the armed forces is under the command 
     or operational control of subordinate commander who is a 
     foreign national or a citizen of the United States who is not 
     a United States military officer serving on active duty; and
       ``(ii) that senior military commander does not have the 
     authority--

       ``(I) to dismiss any subordinate officer in the chain of 
     command who is exercising command or operational control over 
     United States forces and who is a foreign national or a 
     citizen of the United States who is not a United States 
     military officer serving on active duty;
       ``(II) to establish rules of engagement for United States 
     forces involved; and
       ``(III) to establish criteria governing the operational 
     employment of United States forces involved.
       ``(h) Interpretation.--Except as authorized in section 7 of 
     this Act, nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as 
     an authorization to the President by the Congress to make 
     available to the Security Council United States Armed Forces, 
     facilities, or assistance.''.
       (b) Report Relating to Constitutionality.--No certification 
     may be submitted by the President under section 6(e)(1) of 
     the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended by 
     subsection (a), until the President has submitted to the 
     Congress (after the date of the enactment of this Act) a 
     memorandum of legal points and authorities explaining why the 
     placement of elements of United States Armed Forces under the 
     command or operational control of a foreign national acting 
     on behalf of the United Nations does not violate the 
     Constitution.
       (c) Exception for Ongoing Operation in Macedonia and 
     Croatia.--Section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act 
     of 1945, as amended by subsection (a), does not apply in the 
     case of activities of the Armed Forces as part of the United 
     Nations force designated as the United Nations Protection 
     Force (UNPROFOR) that are carried out--
       (1) in Macedonia pursuant to United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 795, adopted December 11, 1992, and 
     subsequent reauthorization Resolutions; or
       (2) in Croatia pursuant to United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 743, adopted February 21, 1992, and subsequent 
     reauthorization Resolutions.
                        TITLE V--UNITED NATIONS

     SEC. 501. CREDIT AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR UNITED STATES 
                   EXPENDITURES IN SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS 
                   PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The United Nations Participation Act of 
     1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:
       ``Sec. 10. (a) Credit Against Assessment for Expenditures 
     in Support of Peacekeeping Operations.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--Funds may be obligated for payment to 
     the United Nations of the United States assessed share of 
     peacekeeping operations for a fiscal year only to the extent 
     that--
       ``(A) the amount of such assessed share exceeds--
       ``(B) the amount equal to--
       ``(i) the total amount identified in the report submitted 
     pursuant to paragraph (2) for the preceding fiscal year, 
     reduced by
       ``(ii) the amount of any reimbursement or credit to the 
     United States by the United Nations for the costs of United 
     States support for, or participation in, United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities for that preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Annual report.--The President shall, at the time of 
     submission of the budget to the Congress for any fiscal year, 
     submit to the designated congressional committees a report on 
     the total amount of incremental costs incurred by the 
     Department of Defense during the preceding fiscal year to 
     support or participate in, directly or indirectly, United 
     Nations peacekeeping activities. Such report shall include a 
     separate listing by United Nations peacekeeping operation of 
     the amount of incremental costs incurred to support or 
     participate in each such operation.
       ``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) United nations peacekeeping activities.--The term 
     `United Nations peacekeeping activities' means any 
     international
      peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace-enforcing, or similar 
     activity that is authorized by the United Nations Security 
     Council under chapter VI or VII of the Charter of the 
     United Nations, except that such term does not include any 
     such activity authorized under chapter VII of such Charter 
     with respect to which the President has certified to the 
     Congress that the activity is of such importance to the 
     national security of the United States that the United 
     States would undertake the activity unilaterally if it 
     were not authorized by the United Nations Security 
     Council.
       ``(B) Designated congressional committees.--The term 
     `designated congressional committees' includes the Committee 
     on National Security of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The limitation contained in section 
     10(a)(1) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as 
     added by subsection (a), shall apply only with respect to 
     United Nations assessments for peacekeeping operations after 
     fiscal year 1995.
     SEC. 502. CODIFICATION OF REQUIRED NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF 
                   PROPOSED UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Required Notice.--Section 4 of the United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287b) is amended--
       (1) by striking the second sentence of subsection (a);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
     [[Page H1806]]   (3) by inserting after subsection (d) a new 
     subsection (e) consisting of the text of subsection (a) of 
     section 407 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), revised--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``in written form not later than the 10th day of'' after 
     ``shall be provided'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by inserting ``(including 
     facilities, training, transportation, communication, and 
     logistical support, but not including intelligence activities 
     reportable under title V of the National Security Act of 1947 
     (50 U.S.C. 413 et seq.))'' after ``covered by the 
     resolution''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iv) A description of any other United States assistance 
     to or support for the operation (including facilities, 
     training, transportation, communication, and logistical 
     support, but not including intelligence activities reportable 
     under title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     413 et seq.)), and an estimate of the cost to the United 
     States of such assistance or support.'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (3);
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3) and in 
     the last sentence of subparagraph (A) of that paragraph by 
     striking ``and (ii)'' and inserting ``through (iv)'';
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) New united nations peacekeeping operation defined.--
     As used in paragraphs (2) (B) and (3), the term `new United 
     Nations peacekeeping operation' includes any existing or 
     otherwise ongoing United Nations peacekeeping operation--
       ``(A) that is to be expanded by more than 25 percent during 
     the period covered by the Security Council resolution, as 
     measured by either the number of personnel participating (or 
     authorized to participate) in the operation or the budget of 
     the operation; or
       ``(B) that is to be authorized to operate in a country in 
     which it was not previously authorized to operate.''; and
       (E) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) by striking ``(5) Notification'' and all that follows 
     through ``(B) The President'' and inserting ``(5) Quarterly 
     reports.--The President''; and
       (ii) by striking ``section 4(d)'' and all that follows 
     through ``of this section)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (d)''.
       (b) Conforming Repeal.--Subsection (a) of section 407 of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 
     and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), is repealed.
       (c) Designated Congressional Committees.--Subsection (f) of 
     section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 
     U.S.C. 287b(f)), as redesignated by subsection (a), is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Designated Congressional Committees.--As used in this 
     section, the term `designated congressional committees' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 10(f).''.

     SEC. 503. NOTICE TO CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       Section 10 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 
     is amended by adding after subsection (a), as added by 
     section 501, the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Notice to Congress Regarding Contributions for 
     Peacekeeping Activities.--
       ``(1) Notice regarding united nations billing request.--Not 
     later than 15 days after the date on which the United States 
     receives from the United Nations a billing requesting a 
     payment by the United States of any contribution for United 
     Nations peacekeeping activities, the President shall so 
     notify the designated congressional committees.
       ``(2) Notice regarding proposed obligation of funds.--The 
     President shall notify the designated congressional 
     committees at least 15 days before the United States 
     obligates funds for any assessed or voluntary contribution 
     for United Nations peacekeeping activities, except that if 
     the President determines that an emergency exists which 
     prevents compliance with the requirement that such 
     notification be provided 15 days in advance and that such 
     contribution is in the national security interests of the 
     United States, such notification shall be provided in a 
     timely manner but no later than 48 hours after such 
     obligation.''.

     SEC. 504. REVISED NOTICE TO CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       Section 7 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 
     (22 U.S.C. 287d-1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``other than subsection 
     (e)(1)'' after ``any other law''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), at 
     least 15 days before any agency or entity of the United 
     States Government makes available to the United Nations any 
     assistance or facility to support or facilitate United 
     Nations peacekeeping activities, the President shall so 
     notify the designated congressional committees.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) assistance having a value of less than $1,000,000 in 
     the case of nonreimbursable assistance or less than 
     $5,000,000 in the case of reimbursable assistance; or
       ``(B) assistance provided under the emergency drawdown 
     authority contained in sections 506(a)(1) and 552(c)(2) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1), 
     2348a(c)(2)).
       ``(3) If the President determines that an emergency exists 
     which prevents compliance with the requirement in paragraph 
     (1) that notification be provided 15 days in advance and that 
     the contribution of any such assistance or facility is in the 
     national security interests of the United States, such 
     notification shall be provided in a timely manner but not 
     later than 48 hours after such assistance or facility is made 
     available to the United Nations.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `assistance'--
       ``(A) means assistance of any kind, including logistical 
     support, supplies, goods, or services (including command, 
     control or communications assistance and training), and the 
     grant of rights of passage; and
       ``(B) includes assistance provided through in-kind 
     contributions or through the provision of support, supplies, 
     goods, or services on any terms, including on a grant, lease, 
     loan, or reimbursable basis; but
       ``(C) does not include the payment of assessed or voluntary 
     contributions or intelligence activities reportable under 
     title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 
     et seq.).''.

     SEC. 505. UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED NATIONS 
                   PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       Section 4(d)(1) of the United Nations Participation Act of 
     1945 (22 U.S.C. 287b(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) A description of the anticipated budget for the next 
     fiscal year for United States participation in United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities, including a statement of--
       ``(i) the aggregate amount of funds available to the United 
     Nations for that fiscal year, including assessed and 
     voluntary contributions, which may be made available for 
     United Nations peacekeeping activities; and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of funds (from all accounts) 
     and the aggregate costs of in-kind contributions that the 
     United States proposes to make available to the United 
     Nations for that fiscal year for United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities.''.

     SEC. 506. REIMBURSEMENT TO THE UNITED STATES FOR IN-KIND 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7 of the United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287d-1), as amended by 
     section 504, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
       (B) by striking ``United States: Provided,'' through 
     ``Provided further, That when'' and inserting ``United 
     States. When''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement 
     for reimbursement under paragraph (1) if the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, determines that an 
     emergency exists which justifies waiver of that requirement. 
     Any such waiver shall be submitted to the designated 
     congressional committees, as defined in
      section 10(a)(3)(B), at least 15 days before it takes 
     effect, except that if the President determines that an 
     emergency exists which prevents compliance with the 
     requirement that the notification be provided 15 days in 
     advance and that the provision under subsection (a)(1) or 
     (a)(2) of personnel or assistance on a nonreimbursable 
     basis is in the national security interests of the United 
     States, such notification shall be provided in a timely 
     manner but no later than 48 hours after such waiver takes 
     effect.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) The Secretary of State shall ensure that goods and 
     services provided on a reimbursable basis by the Department 
     of Defense to the United Nations for United Nations 
     peacekeeping operations under this section or any other 
     provision of law are reimbursed at the appropriate value, as 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense.''.
       (b) Initial Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Representative of the United 
     States to the United Nations shall submit to the designated 
     congressional committees a report on all actions taken by the 
     United States mission to the United Nations to achieve the 
     objective described in section 7(f) of the United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945, as added by subsection (a)(2).
       (2) Designated congressional committees defined.--As used 
     in this subsection, the term ``designated congressional 
     committees'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     10(a)(3)(B) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 
     as added by section 501.
     SEC. 507. LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF UNITED STATES ASSESSED OR 
                   VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNITED NATIONS 
                   PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 10 of the United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945 is amended by adding after 
     subsection (b), as added by section 503, the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Limitation on Payment of Assessed or Voluntary 
     Contributions for Peacekeeping Activities.--
     [[Page H1807]]   ``(1) Limitation.--Appropriated funds may 
     not be used to pay any United States assessed or voluntary 
     contribution during any fiscal year for United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities until the Secretary of Defense 
     certifies to the designated congressional committees that the 
     United Nations has reimbursed the Department of Defense 
     directly for all goods and services--
       ``(A) that were provided to the United Nations by the 
     Department of Defense on a reimbursable basis during a 
     previous fiscal year after fiscal year 1994 for United 
     Nations peacekeeping activities, including personnel and 
     assistance provided under section 7 (except to the extent 
     that the authority of subsection (b)(2) of such section to 
     waive the reimbursement requirement was exercised with 
     respect to such personnel or assistance); and
       ``(B) for which a request for reimbursement has been 
     submitted to the United Nations in accordance with paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Request for reimbursement.--The President shall 
     establish procedures for the submission to the United Nations 
     of requests for reimbursement for goods and services provided 
     to the United Nations by the Department of Defense on a 
     reimbursable basis for United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities. Such procedures shall ensure that each such 
     request for reimbursement is submitted in a timely manner.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The limitation in section 10(c)(1) of 
     the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall apply only with respect to fiscal years 
     after fiscal year 1995.
     SEC. 508. LIMITATION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS 
                   FOR UNITED STATES SHARE OF COSTS OF UNITED 
                   NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 20 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 405, as added by 
     section 401 of this Act, the following new section:
     ``Sec. 406. Use of Department of Defense funds for United 
       States share of costs of United Nations peacekeeping 
       activities: limitation

       ``(a) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Payment of 
     Assessments and Voluntary Contributions.--(1) Funds available 
     to the Department of Defense may not be used to make a 
     financial contribution (directly or through another 
     department or agency of the United States) to the United 
     Nations--
       ``(A) for the costs of a United Nations peacekeeping 
     activity; or
       ``(B) for any United States arrearage to the United 
     Nations.
       ``(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1)(A) applies to 
     voluntary contributions, as well as to contributions pursuant 
     to assessment by the United Nations for the United States 
     share of the costs of a peacekeeping activity.
       ``(b) Limitation on Use of Funds for Participation in 
     United Nations Peacekeeping Activities.--Funds available to 
     the Department of Defense may be used for payment of the 
     incremental costs associated with the participation of 
     elements of the armed forces in a United Nations peacekeeping 
     activity only to the extent that Congress has by law 
     specifically authorized the use of those funds for that 
     purpose.
       ``(c) Covered Peacekeeping Activities.--In this section, 
     the term `United Nations peacekeeping activity' means a 
     peacekeeping activity carried out pursuant to a resolution of 
     the United Nations Security Council for which costs are met 
     (in whole or in part) through assessments by the United 
     Nations to its member nations.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``406. Use of Department of Defense funds for United States share of 
              costs of United Nations peacekeeping activities: 
              limitation.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 406 of title 10, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1995.

     SEC. 509. CODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF UNITED 
                   STATES ASSESSED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNITED 
                   NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 10 of the United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945 is amended by adding after 
     subsection (c), as added by section 507, the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Limitation on Assessed Contribution With Respect to a 
     Peacekeeping Operation.--Funds authorized to be appropriated 
     for `Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities' 
     for any fiscal year shall not be available for the payment of 
     the United States assessed contribution for a United Nations 
     peacekeeping operation in an amount which is greater than 25 
     percent of the total amount of all assessed contributions for 
     that operation, and any arrearages that accumulate as a 
     result of assessments in excess of 25 percent of the total 
     amount of all assessed contributions for any United Nations 
     peacekeeping operation shall not be recognized or paid by the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The limitation contained in section 
     10(d) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as 
     added by subsection (a), shall apply only with respect to 
     funds authorized to be appropriated for ``Contributions for 
     International Peacekeeping Activities'' for fiscal years 
     after fiscal year 1995.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 404(b) of the Foreign 
     Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 
     (Public Law 103-236) is amended by striking paragraph (2).

     SEC. 510. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT.

       Section 10 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 
     is amended by adding after subsection (d), as added by 
     section 509, the following new subsections:
       ``(e) Buy American Requirement.--No funds may be obligated 
     or expended to pay any United States assessed or voluntary 
     contribution for United Nations peacekeeping activities 
     unless the Secretary of State determines and certifies to the 
     designated congressional committees that United States 
     manufacturers and suppliers are being given opportunities to 
     provide equipment, services, and material for such activities 
     equal to those being given to foreign manufacturers and 
     suppliers.
       ``(f) Designated Congressional Committees Defined.--As used 
     in this section, the term `designated congressional 
     committees' means--
       ``(1) the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       ``(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate.''.

     SEC. 511. UNITED NATIONS BUDGETARY AND MANAGEMENT REFORM.

       (a) In General.--The United Nations Participation Act of 
     1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 11. (a) Withholding of Contributions.--
       ``(1) Assessed contributions for regular united nations 
     budget.--At the beginning of each fiscal year, 20 percent of 
     the amount of funds made available for that fiscal year for 
     United States assessed contributions for the regular United 
     Nations budget shall be withheld from obligation and 
     expenditure unless a certification for that fiscal year has 
     been made under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Assessed contributions for united nations 
     peacekeeping.--At the beginning of each fiscal year, 50 
     percent of the amount of funds made available for that fiscal 
     year for United States assessed contributions for United 
     Nations peacekeeping activities shall be withheld from 
     obligation and expenditure unless a certification for that 
     fiscal year has been made under subsection (b).
       ``(3) Voluntary contributions for united nations 
     peacekeeping.--The United States may not during any fiscal 
     year pay any voluntary contribution to the United Nations for 
     international peacekeeping activities unless a certification 
     for that fiscal year has been made under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Certification.--The certification referred to in 
     subsection (a) for any fiscal year is a certification by the 
     President to the Congress, submitted on or after the 
     beginning of that fiscal year, of each of the following:
       ``(1) The United Nations has an independent office of 
     Inspector General to conduct and supervise objective audits, 
     inspections, and investigations relating to programs and 
     operations of the United Nations.
       ``(2) The United Nations has an Inspector General who was 
     appointed by the Secretary General with the approval of the 
     General Assembly and whose appointment was made principally 
     on the basis of the appointee's integrity and demonstrated 
     ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, 
     management analysis, public administration, or investigation.
       ``(3) The Inspector General is authorized to--
       ``(A) make investigations and reports relating to the 
     administration of the programs and operations of the United 
     Nations;
       ``(B) have access to all records, documents, and other 
     available materials relating to those programs and 
     operations;
       ``(C) have direct and prompt access to any official of the 
     United Nations; and
       ``(D) have access to all records and officials of the 
     specialized agencies of the United Nations.
       ``(4) The United Nations has fully implemented, and made 
     available to all member states, procedures that effectively 
     protect the identity of, and prevent reprisals against, any 
     staff member of the United Nations making a complaint or 
     disclosing information to, or cooperating in any 
     investigation or inspection by, the United Nations Inspector 
     General.
       ``(5) The United Nations has fully implemented procedures 
     that ensure compliance with recommendations of the United 
     Nations Inspector General.
       ``(6) The United Nations has required the United Nations 
     Inspector General to issue an annual report and has ensured 
     that the annual
      report and all other reports of the Inspector General are 
     made available to the General Assembly without 
     modification.
       ``(7) The United Nations has provided, and is committed to 
     providing, sufficient budgetary resources to ensure the 
     effective operation of the United Nations Inspector 
     General.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 11 of the United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945, as added by subsection (a), shall 
     apply only with respect to fiscal years after fiscal year 
     1995.
     SEC. 512. CONDITIONS ON PROVISION OF INTELLIGENCE TO THE 
                   UNITED NATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The United Nations Participation Act of 
     1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 12. (a) Provision of Intelligence Information to the 
     United Nations.--Before 
     [[Page H1808]] intelligence information is provided by the 
     United States to the United Nations, the President shall 
     ensure that the Director of Central Intelligence, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Defense, has established guidelines governing the provision 
     of intelligence information to the United Nations which shall 
     protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized 
     disclosure in accordance with section 103(c)(5) of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-3(c)(5)).
       ``(b) Periodic and Special Reports.--(1) The President 
     shall periodically report, but not less frequently than 
     semiannually, to the Committee on International Relations and 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations and 
     the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate on the 
     types of intelligence provided to the United Nations and the 
     purposes for which it was provided during the period covered 
     by the report. The President shall also report to the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate, within 15 days after it becomes known to him, any 
     unauthorized disclosure of intelligence provided to the 
     United Nations.
       ``(2) The requirement for periodic reports under the first 
     sentence of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply 
     to the provision of intelligence that is provided only to, 
     and for the use of, United States Government personnel 
     serving with the United Nations.
       ``(c) Delegation of Duties.--The President may not delegate 
     or assign the duties of the President under this section.
       ``(d) Improved Handling of Intelligence Information by the 
     United Nations.--The Secretary of State (or the designee of 
     the Secretary), in consultation with the Director of Central 
     Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, shall work with 
     the United Nations to improve the handling, processing, 
     dissemination, and management of all intelligence information 
     provided to it by its members.
       ``(e) Relationship to Existing Law.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to--
       ``(1) impair or otherwise affect the authority of the 
     Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence 
     sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure pursuant to 
     section 103(c)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 403-3(c)(5)); or
       ``(2) supersede or otherwise affect the provisions of title 
     V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 et 
     seq.).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
     TITLE VI--EXPANSION OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``NATO Expansion Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) has helped to guarantee the security, freedom, and 
     prosperity of the United States and its partners in the 
     alliance.
       (2) NATO has expanded its membership on three different 
     occasions since its founding in 1949.
       (3) The steadfast and sustained commitment of the member 
     countries of NATO to mutual defense against the threat of 
     communist domination played a significant role in 
     precipitating the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the demise 
     of the Soviet Union.
       (4) Although new threats are more geographically and 
     functionally diverse and less predictable, they still imperil 
     shared interests of the United States and its NATO allies.
       (5) Western interests must be protected on a cooperative 
     basis without an undue burden falling upon the United States.
       (6) NATO is the only multilateral organization that is 
     capable of conducting effective military operations to 
     protect Western interests.
       (7) The valuable experience gained from ongoing military 
     cooperation within NATO was critical to the success of joint 
     military operations in the 1991 liberation of Kuwait.
       (8) NATO is an important diplomatic forum for discussion of 
     issues of concern to its member states and for the peaceful 
     resolution of disputes.
       (9) Admission of Central and East European countries that 
     have recently been freed from Communist domination to NATO 
     could contribute to international peace and enhance the 
     security of those countries.
       (10) By joining the Partnership for Peace, a number of 
     countries have expressed interest in NATO membership.
       (11) The Partnership for Peace program is creating new 
     political and military ties with countries in Central and 
     Eastern Europe and provides the basis for joint action to 
     deal with common security problems. Active participation in 
     the Partnership for Peace will also play an important role in 
     the evolutionary process of NATO expansion.
       (12) In particular, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, 
     and Slovakia have made significant progress toward 
     establishing democratic institutions, free market economies, 
     civilian control of their armed forces, police, and 
     intelligence services, and the rule of law since the fall of 
     their previous Communist governments.

     SEC. 603. UNITED STATES POLICY.

       It should be the policy of the United States--
       (1) to continue the Nation's commitment to an active 
     leadership role in NATO;
       (2) to join with the Nation's NATO allies to redefine the 
     role of the alliance in the post-Cold War world, taking into 
     account--
       (A) the fundamentally changed security environment of 
     Central and Eastern Europe;
       (B) the need to assure all countries of the defensive 
     nature of the alliance and the desire of its members to work 
     cooperatively with all former adversaries;
       (C) the emerging security threats posed by the 
     proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of 
     mass destruction and the means to deliver them;
       (D) the continuing challenges to the interests of all NATO 
     member countries posed by unstable and undemocratic regimes 
     harboring hostile intentions; and
       (E) the dependence of the global economy on a stable energy 
     supply and the free flow of commerce;
       (3) to affirm that NATO military planning should include 
     joint military operations beyond the geographic bounds of the 
     alliance under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty when 
     the shared interests of the United States and other member 
     countries require such action to defend vital interests;
       (4) to expeditiously pursue joint cooperation agreements 
     for the acquisition of essential systems to significantly 
     increase the crisis management capability of NATO;
       (5) that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia 
     should be in a position to further the principles of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of 
     the North Atlantic area in the near future, and, in 
     accordance with Article 10
      of such Treaty, should be invited to become full NATO 
     members, provided these countries--
       (A) meet appropriate standards, including--
       (i) shared values and interests;
       (ii) democratic governments;
       (iii) free market economies;
       (iv) civilian control of the military, of the police, and 
     of the intelligence and other security services, so that 
     these organizations do not pose a threat to democratic 
     institutions, neighboring countries, or the security of NATO 
     or the United States;
       (v) adherence to the rule of law and to the values, 
     principles, and political commitments set forth in the 
     Helsinki Final Act and other declarations by the members of 
     the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
       (vi) commitment to further the principles of NATO and to 
     contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area;
       (vii) commitment and ability to accept the obligations, 
     responsibilities, and costs of NATO membership; and
       (viii) commitment and ability to implement infrastructure 
     development activities that will facilitate participation in 
     and support for NATO military activities; and
       (B) remain committed to protecting the rights of all their 
     citizens and respecting the territorial integrity of their 
     neighbors;
       (6) that the United States, other NATO member nations, and 
     NATO itself should furnish appropriate assistance to 
     facilitate the transition of Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
     Republic, and Slovakia to full NATO membership;
       (7) to reaffirm article X of the North Atlantic Treaty and 
     the policy decision of the North Atlantic Council on December 
     1, 1994, that--
       (A) each new member nation may be admitted to NATO only by 
     amendment to the North Atlantic Treaty; and
       (B) each current NATO member nation will have to complete 
     the treaty amendment ratification process for the admission 
     of each new member nation to NATO, subject to the internal 
     legal processes of each current NATO member nation, and that 
     in the case of the United States, the treaty amendment 
     ratification process will require advice and consent of two-
     thirds of the members of the United States Senate present and 
     voting;
       (8) that the expansion of NATO should be defensive in 
     nature and should occur in a manner that increases stability 
     for all nations of Europe, including both NATO member nations 
     and non-NATO member nations;
       (9) that NATO and its member nations should cooperate 
     closely with Russia on security issues and work to strengthen 
     other structures of security cooperation in Europe, including 
     the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and
       (10) that other European countries emerging from communist 
     domination may be in a position at a future date to further 
     the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute 
     to the security of the North Atlantic area, and at the 
     appropriate time they should receive assistance to facilitate 
     their transition to full NATO membership and should be 
     invited to become full NATO members.
     SEC. 604. REVISIONS TO PROGRAM TO FACILITATE TRANSITION TO 
                   NATO MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--Subsection (a) of section 
     203 of the NATO Participation Act of 1994
      (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Establishment of Program.--The President shall 
     establish a program to assist in the transition to full NATO 
     membership 
     [[Page H1809]] of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
     Slovakia and any other European country emerging from 
     communist domination that is designated by the President 
     under subsection (d)(2).''.
       (b) Eligible Countries.--
       (1) Designated countries.--Subsection (d) of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Designation of Eligible Countries.--
       ``(1) Specified countries.--The following countries are 
     hereby designated for purposes of this title: Poland, 
     Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.
       ``(2) Authority for president to designate other european 
     countries emerging from communist domination.--The President 
     may designate other European countries emerging from 
     communist domination (as defined in section 206) to receive 
     assistance under the program established under subsection 
     (a). The President may make such a designation in the case of 
     any such country only if the President determines, and 
     reports to the designated congressional committees, that such 
     country--
       ``(A) has made significant progress toward establishing--
       ``(i) shared values and interests;
       ``(ii) democratic governments;
       ``(iii) free market economies;
       ``(iv) civilian control of the military, of the police, and 
     of the intelligence and other security services, so that 
     these organizations do not pose a threat to democratic 
     institutions, neighboring countries, or the security of NATO 
     or the United States;
       ``(v) adherence to the rule of law and to the values, 
     principles, and political commitments set forth in the 
     Helsinki Final Act and other declarations by the members of 
     the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
       ``(vi) commitment to further the principles of NATO and to 
     contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area;
       ``(vii) commitment and ability to accept the obligations, 
     responsibilities, and costs of NATO membership; and
       ``(viii) commitment and ability to implement infrastructure 
     development activities that will facilitate participation in 
     and support for NATO military activities; and
       ``(B) is likely, within five years of such determination, 
     to be in a position to further the principles of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the 
     North Atlantic area.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsections (b) and (c) of such section are amended by 
     striking ``countries described in such subsection'' and 
     inserting ``countries designated under subsection (d)''.
       (B) Subsection (e) of such section is amended--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)(2)''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2394)'' before the period at 
     the end.
       (C) Section 204(c) of such Act is amended by striking ``any 
     other Partnership for Peace country designated under section 
     203(d) of this title'' and inserting ``any country designated 
     under section 203(d)(2)''.
       (c) Types of Assistance.--
       (1) Economic support assistance.--Subsection (c) of section 
     203 of such Act is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph (3):
       ``(3) Assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to the Economic Support 
     Fund).''.
       (2) Additional assistance.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (f) of such section is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(f) Additional Assistance.--In carrying out the program 
     established under subsection (a), the President may, in 
     addition to the security assistance authorized to be provided 
     under subsection (c), provide assistance to countries 
     designated under subsection (d) from funds appropriated under 
     the `Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund' account.''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A) 
     does not apply with respect to funds appropriated before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Disqualification From Assistance for Support of 
     Terrorism.--Section 203 of such Act is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Prohibition on Providing Assistance to Countries That 
     Provide Defense Articles to Countries Supporting 
     International Terrorism.--The President may not provide 
     assistance to a country under the program established under 
     subsection (a) if such country is selling or transferring 
     defense articles to a state that has repeatedly provided 
     support for acts of international terrorism, as determined by 
     the Secretary of State under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979.''.
       (e) Report Prior to Obligation or Expenditure of Funds.--
     Section 203 of such Act (as amended by subsection (d)) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Report Prior to Obligation or Expenditure of Funds.--
     Prior to providing assistance to a country for the first time 
     through the program established under subsection (a), the 
     President shall transmit to the designated congressional 
     committees a report with respect to that country that 
     contains a description of the following:
       ``(1) The cost of membership in NATO for the country and 
     the amount that the country is prepared to contribute to NATO 
     to pay for such cost of membership.
       ``(2) The amount that the United States will contribute to 
     facilitate transition to full NATO membership for the 
     country.
       ``(3) The extent to which the admission to NATO of the 
     country would contribute to the security of the United 
     States.
       ``(4) The views of other NATO member nations regarding the 
     admission to NATO of the country and the amounts that such 
     other NATO member nations will contribute to facilitate 
     transition to full NATO membership for the country.''.
       (f) Annual Report.--Section 205 of the NATO Participation 
     Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 
     note) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``annual'' in the section heading before 
     the first word;
       (2) by inserting ``annual'' after ``include in the'' in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1); and
       (3) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``and other'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the
      end and inserting ``and any country designated by the 
     President pursuant to section 203(d)(2).''.
       (g) Definitions.--The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title 
     II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 206. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) NATO.--The term `NATO' means the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization.
       ``(2) Other european countries emerging from communist 
     domination.--The term `other European countries emerging from 
     communist domination' means any full and active participant 
     in the Partnership for Peace that--
       ``(A) is located--
       ``(i) in the territory of the former Union of Soviet 
     Socialist Republics; or
       ``(ii) in the territory of the former Socialist Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia; or
       ``(B) is among the following countries: Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, or Albania.
       ``(3) Designated congressional committees.--The term 
     `designated congressional committees' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on International Relations, the 
     Committee on National Security, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.''.
                      TITLE VII--BUDGET FIREWALLS

     SEC. 701. RESTORATION OF BUDGET FIREWALLS FOR DEFENSE 
                   SPENDING.

       It is the sense of the Congress that, in order to protect 
     against the diversion of defense funding to domestic 
     discretionary accounts, so-called ``budget firewalls'' 
     between defense and domestic discretionary spending should be 
     established for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.

  The CHAIRMAN. The bill will be considered for amendment under the 5-
minute rule for a period not to exceed 10 hours.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as having 
been read.
  The time for the 10-hour debate is beginning at 4:50 p.m., and we 
will keep track of that.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. spence

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 39, printed in 
the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Spence: At the end of title II 
     (page 12, after line 25), add the following new section.

     SEC. 204. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE AND 
                   THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE (ARM) TREATY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and its allies face existing and 
     expanding threats from ballistic missiles capable of being 
     used as theater weapon systems that are presently possessed 
     by, being developed by, or being acquired by a number of 
     countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North 
     Korea.
       (2) Some theater ballistic missiles that are currently 
     deployed or are being developed (such as the Chinese CSS-2 
     missile and the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile) have 
     capabilities equal to or greater than the capabilities of 
     missiles that were determined to be strategic missiles more 
     than 20 years ago under the Strategic Arms Limitation 
     Agreement I (SALT I) Interim Agreement of 1972 entered into 
     between the United States and the Soviet Union.
       (3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was not 
     intended to, and does not, apply to or limit research, 
     development, testing or deployment of missile defense 
     systems, system upgrades, or system components that are 
     designed to counter modern theater ballistic missiles, 
     regardless of the capabilities 
     [[Page H1810]] of such missiles, unless those systems, system 
     upgrades, or system components are tested against or have 
     demonstrated capabilities to counter modern strategic 
     ballistic missiles.
       (4) It is a national security priority of the United States 
     to develop and deploy highly effective theater missile 
     defense systems capable of countering the existing and 
     expanding threats posed by modern theater ballistic missiles 
     at the earliest practical date.
       (5) Current United States proposal in the Standing 
     Consultative Commission (SCC) would multilateralize the ABM 
     Treaty, making future amendments or changes to the Treaty 
     more difficult, and would impose specific design limitations 
     on United States theater missile defense (TMD) systems that 
     would significantly compromise the United States TMD 
     capability.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that further formal negotiations in the Standing Consultative 
     Commission (SCC) and any informal discussions or negotiations 
     on either the demarcation between theater missile defense 
     (TMD) systems and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, or 
     any other effort that bears on the viability of the ABM 
     Treaty, including multilateralization of the treaty, should 
     be suspended until the One Hundred Fourth Congress has had 
     the opportunity to review those matters.

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to title II of 
H.R. 872.
  One of the highest priority defense capabilities currently under 
development by the Department of Defense is theater missile defense. 
The U.S. theater missile defense systems are designed to defend our 
U.S. military forces deployed overseas, along with friendly forces and 
allies, from ballistic missile attack.
  The threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles is 
expanding. Several countries, including North Korea, are developing 
missiles of increasing range and accuracy. Others, such as Iran, have 
purchased missiles and production technology from North Korea. Such 
proliferation underscores the importance of fielding, at the earliest 
practical date, advanced TMD systems, as advocated in title II of this 
bill.
  Unfortunately, our ability to field high-effective TMD systems is in 
jeopardy. Specifically, under the guise of ``clarifying'' the terms of 
the 1972 anti-ballistic treaty, this administration has proposed in 
talks with Russia and others to impose specific design limitations on 
two theater missile defense systems that will significantly compromise 
our United States capability.
  They have also proposed to multilateralize the ABM Treaty, making 
future amendments or changes to the treaty, such as those to deploy an 
effective missile defense of our country, more difficult.
  Based on these concerns, I cosigned a letter to President Clinton on 
January 4, along with the entire House Republican leadership, 
suggesting that further negotiations be suspended until the new 
Congress had an opportunity to examine those issues in detail. 
Unfortunately, the President's reply rejected our suggestion and stated 
his intention to continue negotiating such an agreement.
  I would note that, according to a February 13, 1995, Washington Times 
article, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch also has grave 
misgivings about the current U.S. negotiating approach, as does our 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili. According to 
the Times, Mr. Deutch in a February 6 memorandum, affirmed that 
countering missile proliferation was ``an urgent defense requirement.'' 
But he also suggested that in light of Russian intransigence in these 
negotiations, we should ``shift our proposal to a more principled 
demarkation position.'' I strongly agree with Secretary Deutch's 
alleged statements.
  It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to more explicitly communicate 
our deep concerns about the administration's position in these 
negotiations and the adverse impact they would have on our missile 
defense programs.
  My amendment does just that. Specifically, the amendment expresses 
the sense of Congress that further formal negotiations in the standing 
consultative commission and any informal discussions or negotiations on 
either the demarkation between the theater missile defense systems and 
ABM systems or any other effort that bears on the viability of the ABM 
Treaty, including multilateralization of the ABM Treaty, should be 
suspended until the 104th Congress has had the opportunity to review 
those matters. It is a statement of principle and not binding language. 
Nevertheless, my hope is that the President will listen more carefully 
this time.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the amendment offered by our committee chairman.
  This is a sense-of-the-Congress amendment so it is not binding, but 
it is a very important one because it gets at the heart of what is now 
going on between our administration and Russia in terms of the ABM 
Treaty.
  As our chairman pointed out, both the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in 
a memo that I will include for the Record, as well as the comments by 
General Shalikashvili that we are concerned about the administration 
policymakers not adopting treaty changes which would prohibit the 
Defense Debarment from deploying new theater defense systems that meet 
U.S. requirements.
  What is important for our colleagues on the minority side is that one 
of their basic contentions is that theater missile defense is of the 
highest priority.
  Now, your Deputy Secretary of Defense, or, I should say, ours and our 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are both raising a red flag saying, let us 
not let those negotiators move too fast. So this is an extremely 
important amendment.
  I want to get at the heart of why I think it is so important. My 
first amendment on the floor of this House in 1987, when many of the 
more liberal Members of our Congress were saying that we should adhere 
to the strictest possible interpretation of the ABM Treaty, I offered 
an amendment that acknowledged that the Kransnowarsk radar system in 
Siberia was in fact a direct violation of the ABM Treaty.
  Guess what we have found out, Mr. Chairman, after in fact the Russian 
military leaders have retired and reported what there intent was with 
that radar?
  In a recent article in the Russian military historical journal, 
written by retired General Votintsev, who said the ABM and space 
defense troops of the National Air Defense Forces, from 1967 until 
1985, he states that it was clearly the Soviet Union's intent to break 
out and violate the ABM Treaty.
  Many of the more liberal Members in this body, during that debate, 
were saying, oh, this is wrong. It is just an accident. It is just 
being used for radar. It is not being used for defensive operations. In 
fact, here is the general, who was in charge of that system at the 
time, not publicly stating what we said on this House floor.
  He said, furthermore, that he was ordered to do this by the Chief of 
Staff, Marshall Ogarkov and was told that if he did not locate this 
radar in Krasnowarsk that General Ustinov, the Minister of Defense, 
directed that anyone who continued to object would be removed of his 
duties.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us want to work with the Russians. I cochair the 
Russian Energy Caucus. I am working with them on their nuclear waste 
problem.
  But as Ronald Reagan said, we must trust but verify.
                              {time}  1700

  What we are saying is that should be the hallmark of our negotiations 
with the Russians now. We should not let our negotiators bargain away 
the ability for us to develop a continued theater defense system which 
the minority side feels so strongly about. This amendment protects 
that. I applaud my chairman for the amendment, and I would be happy to 
support it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work and leadership 
on this issue.
  I think it is important for Members to realize what we are doing 
here. The administration, according to our own senior military 
officials, is trying to 
[[Page H1811]] negotiate into the ABM Treaty, which is between the 
United States and the Soviet Union, some limitations on our ability to 
put out systems that will defend our troops, like those that were in 
Iran or in Iraq, against incoming theater ballistic missiles.
  There are two parties to the ABM Treaty, us and the Soviet Union, yet 
there are countries like Libya, North Korea, China, and others that are 
developing theater ballistic missiles that could be targeted on our 
troops. They are not signatories to the ABM agreement and they do not 
care what kind of restrictions we must put on. In fact, they would like 
us to put restrictions on our defensive systems.
  What the gentleman is talking about, Mr. Chairman, is a total 
curtailment of theater ballistic missile defense systems that Democrats 
and Republicans agree are very, very important to the survivability of 
our troops. That means that when we have a troop concentration, whether 
it is Marines or Army units in the Middle East, in Europe, in Southeast 
Asia, and we need to put a footprint, a defensive footprint around 
them, whether it is the THAAD system or a Patriot system, upgraded 
Patriot, or the Navy lower tier system, all those systems are little 
theater missile defense systems that can shoot down incoming missiles. 
When we try to put those up, we are now going to be facing limitations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon] has expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania be allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, we are 
trying to figure out exactly what this amendment does. We are kind of 
worried, when the gentleman is taking a lot of time here, and we really 
do not have a chance to do that.
  Mr. HUNTER. I will be happy to strike the requisite number of words 
on my own.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. I appreciate very much the gentleman doing that.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record 
these articles and this information.
  The information referred to is as follows:


                                  Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 1995.
     Memorandum for: Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
         and Technology; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; 
         Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; 
         Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security 
         Policy; Director, Ballistic Missile Defense; Senior 
         Deputy General Counsel, International Affairs and 
         Intelligence.
     Subject: BMD program logic.

       Here is a revised outline based on your inputs and pulled 
     together by Ash Carter. As always, your suggestions have been 
     helpful.
       Attachment.


                       ballistic missile defense

       I. BMD Program is determined by:
       A. The threat--present and anticipated.
       B. Technical and Program Options.
       C. Cost and affordability--more resources for BMD means 
     some other modernization opportunities must be forgone.
       D. ABM (and other) treaty implications.
       II. The Threat
       A. Present threat against CONUS (AK and HI slightly 
     different)
       1. Russian ICBM and SLBM threat.
       2. China--CSS4.
       3. No Rest of World (ROW) BM threat to CONUS expected 
     before 2005 at the earliest. (Clapper testimony)
       4. Vulnerability to surreptitiously delivered or air-
     delivered nuclear device.
       B. Future threat against CONUS
       1. Russia and China.
       2. ROW Proliferator indigenous development, e.g., North 
     Korea, Iran, Libya.
       3. Delivery by BM or air breathers, e.g., cruise missile.
       C. Effective CONUS defense against determined Russian 
     attack (several thousand RVs) problematic. Responses to this 
     threat are vigorous deterrent (NPR) plus priority on 
     preventing reemergence of threat (CTR).
      against accidental or small attack (< 50 RVs without 
     sophisticated penaids) possible.
       D. Theater Ballistic Missile Threat
       1. Here today--for US and Allies; SCUDs NO DONG, CSS-2, 
     etc.
       2. TBM can carry nuclear or unitary/submission CW/BW 
     warheads.
       3. If unchecked, significant problem for U.S. forward 
     operations, esp. SWA, ROK.
       4. ROW by purchase or SLV conversion.
       5. Urgent defense requirements for US and Allies.
       III. TBM Defense first priority ($2 billion/year)
       A. Core Program (deployment planned):
       1. PAC-3 First Unit Equipped (FUE) 1998
       2. THAAD FUE 2002
       3. Navy Lower Tier FUE 2000
       B. Enhanced Program (technology development):
       1. Navy Upper Tier
       2. Boost Phase Intercept
       3. Corps SAM (MEADS)
       C. International cooperation emphasized.
       D. Depending upon performance, any effective TBM system 
     (especially with the over-the-horizon threat cueing) will 
     have some marginal capabilities against faster strategic 
     incoming BM targets in one-on-one engagement.
       E. U.S. will not accept limitations on TMD capabilities 
     that pose no threat to the basic principles of the ABM 
     Treaty.
       IV. Technical and Program Options for National Missile 
     Defense (NMD)
       A. System components include:
       1. Early warning/Surveillance
       2. Target acquisition and track--mix of ground based 
     multifunction radars, early-warning radars, space based EO/IR 
     sensors.
       3. Interceptors--number, location, and performance.
       4. Battle Management C3
       B. An NMD system requires significant RDT&E before 
     deployment and the system may be either compliant or not 
     compliant with the ABM (and other) treaties.
       C. The DoD NMD program consists of two elements
       1. BMD Technology. R&D on BMD components that could 
     eventually be part of an advanced NMD or TMD system and 
     growth of TMD system for limited NMD capabilities.
       a. Technology; Kinetic energy Boost Phase Interceptors, 
     advanced sensors, high powered lasers, advanced lightweight 
     projectile (LEAP), small business innovative research, and 
     innovative science and technology
       b. Expenditures: $170M/year.
       2. The Baseline Program. A treaty compliant three year R&D 
     program that will provide the option for deployment over an 
     additional three years, of an initial NMD system which might 
     or might not be treaty compliant. There is room for further 
     growth in system capabilities.
       a. The system consists of a ground-based radar (GBR), 
     ground-based interceptor (GBI), and space based sensors 
     (SBIR-LEO) for cueing.
       b. Expenditure: $520M/year (including $120M for SBIR-LEO).
       D. The DoD budget does not fund an emergency response NMD 
     program that could be more rapidly deployed in case an 
     unanticipated threat emerges or capability was desired, 
     against accidental or inadvertent launch.
       1. Such a system consists of 20-50 exo-kill vehicles (EKVs) 
     on MINUTEMAN II or III boosters with DSP, early warning 
     radar, and multifunction radar cueing.
       2. This Emergency Response System would take two years to 
     develop (at a cost of $1 billion to the baseline) and two 
     years to deploy (at an additional cost of $2-4 billion to the 
     baseline)
       3. The Emergency Response System would not be compliant 
     with either the ABM or START treaty.
       4. ERS would be more effective to degree we know what 
     threat it would meet; therefore not wise to commit to 
     deployment until threat is clearer.
       E. Summary Chart

                         NMD PROGRAM OPTIONS\1\                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          R&D phase     Deployment phase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BMD technology:                                                      
    Advanced sensors................  Ongoing           Not defined.    
    KE boost phase..................  $170M/year        ................
    DE boost phase..................  Treaty compliant  ................
    Innovative science and                                              
     technology.                                                        
2. Baseline NMD: Ground-based KE      3 year; $520M/    3 years; not    
 interceptors with ground and space-   year; treaty      funded;        
 based cueing.                         compliant         possibly treaty
                                                         compliant.     
3. Emergency response: Ground-based   2 years; not      2 years; not    
 KE interceptors with early warning    funded;           funded; not    
 radar cueing.                         possibly not      treaty         
                                       treaty            compliant.     
                                       compliant                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Treaty issues subject to review by Compliance Review Group.          

       F. Choices include:
       1. Adding funds for NMD technology, to create more choices 
     for the future, such as strategic application of Navy 
     uppertier technology.
       2. Adding funds for baseline system--risk reduction and, 
     schedule acceleration.
       3. Adding funds for R&D phase of Emergency Response System.
       V. Treaty Compliance
       A. Purpose of ABM Treaty was to assure strategie stability 
     by prohibiting ABM deployment that had significant 
     capabilities against a retaliatory strategic missile attack. 
     The US stands by this purpose.
       [[Page H1812]] B. The 1972 ABM Treaty does not reflect 
     either the changed geopolitical circumstances or the new 
     technological opportunities of today. We should not be 
     reluctant to negotiate treaty modifications that acknowledge 
     the new realities provided we retain the essential 
     stabilizing purpose of the treaty.
       1. The ABM Treaty permits one particular ``thin'' system--
     100 interceptors at Grand Forks ND with GBR and space based 
     sensor adjuncts. May be possible to deploy a satisfactory NMD 
     within these limits.
       2. Other NMD configurations or TMD systems that do not meet 
     specific prohibitions of the treaty but are comparable to the 
     permitted ``thin'' system, e.g., the Emergency Response 
     system, would not undermine, the Treaty and should be 
     permitted.
       C. TMD Demarcation--TMD is an essential defense capability 
     and we should pursue these programs diligently: we cannot let 
     Russian foot dragging on TMD demarcation issue slow TMD 
     programs.
       1. Present US position proposes limits on demonstrated 
     capability of components (no testing against targets with 
     velocity 5 KM/sec or range 3500 km) and interceptor velocity. 
     This approach aimed at negotiability and prompt Russian 
     acceptance.
       2. If Russians do not accept essential elements of US TMD 
     demarcation proposal soon, we should consider shifting our 
     proposal to a more technically straight forward position 
     based on the actual capability of a deployed TMD system to 
     defend against a substantial Russian retaliatory missile 
     strike.
                                                                    ____

       Background.--The Spence amendment would modify Title II by 
     adding a new section that expresses the Sense of Congress 
     that negotiations with Russia and others to extend the ABM 
     Treaty to theater missile defense (TMD) systems be suspended 
     until the 104th Congress has had an opportunity to review 
     this matter.
       Talking Points.--The U.S. ability to field effective TMD 
     systems is being jeopardized by the Clinton Administration.
       In negotiations with Russia, the Administration has 
     proposed turning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty 
     into an ``ABM-TMD Treaty''.
       Additionally, they seek to ``multilateralize'' the Treaty, 
     so that instead of just two parties to the Treaty, there 
     could be ten or more. This would give Belarus or Uzbekistan a 
     veto or modifications/amendments to the Treaty, making it 
     more difficult to amend the Treaty were the U.S. to request 
     such changes.
       They have also proposed to impose specific design 
     limitations on U.S. TMD systems (e.g., setting ``speed 
     limits'' on how fast U.S. TMD systems can fly). Such self-
     imposed design limitations would have the effect of ``dumbing 
     down'' U.S. TMD systems and compromising the effectiveness of 
     U.S. TMD systems.
       Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch in a recent 
     memorandum warned against the dangers of the Administration's 
     current approach to these negotiations.
       Secretary Deutch suggested that, in light of Russian 
     intransigence in these negotiations, the U.S. should ``shift 
     our proposal to a more principled [demarcation] position''. 
     This clearly underscores the folly of the Administration's 
     current approach.
       In a January 4 letter to the President, Mr. Spence, Mr. 
     Livingston, Mr. Gilman and the Republican Leadership in the 
     House suggested that these negotiations be suspended 
     temporarily. Unfortunately, the President has thus far 
     refused to budge.
       The Spence amendment once again puts the Congress on record 
     as having deep concerns about the Administration plans and 
     the adverse impact they would have on national security.
       I urge my colleagues to vote YES on the Spence amendment.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 1995.
       Dear Colleague: One of the highest priority defense 
     capabilities currently under development and being fielded by 
     the Department of Defense (DoD) is theater missile defense 
     (TMD). U.S. TMD systems are designed to defend U.S. military 
     forces deployed overseas, along with friendly forces and 
     allies, from ballistic missile attack.
       The threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles 
     is expanding. Several countries, including North Korea, are 
     developing missiles of increasing range and accuracy. Others, 
     such as Iran, have purchased missiles and production 
     technology from North Korea. Such proliferation underscores 
     the importance of fielding, at the earliest practical date, 
     advanced TMD systems--as advocated in Title II of H.R. 872, 
     the National Security Revitalization Act.
       Unfortunately, the U.S. ability to field highly-effective 
     TMD systems is being jeopardized by the Clinton 
     Administration. Specifically, under the guise of 
     ``clarifying'' the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile 
     (ABM) Treaty, U.S. negotiators have proposed in talks with 
     Russia and others to impose specific design limitations on 
     U.S. TMD systems that will significantly compromise U.S. TMD 
     capability. They have also proposed to ``multilateralize'' 
     the ABM Treaty, making future amendments or changes to the 
     Treaty, such as those to deploy an effective ABM defense of 
     the United States, more difficult.
       Based on these concerns, we sent a letter to the President 
     on January 4 suggesting that further negotiations be 
     suspended until the new Congress has had an opportunity to 
     examine these issues in detail. The President's reply 
     rejected our suggestion and stated his intention to continue 
     negotiating such an agreement. (The January 4 letter and the 
     President's response are attached for your information.)
       It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to again communicate 
     our deep concerns about the Administration's position in 
     these negotiations and the adverse impact they would have on 
     U.S. missile defense programs. The amendment offered by Rep. 
     Floyd Spence, Chairman of the National Security Committee, 
     does just that. (A copy of the Spence amendment is printed 
     below.)
       We strongly urge your support of both the Spence amendment 
     and Title II of H.R. 872 regarding missile defense.
           Sincerely,
     Newt Gingrich.
     Floyd Spence.
     Bob Livingston.
     Dick Armey.
     Ben Gilman.
     Bill Young.
               amendment offered by representative spence

       At the end of Title II (page 12, after line 25), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 204. Sense of Congress on Theater Missile Defense and 
     the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and its allies face existing and 
     expanding threats from ballistic missiles capable of being 
     used as theater weapon systems that are presently possessed 
     by, being developed by, or being acquired by a number of 
     countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North 
     Korea.
       (2) Some theater ballistic missiles currently deployed or 
     are being developed (such as the Chinese CSS-2 missile and 
     the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile) have capabilities 
     equal to or greater than the capabilities of missiles that 
     were determined to be strategic missiles more than 20 years 
     ago under the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement I (SALT I) 
     Interim Agreement of 1972 entered into between the United 
     States and the Soviet Union.
       (3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was not 
     intended to, and does not, apply to or limit research, 
     development, testing, or deployment of missile defense 
     systems, system upgrades, or system components that are 
     designed to counter modern theater ballistic missiles, 
     regardless of the capabilities of such missiles, unless those 
     systems, system upgrades, or system components are tested 
     against or have demonstrated capabilities to counter modern 
     strategic ballistic missiles.
       (4) It is a national security priority of the United States 
     to develop and deploy highly effective theater missile 
     defense systems capable of countering the existing and 
     expanding threats posed by modern theater ballistic missiles 
     at the earliest practical date.
       (5) Current United States proposals in the Standing 
     Consultative Commission (SCC) would multilateralize the ABM 
     Treaty, making future amendments or changes to the Treaty 
     more difficult, and would impose specific design limitations 
     on United States theater missile defense (TMD) systems that 
     will significantly compromise United States TMD capability.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that further formal negotiations in the Standing Consultative 
     Commission (SCC) and any informal discussions or negotiations 
     on either the demarcation between theater missile defense 
     (TMD) systems and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, or 
     any other efforts that bear on the viability of the ABM 
     Treaty, including multilateralization of the ABM 
     Treaty, should be suspended until the One Hundred Fourth 
     Congress has had the opportunity to review those matters.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 4, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We appreciate your letter of October 
     22, 1994 responding to the letter of September 19, 1994 
     signed by a bipartisan group of legislators regarding the 
     1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and constraints on 
     theatre missile defenses.
       We welcome your assurances that your Administration is 
     ``not going to rush'' the process of negotiating changes to 
     the 1972 ABM Treaty. It is our expectation that the new 
     Congress and relevant Congressional committees will want, as 
     an early order of business, to examine the wisdom of 
     expanding the ABM Treaty's limitations in the name of 
     ``demarcating'' strategic and theatre missile defenses and 
     multilateralization this agreement. We also anticipate that 
     there will be considerable interest in reviewing the more 
     fundamental issue whether a treaty that is intended to 
     prohibit an effective defense of the United States against 
     missile attack is consistent with our Nation's vital security 
     interests and emerging threats.
       Therefore, we respectfully suggest that further 
     negotiations on either the demarcation or multilateralization 
     efforts, or any other efforts that bear on the viability of 
     the ABM Treaty, be suspended until the new Congress has had 
     an opportunity to examine these questions with care.
           Sincerely,
     Richard K. Armey.
     [[Page H1813]] Floyd Spence.
     Newt Gingrich.
     C.W. Bill Young.
     Henry J. Hyde.
     Benjamin A. Gilman.
     Christopher Cox.
     Larry Combest.
     Tom DeLay.
     Susan Molinari.
     John A. Boehner.
     Bob Livingston.
     Jerry Lewis.
     Joe Skeen.
     Bill Paxon.
     Joe Barton.
     Joseph M. McDade.

                                              The White House,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 1995.
       Dear Mr. Leader: Thank you for your recent letter 
     concerning theater missile defenses and the ABM Treaty. I 
     believe it is important for the Administration and the new 
     Congress to continue our dialogue on these important issues.
       The Administration is firmly committed to two fundamental 
     objectives in the area of missile defenses. First, we believe 
     it is critical to preserve the viability and integrity of the 
     ABM Treaty. This important Treaty remains a cornerstone of 
     U.S. security policy and our new relationship with Russia. It 
     is also essential if we are to continue implementing the 
     dramatic reductions in strategic nuclear forces negotiated 
     during the Reagan and Bush Administrations (START I and START 
     II). Second, we are committed to deploying highly effective 
     theater missile defense systems (TMDs).
       The key to preserving both the ABM Treaty and a robust TMD 
     program is the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations 
     in the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC). These 
     negotiations seek to clarify the distinction in the ABM 
     Treaty between TMDs (which are not limited by the Treaty) and 
     strategic ABMs (which are limited by the Treaty). This is not 
     a question of ``expanding'' the ABM Treaty's limitations. 
     Rather, we are acting in consonance with the sense of 
     Congress, as clearly expressed in the Missile Defense Act of 
     1991 (P.L. 102-190) and recently reaffirmed in the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, that we 
     pursue negotiations to clarify the boundary between TMDs and 
     ABMs. The U.S. position in these negotiations is intended to 
     ensure that advanced U.S. TMD systems can proceed, even 
     though some of them may have a theoretical capability under 
     certain scenarios to intercept certain ballistic missiles.
       Over the past year, we have made considerable progress in 
     the SCC towards achieving these objectives. All parties to 
     the negotiations agree on the need to clarify the TMD/ABM 
     boundary, and there appears to be an emerging consensus that 
     such important TMD systems as THAAD, CORPS SAM, Navy Lower 
     Tier and PAC-3 do not cross this boundary. There are, 
     however, still a number of substantive issues that need to be 
     resolved, including our commitment to secure specific 
     deployment options related to air-based TMD and Navy Upper 
     Tier. As I said in my letter of October 22, we will not rush 
     this process or enter into any agreement that does not meet 
     our national security requirements for highly effective TMDs. 
     This commitment was underscored by my recent decision to 
     proceed with demonstration/validation testing of the THAAD 
     TMD system.
       I look forward to working closely with Congress as we 
     pursue our common objectives in this area.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise first of all, along with a number of other 
Members on this side, to make inquiries as to exactly what the purpose 
of this particular proposal is.
  First of all, could I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], 
the particular objection we have, other than the fact that we are 
multilateralizing the ABM Treaty, and I do not think we 
multilateralized it, they did, when they splintered into a number of 
different countries.
  The former Soviet Union is no more, so countries which have missile 
weapons, that missile defense system is still there.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the administration, by the President's own 
admission, because he has sent a letter back to the Republican 
leadership after they initiated a letter essentially asking the 
President, having heard reports from the Pentagon that senior arms 
negotiators were attempting to expand or were discussing with the 
Soviet Union, with their negotiation team, the expansion of the ABM 
Treaty to include limitations on theater defenses, and concerns with 
that negotiation position were expressed by the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, General Shalikashvili.
  They were expressed at the hearing in which the gentleman sat in with 
me when the Secretary of Defense appeared before us. My understanding 
of his words, the transcript speaks for itself, is that he, too, was 
concerned with negotiating limitations on theater defenses.
  The Republican leadership sent a letter to the President and asked 
him not to engage in negotiations that would limit theater defensive 
systems. Let me say that the President responded with a letter, and I 
can get the letter and we will have it before me, but as I recall, the 
letter did not say or did not alleviate the concerns of the Republican 
leadership.
  Mr. SPRATT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to clarify the 
question, the gentleman's real concern is not multilateralizing it, 
because that is sort of a fact accomplished by the breakup of the 
Soviet Union, but it is the fact that this administration seems to have 
expressed concerns about the THAD in particular.
  Mr. HUNTER. No, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman will continue to 
yield, there were two concerns expressed by the Republican leadership. 
One is multilateralization, bringing in the former Soviet States, 
Byelorus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and others, but it was also the 
limitations that are projected to be placed on the development of 
theater defensive systems that has upset both our own military people, 
who are concerned about protecting American military contingents in 
theater, and a number of people, I think, on both sides of the aisle.
  Therefore, the Chairman's resolution, as I understand, is a sense of 
the Congress resolution advising the President that we do not wish him 
to place constraints on theater ballistic missile systems through the 
ABM Treaty.
  Mr. SPRATT. The provision that is printed in the Record ends by 
saying ``These negotiations should be suspended until the 104th 
Congress has had the opportunity to review these matters.''
  I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, does he have in mind simply 
a hearing? What is the opportunity of review?
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, since I am the 
world's greatest expert on my own opinion and my own perception, I 
think it is a terrible mistake to enter in, when Navy upper tier, I 
think the best theater defense system that the Navy is developing, is 
possibly going to be constrained under what the President's negotiators 
have proposed, I think it is a mistake to impose limitations on theater 
defensive systems when we have a rapidly evolving threat coming from 
China, from North Korea, from other sources.
  My own opinion is I think we should not constrain theater defensive 
systems. I think we need to have our intelligence personnel appear 
before us. I think we need to see if Secretary Perry is going to 
prevail, and if General Shalikashvili is going to prevail.
  Mr. SPRATT. What the gentleman is seeking is just a hearing with the 
relevant parties and interests before the committee so we could better 
understand what is going on and express our opinion?
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would advise 
my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, also to work with the 
administration and try to change their opinion.
  What I would like to do and what others would like to do is change 
the position of the administration and not constrain theater missile 
defense. I think it is a very difficult thing to do right now when the 
threat is evolving rapidly, and I think also the multilateralization is 
a problem.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for expressing some 
clarification of what it is they seek. I have no particular problem 
with it. I propose simply that we accept it and move on.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. 
I believe it is important to send a clear message to President Clinton 
that a majority of Members in this Chamber do not agree with the 
administration's position with respect to the ABM Treaty.
  [[Page H1814]] Along with a number of other senior Republicans, 
including Members of the Republican leadership, I requested the 
President to suspend ongoing negotiations with regard to the ABM Treaty 
until he consulted with the 104th Congress.
  The President respectfully declined to do that. That's because the 
administration is in the midst of negotiating changes to the treaty 
that could undercut our ability to deploy highly effective TMD's.
  The administration is also seeking to add other countries as 
signatories to the ABM Treaty. That could pose an obstacle to 
deployment of effective missile defenses for our national territory.
  This amendment is a shot across the bow to the administration, 
sending a clear signal that we are serious about this issue.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Spence's amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let us move on. This is about hearings. We ought to 
have them. We are on the record saying we ought to explore these 
insignificant questions.
  Let us not debate this matter. Let us accept it, and move on to other 
more substantial and substantive amendments. We are prepared to deal 
with it. I would have hoped that my colleague would have alerted me 
earlier about this amendment and we could have talked about it in 
committee, we could have looked at it thoroughly in committee.
  Notwithstanding that, let us get beyond this, accept the amendment, 
and let us move on to other items.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important policy decision that 
the administration is undertaking right now with respect to theater 
defense limitations.

                              {time}  1710

  I think it is an extremely important issue. I would like to get a 
vote on it because I think it is important to have a sense of the 
House, regardless of the final outcome of the bill, on this issue. I 
think it is a very important arms control limitation amendment. And I 
would like to have a vote.
  Mr. SPRATT. We accept the amendment. Is that not sufficient?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has the 
time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Let me first respond to my colleague by saying, look, we 
all know there are very significant amendments here. Take the 
amendment. Every time you call for a vote, you take out of the debate 
much more significant amendments that we need to debate here. You are 
going to win today. We thought you had written the bill the way you 
wanted to write it in the first place. You have got the votes to do it. 
Why now trample upon the little bit of time that we have to try to make 
up for it here? You could have written this bill any way you wanted to. 
We accept the amendment, and let us go forward.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Is the distinguished and esteemed gentleman 
acknowledging, or am I hearing something incorrectly, that the policy 
is flawed as stands and should be changed?
  Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman knows that both of us are very articulate 
people. We need not put words in each other's mouth. I am saying very 
specifically, you have got the votes. Go on and accept the amendment. 
Let's not filibuster this issue. Let's get on to other amendments that 
are very important. That is exactly what the gentleman is saying.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just say to him that if this were a motion to adjourn or some 
kind of a delaying motion, I would agree with him completely. I am just 
saying to my friend, and I hope he will accept this, I think this is a 
very important part of arms limitation. It got a lot of us riled up 
when we saw it happening. You and I know the difference between having 
a vote in which you have real numbers on the scorecard instead of an 
acceptance where we say, ``Well, we accepted it to get it off the table 
and under the carpet.''
  I do intend to call a vote on it because I think it is important to 
have a vote. I guarantee my friend I will be short of words for the 
rest of the day.
  Mr. DELLUMS. If I might reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, then let's get 
on with it. Call for the vote and let's do it.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the need to move on when both sides are in 
agreement about who is going to win today here on an important 
amendment. I have not criticized anybody on the other side of the aisle 
for raising a little ruckus around here about the Republican Contract 
With America and having the most unusual 100-day period we have ever 
had here. The reason I have not objected to the passion of anybody on 
the other side, from the new conscience of the minority, Harold 
Volkmer, or to any other passion is that I spent one-third of my adult 
life, no, one-third of my entire 60 years in the minority on this side 
and I feel your pain, and I mean it. But this is a moment I have waited 
for, for a long time.
  Look, Mr. Chairman. We all know that over 1 million Americans are 
following this debate on C-SPAN. That is the Rose Bowl filled 100 
times, or 10 times. That is the Coliseum filled 10 times. And they 
don't have close-up cameras all the time.
  I want to make a few points as the self-appointed historian of this 
body, and I don't know who takes that role in the Senate.
  Fifty years ago today, the Nazi empire of Hitler's Fortress Europe 
was pushing buttons and launching in this month of February, 50 years 
ago, hundreds of ballistic missiles. Their guidance systems were 
rudimentary, but they were good enough to kill innocent men, women, and 
children all over southern England. And those that did not make the 
route killed innocent people as they fell on the Netherlands or Belgium 
working their way to wreak havoc. Hitler's V-1, a cruise missile in 
today's terminology, and his V-2, a ballistic missile, were not named V 
for victory, they were named V for vengeance. Believe me, we can, God 
forbid, have in the future what one of the great liberal papers of 
America calls a ``rogue missile'' coming at us.
  Listen to what one of America's 3 major newspapers says in closing in 
an editorial that I found much exception to on technological points, 
but listen to this closely. And I will tell who it is afterward:
  ``While it remains a global power and within the limits of 
technological and financial sense,'' and this is what we will debate 
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] in his forceful and 
articulate manner in hearings later in the year, ``the United States 
must be able to protect forces that it sends on distant missions. And 
also to protect our allies. There lies the irreducible rationale for an 
effective theater missile defense.''
  That is the liberal great Washington Post.
  Now, while we possess the technology to defeat a threat, certainly at 
the level of Hitler's vengeance weapons, we now have the ability to 
detect, to intercept, and to destroy incoming missiles, but we still do 
not have the ability to protect one single American city, not a 
village, hamlet, or town, not an innocent man or woman anywhere in the 
continental United States or our possessions from Guam, where our day 
begins, to the Virgin Islands, from Alaska to Hawaii, nowhere can we 
defend ourselves from missiles. And we still hear voices in this 
Chamber defending the ABM treaty signed with an evil empire, an entity 
that is gone. It does not exist anymore.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  [[Page H1815]] Mr. DORNAN. We must later in the year address this 
ghastly problem of us failing the Preamble to our great Constitution, 
the original contract, to provide for the common defense.
  There are lots of statements people make around here out of polling, 
from all sorts of great pollers on both sides of the aisle, and we say 
it is true that most Americans are opposed to most abortions, then we 
debate that ad nauseam.
  Then we have all sorts of things, we say do Americans want this, do 
they want that?
  Here is a statement that I say that I know cannot be refuted. Not 
0.1, not 1 percent of this Nation knows that with the trillions of 
dollars spent under Reagan-Bush or a quarter of a trillion that we are 
going to spend every year into the future, that is $1 trillion during 
the Clinton years, that we are unable to defend ourselves from some 
rogue missile sent by some terrorist group.
  I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] carefully talks--
--
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] 
has again expired.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
with all due respect, we are operating here with a very tight time 
constraint. We do appreciate your historical perspectives. But I think 
we do have to move on and get to the substance of this bill. We have 
real concrete concerns that we have got to view here with the American 
public and with our colleagues and we have got to move on. We would ask 
that we call for a vote on this amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield, I would ask my colleagues 
since we are going to call for a vote, I think a vote is important to 
send a message to the President. I would ask my colleagues to refrain 
from making more speeches so there is time left for the other side to 
offer the amendments that they have planned in the next several hours.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, with the caveat that this 
would be the last 30 seconds, that we are going to restrain ourselves 
from the unanimous consent and ask for the vote immediately following 
this 30 seconds, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DORNAN. The gentleman is so gracious, I will cut it to 15 seconds 
to finish my point.
  I look forward to a debate with one of the fairest former chairmen 
ever, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] on the danger of 
suitcase bombs being dumped out of old freighters into the mud of our 
harbors. That is equally as dangerous as a rogue missile. We will 
discuss that later. But we must fulfill this part of the contract on 
theater missile defense.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 320, 
noes 110, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               AYES--320

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--110

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Becerra
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1738

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Young of Alaska for, with Mr. Lewis of Georgia, 
     against.

  Mr. OWENS, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Messrs. ROSE, PALLONE, LaFALCE, 
FOGLIETTA, DOGGETT, MATSUI, LUTHER, MOAKLEY, WARD, and EVANS changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WILSON, Mr. POMEROY, and Mrs. LINCOLN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  [[Page H1816]] The result of the vote was announced as above 
recorded.
                              {time}  1740

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 41.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt:
       Strike out title II (page 11, line 12 through page 12, line 
     25) and insert the following:

    TITLE II--POLICY REGARDING PRIORITY FOR MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. POLICY.

       The following, in the order listed, shall be the policy of 
     the United States with respect to the priority for 
     development and deployment of missile defense programs:
       (1) First, ensuring operational readiness of the Armed 
     Forces and accomplishing programmed modernization of weapons 
     systems.
       (2) Second, as part of such modernization, completing the 
     development and deployment at the earliest practicable date 
     of more effective theater missile defense (TMD) systems by 
     adequately funding essential theater missile defense 
     programs.
       (3) Third, developing as soon as practicable, subject to 
     the availability of funding, a ground-based interceptor 
     system capable of destroying ballistic missiles launched 
     against the United States.

  Mr. SPRATT. As I said earlier, one sure way of fulfilling the dire 
prophecies set out in the preamble of this bill in title I is to do 
what is called for in title II of the bill and sink huge sums of money 
into a so-called national missile defense system, especially if this 
missile defense system employs space-based interceptors at the earliest 
practical date. That is why I am offering this amendment to title II of 
the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I support a strong defense, I believe in and support 
ballistic missile defense, but I think we need to get our priorities in 
order. I first want to make sure that our forces--and they are going to 
be downsized and smaller--are ready to fight. I want to make sure the 
equipment they take to battle is the best we can possibly give them and 
I want to assure them off the battlefield, they and their families, a 
quality of life.
  Title II can be read to mean many things. If it means a missile 
defense system that envelops the whole Nation and employs space-based 
interceptors, the cost will put at risk all of our other priorities.
  During markup of this bill, I tried to clarify title II with an 
amendment which I filed in the Record, an amendment stating exactly 
what sort of system it calls for, and specifying a system with a 
ground-based interceptor.
  What happened? The amendment that I offered was rejected by every 
Republican member of the committee.
  I filed that same amendment in the Record for consideration on the 
floor, but rather than offering it, I have taken it and boiled it down. 
I am offering instead the boiled-down version that really tries to set 
straight the priorities set forth in title II.
  I offer this amendment because I think if title II becomes law 
without it, it could be taken to mean deployment of a national defense 
system made up of space-based interceptors. Such a system could easily 
cost $25 billion to deploy, and that $25 billion can only be funded at 
the expense of other priorities, like readiness and theater missile 
defense, with which we are all concerned. My amendment is to make sure 
that a national missile defense system is not put ahead of other, 
higher priorities. It requires, very simply, this: One, that readiness 
and modernization should be funded first and should take priority over 
national missile defense. Second, that theater missile defense should 
take priority over national missile defense because it deals with a 
threat that is here and now, one our forces will face if deployed to 
almost any theater in the world today.
  The third priority my amendment states is that any national missile 
defense system developed should start with a ground-based, and not 
space-based, interceptor.
  I am not opposed to space-based interceptors, but if they are to be 
used for ballistic missile defense, they should come later rather than 
sooner. The right place to start with missile defense technically and 
in terms of cost is on the ground.
  So I offer this amendment to correct several concerns I have about 
title II of the bill.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about national defense and about 
national defense spending. I would like to see more money be spent on 
national defense, but I also think that $250 billion a year is real 
money and that it will fund our requirements, provided we spend it 
wisely.
  In the 1980's we spent $25 billion on the strategic defense 
initiative without fielding a single system. In the 1970's we spent 
$115 billion, in today's money, fielding the Spartan and Sprint, only 
to stand them down once they had been deployed. We cannot afford such 
excesses in the 1990's. That is why we have to be sensible, prudent and 
cost-effective and amend title II and set our priorities straight.
  Readiness first and foremost, that is the first priority; theater 
missile defense over national missile and national missile defense must 
start with ground-based interceptors rather than space-based 
interceptors.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about ballistic missile defense. I 
believe in it, and I think we should perfect a ground-based missile 
defense system. The amendment I offered in committee would call for 
just such a system. But the system I called for would be complied with 
the ABM Treaty. I think the time is coming when we will want to change 
the ABM Treaty, amend it by agreement with the Russians. But now since 
START-II sits in the Russian Duma waiting to be ratified, now is not 
the time to talk of abandoning or scrapping the ABM Treaty. We believe 
that we can develop the capability of intercepting incoming missiles, 
but we cannot be certain. We can be certain of this: If START-II is 
ratified, 4,000 to 5,000
 warheads aimed at us will be intercepted, taken down, their delivery 
systems destroyed, their silos filled up. Why risk ratification of 
START-II by even obliquely proposing, as title II does, that we scrap 
the ABM Treaty?

  My amendment does not preclude national missile defense; far from it, 
it simply puts funding for missile defense in the right order, and I 
urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. First of all, I have the highest respect 
for our colleague on the other side who has offered this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps few in this body have spent as much time on 
missile defense as our colleague from South Carolina. I want to 
acknowledge that up front, and his leadership role.
  I do have a clarifying question I would like to ask of our colleague 
who offers this amendment, because there has been a lot of rhetoric 
spoken on the House floor in terms of what we are talking about.

                              {time}  1750

  If my colleagues listen to our gentleman speak, he never once used 
the words ``star wars'' during his eloquent statements on the House 
floor. Now I have counted at least over 60 times the Members on the 
other side have used that term, which means I am donating $60 to the 
Science Fiction Writers Foundation to help them in their activities, 
but our distinguished colleague never used that because he understands 
what we are talking about here, I think, as well as anyone. But what he 
does not mention in his amendment when he talks about a ground-based 
interceptor system is whether or not that includes or even allows for 
space-based sensors.
  Would the gentleman qualify that for me, please?
  My question is, as we have heard all this rhetoric about space-based 
and all, the gentleman knows well what we talk about when we say space-
based sensors which are not actual weapons, but is a method of 
detecting when missiles are actually launched.
  Does the gentleman's motion, for the record, his amendment--in fact 
does he intend to acknowledge it even though he does not say it?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  [[Page H1817]] Mr. SPRATT. As the gentleman knows, when I offered an 
amendment in committee, it was very specific as to what the system I 
would propose would be, and it is in the record. It includes a ground-
based system, and it includes sensors, either ground-launched, pop-up 
systems, or space-based systems, so-called----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I think----
  Mr. SPRATT. Those two are necessary to this. I voted for the last 
particular amendment because I think that probably the theater missile 
defense, to reach its optimal efficiency, will need some satellite 
assistance to cue the missiles.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
that point, and I think that is a very important point for us to begin 
on, that the gentleman from the other side offering this amendment 
agrees that space-based sensors are important for what the Minority 
side wants to pursue, and that is a theater missile defense system.
  I say to my colleagues, ``So, when you hear rhetoric on the floor, 
people talking about space-based weapons, even this amendment calls for 
space-based sensors, which I think our colleague would also acknowledge 
the Russians already have, and in fact have been using, as a part of 
their operational ABM system around Moscow.''
  Let me say the reasons why I have to--my added point would be:
  ``Why did not the gentleman include that in the text of the 
amendment?''
  Mr. SPRATT. I was simply trying to simplify. In my opinion, if the 
gentleman will read the other amendment which I filed in the Record, a 
ground-based system includes by definitions space-based sensors. It 
could have ground pop-up sensors, as the gentleman knows. At one time 
the ground-based system had pop-up sensors that would have been 
launched only at a time of threatened attack.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for that, and I take back my time.
  The key problem that I have with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is 
that it does not get at the heart of what this debate is all about, and 
that is asking the Secretary to report back to us within 60 days for as 
soon as practicable deployment of the beginning of a national ballistic 
missile system.
  Now we have it on the Record, the tiger team that did the research 
for Secretary Perry looked at three options and, in fact, reported to 
the Secretary last week that they can begin to deploy a limited 
national defense system for approximately $5 billion over 5 years. It 
is not 10, it is not 20, it is not 25; $5 billion.
  Furthermore, they have stated that technology will
   give us a 90-percent effective rate for the kinds of targets that it 
would focus on, namely the SS-25 and a conglomeration of three missiles 
with three warheads.

  But we do not want to specifically limit what the Secretary can go 
back and recommend to us, which is one of the further reasons why I 
have to object to this. We do not want to tell him what he should, in 
fact, be looking at. We want to leave that up to him, and we have 
confidence in the Secretary that within 60 days he will come back and 
tell us what the parameters of that system should look like.
  Mr. SPRATT. Excuse me; will the gentleman yield?
  The gentleman is saying that title 2 should be read to be carte 
blanche to the Secretary of Defense. Waiting on him to write the check 
and say what is needed?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, what we are saying is 
we want the Secretary to come back to us within 60 days to tell us as 
soon as practicable when he can deploy the national missile defense 
system, and he acknowledges publicly he can deploy for not $10 billion, 
not $20 billion, but $5 billion over 5 years.
  Now, in terms of the first title of this, readiness, we are all for 
readiness. As a matter of fact, we were extremely critical of the 
Secretary when we acknowledged in the committee when he came before us 
that his defense budget for this year is $5 billion less than the 
acquisition accounts, than what he told us it would be last year. So we 
acknowledge that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon] has expired.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and hope I can add some clarity to 
this debate.
  I think that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has shown 
great leadership on this subject, and what he offers today is intended 
to take the inexact language of H.R. 7 and help us go in a much more 
constructive direction.
  I am an unabashed supporter of ballistic missile defense which I know 
is in our national security. In fact, last year I joined with our 
former colleague, Now Senator Kyl, to add money to the BMD account. We 
were successful in committee, but lost on the House floor.
  The Spratt amendment does the sensible thing, particularly because it 
makes clear that our priority for the short term is theater missile 
defense and not national missile defense. I would urge that we deploy 
at the soonest practicable day TMD, not NMD, and I worry that if and 
when this Contract passes, we will skew our priorities and spend our 
money on the wrong thing first.
  Missile proliferation is here. One only has to go to the country of 
Israel to realize how vulnerable that ally is. A missile launched from 
Syria can land anywhere on the continental soil of Israel in 1 minute. 
A missile launched from Iran takes 5 minutes. Our ballistic missile 
defense capability is not adequate, not adequate. But what we must do 
first is protect against short- and medium-term launches, and we are 
proceeding to do that.
  I also believe I heard my colleague, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt], say--I hope he said--that space-based 
interceptors, interceptors, should come later. I am not against space-
based interceptors in our future, but I am against them right now as a 
priority.

                              {time}  1800

  I believe that that is the intent of the gentleman's amendment, and I 
will oppose any amendment that would ban space-based interceptors for 
the future.
  I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon], who is now running his interesting contest here, that the 
``S'' word I intend to use here is space-based, and not star wars.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues I would like to comment on this. I 
agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] when he talked 
about the seriousness of what we are debating. We are debating really a 
change in policy in this country. So I was disturbed as I was sitting 
in my office and kept hearing all the comments about Star Wars, Star 
Wars, Star Wars.
  I was not around. I was not here in the Congress when Star Wars came 
up, and I know there is some political gamesmanship being used with 
regard to a national missile ballistic defense. I can only share with 
you from personal experience. The gentlewoman cited Israel. All of you 
know I served in the Gulf war, and the first Scud that came in in 
Dhahran was exploded by a Patriot interceptor above our head, and the 
fuselage landed in a John Deere implement plant. So I understand what 
theater missile ballistic defense is about, and I congratulate the 
gentleman for his sincerity in his effort to move in further 
development of theater ballistic defense. But I also share a concern 
about national ballistic defense, and the present vulnerability that we 
have and the present policy that this President has undertaken.
  So I think that there is a major shift in policy, and one which this 
Congress should debate about and one which we should in fact change.
  To the reference to Star Wars, I do have to add this though to my 
colleagues, that science fiction becomes science fact. Think of that. 
Science fiction does become science fact. So when you use the word 
``Star Wars'' and you throw that out there as if you are trying to say 
we are going to throw some money down some rat hole and we 
[[Page H1818]] never know what is going to happen, I want you to think 
about a couple of things.
  Those that say that a national missile ballistic defense is some 
flight into fantasy, think of this: The use of a submarine I am sure 
was a flight into fantasy for John Paul Jones; and I am sure that the 
use of air power in the land battle was a flight into fantasy for 
General Sherman, to utilize balloons in the Civil War; and I am sure 
the use of an atomic weapon would have been a flight into fantasy for 
General Pershing and General Summerall in World War I. And I am sure 
that the use of satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles was a flight 
into fantasy,
 that we used in the Persian Gulf war, to in fact General Eisenhower.

  Mr. Chairman, Jules Verne turned science fiction into science fact 
when he foresaw man walking on the bottom of the ocean, for which we 
have today. My gosh, even those of us that grew up in the George Jetson 
era saw teleconferencing in the early 1960's on TV.
  But the reason I bring that up is when you use star wars out there, I 
think you are complementing America. You really are. You think you are 
trying to tear down something. But when you refer to star wars, you are 
buying into something. You are buying into the saying yes, America has 
the innovation and the initiative and the drive to develop new 
technologies.
  So you can use star wars. Some people get offended by it. I think it 
is a compliment. You are complimenting those of us that want to pursue 
the development of technology. So use it. I am not offended.
  I know what it is like to be there on the ground floor, under a 
missile attack, and have it intercepted by a Patriot. Thank God there 
were people here in this body that had the willingness to develop such 
technologies. And if any of you were here that made those decisions, 
God bless you, and I am thankful to you.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], requiring that readiness, 
modernization of equipment and quality of life for military personnel 
and their families are adequately funded and given priority over 
national missile defense.
  The cold war is over, and the threat of a large-scale nuclear war has 
been greatly diminished. While I agree with my colleagues that there is 
a need for missile defense programs, I do not believe that additional 
funding should be placed in a space-based interceptor system at this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in the two previous administrations, we poured over $30 
billion into programs like Brilliant Pebbles, gamma ray lasers, neutral 
particle beams, and more, and all we have to show for it are the 
engineering view graphs. After spending $30 billion we do not have one 
weapons system to show for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
  I have four military installations either in or on the edge of my 
district. Moody Air Force Base, Albany Marine Logistics Base, Fort 
Benning, the Army's premier infantry center, and Robins Air Force Base. 
Most importantly, the military personnel, these young men and women, 
are the first to deploy and leave their families in time of conflict. 
They always stand ready to go on the call of the Commander-in-Chief, 
professionals, trained to execute their military orders, and, if 
necessary, they are willing to pay the ultimate price.
  When visiting these installations, my conversations with the troops 
focus around the issues of readiness, of modernization of equipment, 
and the quality of life for their families. Many of them are concerned 
about sufficient support for our military effectiveness. They question 
whether we will truly be able to adequately fight two major conflicts 
anywhere in the world at one time. They further question me about the 
commitment of this Congress to replace outdated equipment, weapons 
systems, computer systems, software and hardware, and, last but not 
least, they express concern about the lack of adequate housing and the 
other support for the welfare of their young military dependent 
families.
  Let there be no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman. These young men and 
women are not complaining about serving their country. In fact, they 
serve this country with great pride, dignity, and honor. At a time when 
we pledge to balance the budget and to be more responsible in our 
spending, let us be responsible to the readiness and the welfare of our 
troops and their families.
  Support the amendment that invests in readiness, in modernization, 
and quality of life for our military personnel and their military 
dependent families. Support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by the 
gentlemen from South Carolina requiring that readiness, modernization 
of equipment, and quality of life for military personnel and their 
families are adequately funded and given priority over national missile 
defense.
  The cold war is over and the threat of a large scale nuclear war has 
been diminished. While I agree with my colleagues that there is a need 
for a Missile Defense Program, I do not believe that additional funding 
should be placed in a space-based interceptor system at this time. Mr. 
Speaker, in the two previous Administrations we poured over $30 billion 
dollars into programs like Brilliant Pebbles, Gamma Ray Lasers, Neutral 
Particle Beams, and more, and all we have to show for it are the 
engineering view graphs. After spending $30 billion, we do not have one 
weapon system to show for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
  I have four major installations in or on the edge of my District: 
Moody Air Force Base, Albany Marine Logistics Base, Fort Benning, the 
Army's premier Infantry training facility, and Robins Air Force Base. 
Most importantly, the military personnel, these young men and women, 
are the first to deploy and leave their
 families during a time of conflict. They always stand ready to go on 
the call of the Commander in Chief. Professionals, trained to execute 
their military orders and if necessary pay the ultimate price.

  When visiting these installations, my conversations with the troops 
focus around the issues of readiness, modernization of equipment, and 
the quality of life for their families. Many of them are concerned 
about sufficient support for military effectiveness. They question 
whether we will truly be able to adequately fight two major conflicts 
anywhere in the world at one time. They further question me about the 
commitment of Congress to the replacement of outdated equipment, 
computer systems, software, and hardware; and, last but not least, they 
express concern about the lack of adequate housing and support for the 
welfare of their young military dependent families. Let there be no 
misunderstanding, these young men and women are not complaining about 
serving their country. In fact, they serve this country with great 
pride, dignity, and honor.
  At a time when we've pledged to balance the budget and be more 
responsible in our spending, let's be responsible to the readiness and 
welfare of our troops and their families. Support the amendment that 
invests in readiness, modernization, and quality of life.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, like all members of our Committee on National Security, 
I have the greatest respect for my friend from South Carolina, and I 
want to thank him for all of his efforts and work with respect to 
missile defense.
  I want to also thank Members on the Republican side, and I know I am 
looking at Mr. Weldon, and I think of him and Mr. Hefley and Hal Rogers 
and others that signed a letter to Israel in 1987 saying that although 
you have great fighter aircraft and you have great armor and great 
ground troops, if a missile was launched, a Russian missile from a 
neighboring Arab country, you would have no defense against it, and we 
asked them to drop the LAVI fighter system and start developing a 
theater ballistic missile defense system.
  I want to thank them for that letter to our SDI leaders and to 
Israel, because it had an effect in turning Israel away from building 
fighter aircraft and doing what they knew they had to do for national 
survival, and that is defend against incoming missiles. And I might say 
to my colleagues that that projection turned out to be an accurate 
projection. While we projected Russian missiles might come from Syria, 
they came from another Arab country. The truth of the matter that we 
have to be able to stop incoming ballistic missiles was not lost on 
them.
  Let me go straight to what I think are the fatal defects in the 
Spratt 
[[Page H1819]] amendment. First, it competes readiness and missile 
defense, and readiness and missile defense should not be competed. I 
can tell the gentleman that under this Republican House, and I think 
with the gentleman's help, the readiness budget that the President 
submitted will be increased this year. I can say as the chairman of the 
procurement subcommittee that the procurement budget that Secretary 
Perry cut again, just 12 months ago, from $48 billion to $39 billion, 
will be increased this year. I think I can tell the gentleman that with 
some confidence. This is not an either/or situation. In competing these 
systems, it is like telling an infantry commander, you cannot have any 
defense against mortars until you can certify to me you have a total 
defense against machine guns. The point is that missile defense does 
contribute to readiness because your soldiers in the rear area, if it 
is theater
 defense, know they have some knowledge they are going to be defended 
against incoming missiles. I would submit there also is an increase in 
morale if they know their communities back home have some defense 
against a Libya or against an Iraq or against another adversarial 
country.

  So the point is we are not going to decrease readiness, we are not 
shopping readiness versus theater defense, we are not going to decrease 
procurement, shopping procurement against theater defense. And, lastly, 
the gentleman leaves out the word ``deploy.'' The Republican policy is 
to deploy a national missile defense.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk about the cost. This is a 
statement that Secretary Perry made, and I have tried to give it a 
couple of times. But he said:

       We have a national missile defense program. That is the 
     program the Secretary is funding, which will lead I think in 
     a timely way to a deployed system. It will be at a relatively 
     small cost, probably $5 billion in very round figures for the 
     cost of the system.

  Mr. Chairman, we are spending 10 times that amount in environmental 
costs in the defense budget. So if the gentleman put up something that 
said maybe we should shop environmental costs off in favor of national 
missile defense, I might be inclined to accept the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
                              {time}  1810

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  I just want to add that in that assessment done for the Secretary, 
General O'Neill tells us that we can get a 90 percent effective rate 
against three SS-25s that would be the likely scenario of a third world 
nation getting SS-25 capability. Some would argue that is not possible.
  I would remind my colleagues, as I know my colleague in the well 
knows, that it was just a few short months ago that the Russians 
offered to Brazil to take an SS-25 and use it for a space launch 
effort. So they in fact are looking at the availability of making the 
SS-25 architecture available for other countries.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell my 
colleagues also that two representatives from two of our national 
nuclear laboratories were here last week stating that they can build a 
space system for about 50 percent more. That is about $7.5 billion. And 
that, once again, is roughly less than 1/100th of the defense budget on 
an annual basis and less than half of what we spend on environmental 
matters in the defense budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. I just wanted to have the gentleman clarify, as he just 
did, that the chart does not refer to star wars. It is a ground-based 
missile defense system and that some estimates for a star wars space-
based system go from $11 billion to $50 billion and even Gen. Colin 
Powell has said that the national missile defense system would take 
away funds from other important defense programs.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me just answer the 
gentleman by saying that two of the most prestigious scientists in this 
country, one from Livermore National Laboratory, one from Los Alamos, 
said that a space-based system could be achieved for $7.5 billion.
  Let me just say further to the gentleman that the term ``star wars,'' 
at least as used by a lot of people who have used it for the last 20 
years, means anything that shoots down an incoming ballistic missile. 
If they have a problem with that, I do not understand it. But certainly 
this system that Dr. Perry talked about is a system that engages 
incoming missiles in space.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I want to clarify what Dr. Evers, the 
Deputy Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Office with the 
administration said yesterday in my office. The maximum amount for a 
full-blown ballistic missile defense system for our Nation would be $20 
billion. So where these numbers are coming from, I do not know. But 
using the estimates of your officials in your administration, Dr. 
Evers, he said the maximum amount would be $20 billion, Dr. Evers, in 
my office.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me just say to my friend, we have people with varying 
ideas. Our point to the gentleman from South Carolina is, doggone it, 
let us have some hearings. Let us bring the Secretary in. Let us bring 
our experts from the national labs in. And let us make a decision. But 
let us not go with the gentleman from South Carolina's own choice, his 
own favorite choice, a ground-based system.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Does the gentleman know the cost of the Patriot system, 
all of them, from 1967 forward? He is not here to tell the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] that it was LBJ's program.
  Mr. HUNTER. I would answer my friend that the Patriot system probably 
cost us a fortune. Almost everything that we did under our procurement 
regulations did.
  Mr. SPRATT. Over $16 billion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Listening to all this, I was wondering, about where 
these missiles come from, I was wondering if the gentleman from 
California has even seen the movie ``The Russians are Coming, The 
Russians are Coming''?
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me just answer my friend and tell him that when our 
troops were in Desert Storm, had incoming ballistic missiles, although 
those were not Russians, those were Russian-made missiles. And 
according to our best estimates of our intelligence officers, the 
weapon of choice of these Third World terrorist nations is missiles. 
And the Russians have let the technology out of the box.
  There are Middle Eastern nations shopping in the Soviet Union right 
now for scientists who will sell anything, including fissile materials 
for a few bucks. If you believe your own Director of the CIA, Mr. 
Woolsey, it is time for us to move forward. Mr. Woolsey, it is time for 
us to move forward. Mr. Woolsey said that a number of these terrorist 
nations will have some ICBM capability. That means the ability to reach 
American cities a little bit after the beginning of this next decade. 
That means within 6 or 7 years.
  As the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] just pointed out, 
it took us 20 years to develop the Patriot missile. So I think the 
message for us is, let us get started. That is what the Republican 
contract does. It says, ``shall deploy.'' And the fatal flaw of the 
amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is it does 
not say shall deploy. It simply says ``develop.''
  [[Page H1820]] Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, it appears to me that this whole agenda that I am 
seeing here and all these scare tactics and everything reminds me that 
perhaps I am right in the conclusion that the John Birch Society now 
controls the Republican agenda on the floor of the House.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. I just wanted to ask the gentleman, who had generously 
offered to reduce environmental funding in order to fund ballistic 
missile defense, if he had seen the letter from his Governor of 
California, Governor Wilson, chastising the Secretary of Defense for 
not fully funding environmental restoration in this budget and for 
rescinding some environmental money and saying that he would pursue the 
Secretary of Defense to the full extent of the law. I do not want to 
pit the gentleman against his own Governor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from South 
Carolina, I think when Governor Wilson looks at what this member of the 
committee has done with defense funding and in the defense bill, he is 
going to be very disappointed on an environmental basis. He is going to 
be very happy on a strategic defense basis.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague from California made a very 
important statement. He said that there are a number of figures 
floating around here, so let us hold hearings. Let us talk about that 
for a moment.
  When the Secretary of Defense came before the House Committee on 
Armed Services at this gentleman's request, the Secretary of Defense 
said that to put in place a limited ground-based system would cost 
between $5 and $10 billion. That is one figure. My distinguished 
colleague in the well from southern California said $20 billion for a 
space-based system. Some of our staff came to the conclusion that it 
would be in excess of $25 billion.
  The Pentagon said that to go into space, a system could cost anywhere 
between $30 and $40 billion. The point is that we do not know.
  But what does this bill say? This bill says, Mr. Chairman, it 
``shall'' be the policy. We are able to handle the English language. It 
does not say it ``may be'' the policy. It says it ``shall be'' the 
policy of the United states to deploy at the earliest practicable date 
a national missile defense system, and it says that within 60 days the 
Secretary of Defense shall report back to Congress on a plan to 
implement such a policy.
  But when asked, are you embracing the present administration's policy 
with respect to ballistic missile defense, they say no. We want to go 
beyond that.
  So let us not be disingenuous with each other. Let us be candid.
  Now, if we are saying that we want the present administration's 
limited ground-based ballistic missile defense system for $5 or $10 
billion, then say that and not quote it out of context. If we want a 
space-based system, then say that as well. But my colleagues said, let 
us hold hearings.
  This gentleman's entire argument on the committee and on the floor 
has been, when we move from campaign promise to legislative initiative, 
allow the process to be deliberative and substantive and thoughtful.
  This is not a deliberative and substantive process, Mr. Chairman. We 
only had one half-day hearing on this issue at this gentleman's request 
and calling of the Secretary of Defense. We got another half-day 
hearing that, in part, dealt with this and the entire range of the 
bill, H.R. 7, which was the original vehicle, for 2 half-days of 
hearings. That is not a substantive deliberative process.
                              {time}  1820

  Mr. Chairman, this gentleman knows, and so does this gentleman, a 
more deliberative process would be to raise these issues in the context 
of the DOD authorization bill allowing the gentleman's subcommittee and 
others in a deliberative, substantive, thoughtful way to hold detailed 
hearings, to look at the implications, and arrive at a more intelligent 
view as to what it is we want and how much it is going to cost.
  We are sitting here today, Mr. Chairman, in the afternoon looking at 
$5 or $10 billion on the low end and $40 billion on the high end. We 
are just throwing figures around. I would want to underscore what my 
colleague, the gentleman from California, said. Why not slow down this 
process and let us hold hearings, and let us carry out our fiduciary 
responsibilities to the voters and the taxpayers that we quote so 
regularly around here, and do something responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is place the policy before the 
budget consideration. That just flies in the face of logic and 
rationality. It makes no sense.
  In a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, on the next amendment, there is going 
to be a motion to prohibit funds for a space-based interceptor. That is 
either a laser system or Brilliant Pebbles. That is something that 
shoots down weapons systems. We all know that, if we go to space-based 
interceptors, we are talking about tens of billions of dollars. The 
Secretary of Defense said that and so did the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs. That is a verbatim quote in the transcript that we all know, 
because we were all there and we all heard it.
  Why, Mr. Chairman, should we be rushing to judgment, putting the cart 
before the horse? This can be dealt with in the normal course of 
things, and my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter], and I can deliberate intelligently, rationally, and 
substantively.
  Why do we have to rush to judgment in the context of this contract 
with a 10-hour debate on the substantive initiative?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the one place where I disagree with the gentleman in 
his statement is this. It was a judgment, a political judgment, I think 
of this Nation, I think it is the will of this Nation, and it was I 
think a major referendum in the election.
  It is the will of the Republican Party in putting the contract 
together and I think the will of Republicans and Democrats across the 
country to do one thing that does not require hundreds of hearings and 
does not require our participation in the process, and that is this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dellums 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the one thing is manifested in two words, 
``shall deploy.'' I would say to the gentleman, once we have made the 
policy decision to deploy, at that point we then go through the process 
of what type of deployment will take place. I think that is reasonable 
and logical.
  I would offer to my friend that when President Kennedy said ``We are 
going to go to the moon,'' he did not first try to decide what kind of 
rocket it was going to take, he did not have the analysts come in and 
try to cost the thing out for 20 years. He set that as a policy, and we 
fleshed the policy out. I do think it is relevant that the Secretary of 
Defense said ``You can fulfill this thing for $5 billion if you do it 
against a thin attack,'' so once we have made the policy judgment to 
deploy, and this is a very important amendment, because the Republican 
bill, the House bill, the Armed Services bill, does say ``shall 
deploy,'' and we then flesh that out.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I have given the 
gentleman the opportunity to fully discuss this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has expired.
  [[Page H1821]] (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dellums was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a colloquy here.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did not react adversely to the assertion 
that this gentleman made that we are throwing figures around here and 
we ought to have a hearing, but the gentleman said it was a political 
judgment. Let me speak to that for a moment.
  If they walk into a room of people and say to them ``Did you know we 
do not have a defense against a ballistic missile system,'' I would bet 
my last dollar they would say, ``Wow, no.'' Then they would say, ``And 
we don't have one.'' They would say, ``Gee, we don't? Maybe we 
should.''
  However, if I were able to enter the room, I could say several 
things: One, ``Folks, we are spending $3 billion a year on theater and 
national ballistic missile defense, $400 million on national missile 
defense, $120 to $130 million on Brilliant Eyes, a space-based sensor 
program that my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania alluded to 
earlier, and over $2 billion on theater ballistic missile defense.''
  The last time I looked that was not chump change. That was a 
significant commitment of billions of taxpayer dollars.
  The second point, Mr. Chairman, if I entered that room and said to 
the American people assembled ``Look, folks, what makes you think that 
some third world country, even if they had the capacity to spend 
billions of dollars to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile 
capacity, would launch a missile toward the United States?''
  We could see it on radar. Within seconds we could pinpoint who it is 
and render them a hole in the planet Earth, within seconds. Do you know 
what they could do? The easiest thing they could do? Hide a nuclear 
bomb in a bale of marijuana. We have not been able to catch that very 
well. It is easy to sneak it into the country.
  You can backpack a nuclear missile into this country. You can bring a 
nuclear weapon into the coast of the United States with a commercial 
carrier. You can bring a nuclear weapon into the United States piece by 
piece, put it in the Empire State Building, and explode it.
  What makes anyone think that spending billions of dollars on some 
absurd program with dubious value is going to deal with the terrorist 
effort? If we do, and heaven forbid if we ever do, if we do experience 
a nuclear bomb, it is not going to come from some international effort, 
it is going to come from a terrorist attack. This program does not 
address that issue whatsoever.
  When Mr. Perle, one of their witnesses, came before the committee, I 
asked Mr. Perle ``Wouldn't it be easy to bring a nuclear weapon in a 
bale of marijuana,'' and his exact response was ``That would be the 
safest way to bring it into the United States.''
  They can go into these kaffeeklatsches and scare people, but our 
responsibility, once you have knowledge, you have the burden of your 
knowledge. There are people in this room who know what the facts are 
and who have knowledge.
  We have the burden of the responsibility not to exploit ignorance, 
but to communicate education.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman, I 
think, supports theater defenses. That is the capability in theater to 
shoot down slow-moving ballistic missiles, Scud type ballistic missiles 
that are coming into troop concentrations.
  Mr. DELLUMS. We have theater ballistic missile programs coming out of 
the ears. The gentleman knows it, and so do I.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me just ask my friend, if he relies on a policy of 
deterrence based on the idea that we are going to destroy anyone who 
launches a ballistic missile against the United States, why wouldn't he 
use the same rationale and rely on the policy of deterrence against 
anyone who would shoot a slow-moving missile, and say to Iraq, ``If you 
shoot a slow-moving missile at Rijadh, we are going to use a nuclear 
weapon against you?''
  Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating, 
because the gentleman is shifting ground.
  Mr. HUNTER. No, I am asking a question.
  Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman is now talking about theater ballistic 
missiles, and Mr. Chairman we already just pointed out that we are 
spending in excess of $2 billion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has expired.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ROEMER. Reserving the right to object, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Is this debate taken off the 10-hour time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, it is carving into the 10 
hours.
  Mr. ROEMER. I thank the Chair, and I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I again ask unanimous consent to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman now raises a question about 
theater ballistic missiles. The proponent of the amendment before the 
body at this point has squarely put that issue before us, saying that 
that is a significant priority.
  However, the gentleman's discussion in this bill is about national 
missile defense systems, and we are saying that is tens of billions of 
dollars, and it is going in the wrong direction, because it does not 
speak to the likelihood of what might be a provocation. That is a 
terrorist provocation, not an over the horizon missile.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would my friend yield for one brief 
question?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. My question was, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to rely on 
deterrence, as the gentleman has suggested with national missile 
defense, and not have a national missile defense, why does not that 
same reliance on deterrence, why is it not being used in the theater, 
and why does the gentleman not endorse it in the theater?
  Instead of having a theater ability to shoot down an incoming 
missile, why not just say ``We are going to launch on Baghdad when you 
send a Scud at us?'' I think that is a legitimate question.
  Mr. DELLUMS. My quick response to the gentleman is that deterrence 
has worked. We have not thrown nuclear weapons at each other, but we 
are fighting out there in regions of the world. We fought in Desert 
Storm. That is a reality.
  This missile exchange between us and some other person is a serious 
flaw. There has been no nuclear exchange.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, because I 
believe it embraces the policy of vulnerability. We have heard over and 
over that the cold war is over, that the threat is gone, but Mr. 
Chairman, the public does not believe that.
  They realize that the former countries within the U.S.S.R. still have 
developed and deployed threats, missiles out there, to the tune of tens 
of thousands. How many of those have been taken out of service since 
the breakup of the U.S.S.R.? Dozens, or perhaps hundreds?
  No, Mr. Chairman, they have not. They are still out there, they are 
still deployed. We are still vulnerable to those missiles.

                              {time}  1830

  Not only that, their technology is now for sale. We know that it has 
been sold. There is enough evidence that it has been sold to Third 
World countries and that is has been deployed. We saw it during Desert 
Storm. So we have a deployed threat in Third World countries.
  [[Page H1822]] Over the last couple of years, Mr. Chairman, even this 
country has sold high-speed processors, computers capable of designing 
better and better guidance systems, once again increasing the 
vulnerability of this country. This does not cover all the threats that 
are out there. We know how quickly the mood can change internationally. 
We know that this is a big problem.
  But one of the problems with this amendment is that it addresses only 
the development and not the deployment. We know that the threat is 
deployed, not only in the former U.S.S.R. but in Third World countries.
  So knowing that the threat is deployed and that we are vulnerable, I 
think it makes a very simple choice. If you favor this, you favor a 
continued policy of vulnerability. So if you vote for this amendment, 
then you continue to vote for this policy of vulnerability.
  It is time to vote ``no'' on this amendment offered by the gentleman 
from South Carolina.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there is an awful lot of debate, hot debate on 
the House floor these days about where our priorities should be, and 
what the threats to this country are, both domestic and 
internationally.
  One of the major concerns of the American people is our national 
security. I do not question that their concerns are going to be 
addressed fully in this bill. But the fact is that this country can 
never be completely secure. There are always going to be threats.
  The question before the committee that has to make these decisions is 
whether or not the threat that is being posed by missile attacks is 
going to be suitably addressed by the $2.9 billion that is currently in 
the bill. You have got $400 million that is going to be spent on 
national missile defense. What this legislation will do if the Spratt 
amendment is not included will be to uncontrollably add to the cost of 
the national missile defense program.
  You talk about deploying a system. Nobody has any problem, it seems 
to me, with suggesting that if there is a real threat to the United 
States that can come either from a Third World country or it can come 
from another nation that happens to have thousands of nuclear missiles 
that can attack this country, that we ought not to take every step 
possible to deter that attack. But if in fact the cost of that 
deterrence rises so quickly that it cannot actually be achieved by any 
reasonable level of defense spending, and if second to that there is no 
technology that exists in the Nation or in the world today to be able 
to offset that threat, then are we not just playing pie in the sky with 
the emotions of the American people? That is ultimately what goes on 
here.
  I voted with many Republicans for a balanced budget amendment. But I 
did not do that to see this kind of irresponsible spending take place 
in this Chamber. We have got to be reasonable about what our priorities 
are and stop suggesting that we are going to be able to pay for the 
kinds of additional costs that this bill will have if we do not contain 
both the Spratt amendment and the Edwards amendment that is going to be 
coming up that say, yes, we ought to have a national defense against 
nuclear missiles that can attack this country, but we ought to do it 
with smarts, we ought to do it assessing what the existing technologies 
are, and we ought to do it with the costs in mind that are going to 
cripple this economy and cripple the people of this country, if we do 
not in fact keep in mind the escalating costs of national defense.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  What this bill simply says, we do not put a dollar amount. We simply 
say to the Secretary, come back to us within 60 days and tell us what 
is doable in terms of implementing national missile defense. We then 
have to take his recommendations and put them into the context of all 
of our other priorities and there is an authorization process that 
allows us to go through that. We are not saying spend any amount of 
money. All we are saying is come back and tell us, that's all.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, if that is what 
this bill said, I think you would get a lot more support.
  What this bill says is that you are going to deploy the system.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No, it does not.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, it does say that you are going to 
deploy the system.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. It does not say ``we.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And you do not have a system, there is 
not a system that is designed in this country that can be deployed 
today that will in fact in any way deter the Russians or the Brazilians 
or anybody else for attacking America if they so desire through a 
nuclear missile system.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Let me introduce an objective source. We passed in 1991 
the Missile Defense Act calling for the deployment of a limited defense 
system by 1996. It originated in the Senate. It also called for a study 
by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office and by the Secretary of 
Defense to be submitted to Congress in 6 months, and I have that study 
here. It came in 1992 from the Bush administration.
  On page 41, here is the conclusion: For a limited defense system, 
according to SDIO estimates, acquiring six limited defense sites in 
brilliant eyes is expected to raise the total cost of the limited 
defense system, they recommended six sites, on the order of $35 
billion, 1991 money.
  This is a limited defense system, Bush administration, $35 billion, 
and they say this is a preliminary estimate.
  What happens if you add brilliant pebbles, which was not included, 
next page?
  The anticipated incremental cost of acquiring such a space-based 
interceptor system involving 1,000 brilliant pebbles as part of the 
overall architecture would be about $11 billion in 1991 money, 
including associated technology-based activities. That is $46 billion. 
This came from the Bush Defense Department, officially submitted to 
Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy 
of Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just respond to my friend, if you accepted his numbers, and 
once again we have representatives from the two laboratories saying we 
can now do a brilliant pebbles deployment for about $7.5 billion. But 
if you accept that, we spend more money in the defense budget for the 
environment, for environmental compliance, than the total number that 
the gentleman just put together.
  I would say to you that I think this is a Republican position that 
has been manifested ultimately in this contract that the American 
people consider putting a missile defense up being more important than 
spending environmental money in the Department of Defense bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, the fact of the 
matter is, and the gentleman makes a good argument in terms of what the 
priorities of the national defense of the country are. But the reality 
is, there simply is not a technology available that can actually deter 
the kind of threat that the gentleman is suggesting that we deploy a 
system to combat. It just does not make any sense.
  I do not have any problem, and I do not think that even people in as 
liberal a district as mine have a problem with defending the United 
States of America. We have to have the research done that this bill 
calls for to end up designing a system that can actually accomplish the 
threat.
  What you are walking around doing is talking to everybody in the 
American public about this threat that is going to occur to this 
country and that 
[[Page H1823]] you want to go ahead and deploy a system and you have 
not even thought through what your system is. That is the problem that 
you have got to end up solving.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I just say to my friend, Secretary Perry just appeared 
before us with the words I just showed him that said we can defend 
against an attack for $5 billion----
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. A theater.
  Mr. HUNTER. Not theater. National missile attack.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Against 20 missiles.
  Are you telling me for $5 billion you can defend an all-out attack 
from the Russians?
  Mr. HUNTER. No. But Secretary Perry did not say a theater missile 
attack. He said a national missile attack.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Rose and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. ROSE. I would like to ask the freshman Republicans to answer a 
question for me. Did you all not meet with Edward Teller? Did you not 
meet with Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, and did 
Edward Teller not tell you freshman Republicans, ``You have got to 
build star wars''? Is that not what this is all about?
  Edward Teller knows tonight that the physics has not even been 
discovered, ladies and gentlemen, to build this thing you are asking 
the American taxpayer to deploy.
  What in the world is this you are trying to sell to the American 
people? I would like to be a subcontractor in this part of the Contract 
With America. My God, it would be a great contract, ladies and 
gentlemen.
  Let us be careful here. Star wars is not what this county needs right 
now.
                              {time}  1840

  It is cops on the street, it is education for our children, it is the 
other things that we know are on this planet that we need.
  Please, support the amendment of my colleague from South Carolina and 
my colleague from Texas.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a couple of points. Mr. 
Chairman, in spite of all of the rhetoric and the issues that have been 
discussed here in terms of dollars and all of these Star Wars 
pronouncements and redirecting priorities and all of these things, this 
debate really I think boils down to two subjects. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts just suggested I think, as the gentleman from Missouri 
did earlier, that there is no threat, and, therefore, we do not have to 
worry, and we should be doing other things.
  I would just like to remind the Members on the other side who may not 
even be aware of this that on January 18 of this year the acting 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said these words. He said:

       The proliferation relates to the nonproprietary nature of 
     technology. This means that what will be proliferated will be 
     new and more diverse forms of lethality, increasing threat 
     reach, that is longer ranges including ultimately ranges from 
     problem states that can reach the United States, toward the 
     end of this decade.

  That is an appointment by President Clinton, the head of our Central 
Intelligence Agency.
  So, for the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts to say we should not worry about this threat flies in the 
face of the statement made by the chief intelligence officer of the 
United States.
  There is a threat. We all know there is a threat. Dick Cheney said 
there would be a threat in 1991 when he predicted that the Soviet Union 
was going to go away and we would have a whole new set of problems to 
face, one of which is the proliferation of nuclear technology and 
intercontinental ballistic missile technology.
  The other issue that I would like to address has to do with the 
misrepresentation of what this bill does. It is true that the bill 
currently says it shall be the policy of the United States to deploy at 
the earlier practical date an antiballistic missile system. I would say 
to the gentlemen on the other side and the gentlewomen on the other 
side that it is the unofficial policy of the United States today to 
ignore this whole subject. And then the bill gets to saying what the 
requirement is. That is the policy.
  Now what is the requirement? It says the
   Secretary of State shall be required to, in not later than 60 days 
after the date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of Defense 
shall submit to the Congress, to the congressional defense committees, 
a plan for the deployment of an antiballistic missile system. And when 
we receive that system, that recommendation, Mr. Chairman, it will be 
our duty to decide whether we want to move forward with it, whether we 
want to accept it, whether we want to authorize it, whether we want to 
fund it, and the representatives of the American people will have that 
choice.

  So, as my colleagues talk about $5 billion to $60 billion and all of 
the numbers in between, we do not know what those numbers might be 
because we are asking the Secretary of Defense to use his best judgment 
to suggest to us the most appropriate path to take.
  So, this bill does not spend any money for these things. It does 
change the policy of the country from one that leaves us vulnerable to 
a threat that your chief of the intelligence agency says exists, to a 
policy to protect our country. And along the path to getting there we 
will have many decisions to make, like the ones my colleagues talked 
about today.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this debate, I know we are probably 
reaching a point where we are going to have a vote on this, but I want 
to say those things just from at least my point of view to clarify 
these issues.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that when we talk about these different 
technologies that this debate at times can be extremely confusing and 
very complicated. But I think that these two approaches that we take, 
one in the bill and one in the Spratt amendment, can be described, I 
think, pretty easily and pretty simply.
  The bill can be described as a blank check policy. It can be 
described as saying putting the contract and everything else before the 
horse and saying we are not sure how much this is going to cost, it 
might be $5 billion, it might be $8 billion, it might be $15 billion or 
$20 billion, but we shall deploy this system at the earliest possible 
date.
  You might even guess from the debate so far that we are not spending 
a dime on this system, and I would remind everybody in the Chamber that 
we are currently spending $2.9 billion each year, already, on these 
systems. So we are spending money on pursuing these different systems 
and giving a blank check to go forward with a system that is unproven, 
extremely costly and untested.
  Now what the Spratt amendment simply does is it
   says we are not going to give you a blank check, we are going to 
have some checks and balances to this system. It says two things: that 
the system should be based on a ground-based interceptor, and second, 
that if this ends up costing $5 or $10 or $15 billion, with a deficit 
of $180 billion, we should not take this money out of defense and 
threaten modernization, force structure, training to land fighters on 
aircraft carriers and so forth and so on. This is the reasonable 
approach.

  I look over at this side of the aisle and many of the Members over 
there on the Science Committee with me, and we have just finished 
marking up legislation on risk assessment.
  The gentleman from California was talking about environmental 
problems in this country. I voted for legislation that will begin to 
assess how much it is going to cost us to clean up the environment and 
what the risks are. But now in this legislation, when it comes to this 
very sophisticated technology, we are talking absolutely the opposite 
approach, saying we are not really sure what it is going to cost, we 
are not 
[[Page H1824]] really sure if it is $5 billion or $15 billion but we 
shall deploy this system.
  And I have heard the argument from the gentleman over there too that 
this does not really spend the money. How often have we heard that over 
the last 4 or 5 years, this does not really spend the money? This tells 
the authorizers and the appropriators what to do with a brand new 
policy on a national missile defense system.
  So I would encourage my colleagues, this is the commonsense approach. 
This is the checks-and-balances approach to make sure we do not waste 
precious taxpayers' money to make sure we balance our budget by the 
year 2002, to make sure we do cost effectiveness and risk analysis 
study on some of these things, that we do not bring a blank check. We 
are spending billions each year on this already.
  I would encourage from the commonsense point of view, from a 
practical point of view, from a point of view where we make sure that 
our fighting forces are ready and that if it is, that this $10 billion 
or $15 billion not come out of their hide, that we take our time in 
analyzing this and do not throw more money at the billions we are 
already spending.
                              {time}  1850

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, when, some years ago, Henry David Thoreau was lamenting 
what he thought was harm being done to the environment by mankind, he 
said that if they could fly they would lay waste to the skies. It was 
inconceivable to Henry David Thoreau that at one time mankind could 
fly.
  I submit that we are about in the position of Henry David Thoreau 
relative to what is potentially available in terms of a defense against 
ballistic missiles.
  I think that it is just not credible to stand here today in the midst 
of an exploding technology to say there is no way we could ever protect 
ourselves against the threat of the second, third, and fourth largest 
nuclear powers in the world.
  I just think that this threat is so potentially real that the 
consequences to our country are so overwhelmingly great that it is 
incumbent upon us to do what we can, and I would submit that there is 
no way that we should stand here today to say that there is no way we 
can protect ourselves, therefore, we should not do anything, that we 
should not do anything to study, to plan, to look at what technology is 
available so that we can protect ourselves against this.
  You know, the No. 1 requirement, I think most people agree, that we 
have in representing our people is to protect them. If you look at the 
Constitution, article I, section 8, you see there is probably more 
space taken up with this requirement on the part of this Congress than 
any other requirement in the Constitution, and I think it is absolutely 
incumbent on us to take advantage of the opportunities that this 
exploding technology provides, and that is all that this says.
  It does not say as soon as we can do it. It says practicable. That 
word is in there. What it means is we are not going to go off half 
cocked. We are not going to do something totally irresponsible. I think 
the totally irresponsible thing is to deny this threat exists.
  That is in this bill.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BATEMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I will be very 
brief.
  This bill has elicited a great deal of rather passionate and 
emotional debate. As important as the subject matter is, I think there 
has been more passion and more emotion than the bill, by its terms, 
certainly warrants. It is a bill that says we perceive there are 
certain threats to the national security of the United States, and it 
is a policy consideration that they should be addressed by the 
deployment of a system as soon as practicable.
  I can assure my friends throughout the Chamber, as the chairman of 
the Readiness Subcommittee, I am not going to preside over the 
sacrifice of our readiness to a ballistic missile system, theater or 
national, that is not ready for deployment, is not proven, and 
demonstrated to be practical and affordable in the context of our other 
national security needs.
  There is nothing in H.R. 7 that indicates otherwise. Were that not 
the case, I would be joining you in opposition to this provision of 
H.R. 7. But there is nothing in this bill that dictates any requirement 
that we sacrifice other programs of priorities as we separate them out 
as we go through the authorizing and appropriations process. This you 
need not fear.
  The language in this bill, whatever it started off to do, speaks in 
terms of a practical deployment of a theater and a national missile 
system. And in fact, with reference to the national missile system, 
defensive system, it speaks in terms of its being cost-effective and 
operationally effective. Now if it does not meet those standards, if 
that does not come back to us as something that is doable, you do not 
have anything to worry about. It will not go forward, because it will 
be proven it is not practical.
  So I would suggest that we calm down a little bit, deal with the bill 
in terms of what it, in fact, says and contemplates and what the 
hearing record and what the debates in committee made clear, that we 
are talking about practical systems being deployed, only practical 
systems, being deployed, and practical is in the context that includes 
whether or not we are stripping other defense priorities of what they 
should receive.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 212, not voting 4, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 136]

                               AYES--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--212

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     [[Page H1825]] Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Becerra
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1912

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. LAZIO of New York, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. 
WHITFIELD, and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. GANSKE, Ms. McKINNEY, and Ms. FURSE 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                   amendments offered by mr. bereuter

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate the debate on 
title 2, to assure that all of the amendments are considered in 
consecutive fashion so that we have a rational debate on the issue, I 
ask unanimous consent that my amendments numbered 10 and 12 be 
considered en bloc and passed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Bereuter: At the end of title V 
     (page 60, after line 25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 513. REPORT REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS PAID BY 
                   UNITED NATIONS FOR COSTS INCURRED BY NATIONS 
                   AND CONTRACTORS FURNISHING PERSONNEL FOR 
                   PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Information Relating to Nations Furnishing Forces.--The 
     Secretary of State shall submit to the Congress a report on 
     the amounts paid by the United Nations during 1994 as 
     compensation for expenses incurred by nations which have 
     provided forces for United Nations peacekeeping activities. 
     The report shall set forth--
       (1) the total amount paid to each such nation by the United 
     Nations during 1994 for such purpose; and
       (2) with respect to each such nation, the total amount that 
     such nation spent for peacekeeping activities for which it 
     received a payment from the United Nations during 1994, with 
     separate displays for the portion of that amount spent for 
     pay and allowances for personnel of that nation's armed 
     forces (including credit for longevity and retirement), for 
     other perquisites relating to the duty of such personnel as 
     part of such peacekeeping activities, and to the extent 
     possible for related incremental costs incurred by such 
     nation as part of such peacekeeping activities.
       (b) Information Relating to Contractors.--
       (1) Compensation levels.--The Secretary shall include in 
     the report under subsection (a) a separate report on amounts 
     paid by the United Nations during 1994 under contracts 
     entered into by the United Nations for the provision of 
     civilian management services relating to United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities. The report shall include information 
     as the level of individual compensation received by those 
     contractors, or employees of those contractors, with respect 
     to those peacekeeping activities, including the level of 
     salary, benefits, and allowance.
       (2) Contracting process.--The Secretary shall include in 
     the report a review of the process by which the United 
     Nations selects contractors for the provision of civilian 
     management services relating to United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities. That review shall describe the extent to which 
     that process permits competitive bidding.
       (c) Plan for Reform.--The Secretary shall include in the 
     report under subsection (a) a plan for actions the United 
     States can take to encourage the United Nations to reform the 
     existing system for reimbursement to nations which provide 
     forces for United Nations peacekeeping activities. The plan 
     shall include recommended steps leading to a reimbursement 
     system in which nations contributing forces to a United 
     Nations peacekeeping activity are compensated by the United 
     Nations in a manner that more accurately reflects their 
     actual costs incurred in participating in that activity.
       (d) Deadline for Report.--The report required by subsection 
     (a) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       Page 51, beginning on line 16, strike ``for Payment'' and 
     all that follows through ``Contributions''.
       Page 51, line 18, strike ``(1)''.
       Page 51, line 22, strike ``(A)'' and insert ```(1)''.
       Page 51, line 24, strike ``(B)'' insert ``(2)''.
       Page 52, line 1, strike ``(2)'' The prohibition in 
     paragraph (1)(A)'' and insert ``(b) Application of 
     Prohibition.--The prohibition in subsection (a)''.
       Page 52, line 4, strike ``activity.'' and insert 
     ``activity.'.''.
       Page 52, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 
     19.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has asked 
unanimous consent that his two amendments be considered en bloc.
  Is there objection to that request of the gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska has also asked unanimous 
consent that the two amendments be passed.
  The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  The amendments were agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. edwards

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards: Page 11, line 18, after 
     ``missile attacks'' insert the following: ``and that is 
     deployed without the inclusion of any space-based 
     interceptors''.
       Page 12, line 6, after ``missile attacks'' insert the 
     following: ``without the inclusion of any space-based 
     interceptors''.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am a defense hawk, and I believe 
national defense should be a nonpartisan issue.
                              {time}  1920

  Even though defense should be a nonpartisan issue, I am disappointed 
that the Republican rule has resulted in 204 Democrats only having 15 
minutes to present our side on the issue of star wars, a multibillion-
dollar defense program. I think that is unfair, and I think it is 
wrong.
  But the good news is, Mr. Chairman, that some programs and some ideas 
are so bad, they should not take that long to defeat, and star wars is 
right at the top of that list.
  My friend who spoke awhile ago, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon], suggested that Republicans are not interested in building star 
wars. If that is correct, then every Republican should vote for my 
amendment. My amendment does not stop a ground-based missile defense 
system to protect the United States. It does not even stop space based 
sensors. All my amendment does is say no to the deployment of a space-
based missile system known as star wars.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that our military leaders in this Nation do 
not even want star wars, and our taxpayers cannot afford it. American 
taxpayers have already spent $30 billion on this pie-in-the-sky 
boondoggle, and we do not even have one brilliant pebble to show for 
it. Thirty billion dollars, and 12 years later we do not even know if 
star wars will work.
  [[Page H1826]] Let me put this in perspective. A blue collar worker 
paying $10,000 in taxes a year would have to work for 3 million years 
to pay for what we have already wasted in star wars. The original cost 
estimates for Brilliant Pebbles have been increased 200 fold. That is 
not twofold, that is not 20 percent, but 200 fold. So nobody knows the 
ultimate cost of the star wars deployment.
  A star wars cost of $25 billion, a generally accepted estimate by 
many experts, would basically fund the direct operating costs of the 
United States Armored Army Division for some 200 years.
  To put that $25 billion figure in perspective, Mr. Chairman, all the 
talk about welfare reform, the AFDC program at the Federal level, if 
reformers were to save 20 percent of that welfare program's cost, it 
would take 10 to 15 years to pay for that star wars cost program.
  Mr. Chairman, to promise a balanced budget, to reduce taxes, and to 
say you are going to build star wars in space, is nothing but voodoo 
economics, Part II. It does not add up, it does not make sense, and it 
certainly will not work.
  Star wars is not just fiscally irresponsible though. It presents a 
false sense of security. It is like putting a $5,000 burglar alarm on 
the front door of your house, and yet keeping the front windows of your 
house open and the back door of your house locked. Now, surely some 
thug or some terrorist smart enough to put a nuclear warhead on the top 
of an ICBM missile, would have the intelligence to take that warhead, 
rent a U-Haul truck, and deliver it to any city within the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, star wars will suck billions of dollars away from 
theater missile defense, desperately needed dollars, from military pay 
raises and weapons modernization, the reasons why so many military 
leaders oppose star wars.
  Republicans on the one hand are saying cut child nutrition, yes, even 
cut education funding for the children of military families, but yet 
let us write a blank check for star wars.
  Mr. Chairman, that is wrong, and it is wrong-headed. Even Adm. 
William Crowe, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under 
President Reagan from 1985 to 1989, said star wars does not make sense.
  Mr. Chairman, star wars is a budget buster, star wars is bad for 
defense, star wars is an idea whose time has come and gone. It is time 
to say no to star wars, and that is what this amendment does.
                             point of order

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, is there a time limit on this 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would say to the gentleman he is not aware of 
a time limit.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard several times we are cutting children's 
nutrition. That is in my subcommittee on education. I have kept 
children's nutrition out of the welfare block grant so we will not cut 
it, and I have protected it. If I hear it one more time, I am going to 
include it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, once again I rise 
unfortunately to object to this amendment offered by my good friend and 
colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are asked to vote on right now is an amendment 
that in fact would specifically detail to the Secretary what type of 
plan he would bring back to us. We have heard from the other side that 
the Congress should not be micro-managing what our defense posture 
should be. What this amendment does is specifically state what kinds of 
architecture in fact can be recommended by the appropriate people in 
the Clinton administration.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no one on the floor of the House tonight 
advocating star wars, as we said earlier. What we are advocating is a 
logical, systematic approach to ballistic missile defense technologies 
that are recommended by those appropriate officials within the Clinton 
defense establishment. That is in fact what we are asking for.
  To say that we are somehow turning around and asking for some pie-in-
the-sky thing, with no dollar assessments, is absolutely wrong. And as 
our good friend and colleague knows, whatever comes back in the form of 
a recommendation has to go through an
 authorization process and an appropriations process. As we heard from 
our colleague from Virginia, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness, state, none of us on this side, who fought to get the pay 
raise put in when the President did not include it, who fought to up 
the acquisition accounts, none of us are going to jeopardize raises. We 
are going to fight to make sure funds are put back in for those cuts 
that were made by the President in this year's budget. What we are 
saying is allow the Secretary to come back and tell us what he would 
recommend in terms of time and dollars and an architecture to allow us 
to move toward a missile defense system. That is it. What this 
amendment does is it limits it.

  Let me just say for the Record, while I have been as critical as any 
on the spending of dollars for SDI and programs in the past, we cannot 
say there has been nothing achieved. That is really a misstatement that 
I think all of our colleagues should acknowledge.
  Any soldier who fought in Desert Storm and saw the benefit of the 
Patriot system knows that was paid for. One of our colleagues earlier 
said it was only a small amount of money. Well, let us talk about the 
two upgrades to the Patriot. There is one of which is being announced 
this week and another will be announced in a short period of time that 
will quadruple the effectiveness of the Patriot system. That money was 
obtained through the programs that the gentleman says nothing happened.
  The Aegis system upgrades that are currently under way with our Navy 
were all funded through these programs in the past.
  A program called Talon Shield, many of our colleagues perhaps do not 
realize that during Desert Storm the command officers had to keep in 
touch with the theater by telephone. They had to stay on a telephone 
line 24 hours a day. But because we have employed Talon Shield, we now 
have the system in place that will avoid that in the future. Talon 
Shield was directly developed by the dollars invested over the past 
several years in ballistic missile defense. The Joint Tactical Air 
Ground System will give us one further capability. So there have been 
improvements, and these improvements are technologies that have in fact 
given us dividends.

                              {time}  1930

  But we are not saying that we should have a bottomless pit. All we 
are saying is, allow the administration to come back to us and give us 
their best recommendations. That is all. If they tell us that they do 
not want to deploy in outer space, fine. That will be their 
recommendation.
  What the gentleman's amendment does is limits them even to the point 
that if the Russians would break out and immediately pose a threat, 
under the gentleman's amendment, we could not respond.
  I think that is shortsighted.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is agreeing with me 
in his earlier comments when he says he is not really interested in 
deploying in the near term a star wars space-based interceptor system. 
If that is correct and if that is the view of the majority side, the 
Republicans in this body, then let us simply accept this amendment and 
move on. My amendment simply stops star wars. It does not affect space-
based sensors. It does not stop the deployment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if in a 
year or two the Russians proceed to develop the capability of space-
based 
[[Page H1827]] interceptors, would the gentleman still be supportive of 
his amendment?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
in a year or two we will be debating the next year's authorization 
bill. In a year or two, I will be happy, in the authorization bill, to 
debate changes in it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman's amendment further ties 
the hand of the gentleman's administration and the Defense Department. 
What we are saying is, let Secretary Perry come back and tell us what 
he wants and then we can respond.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I would just like to know, genuinely, whether the 
gentleman is either interested in keeping open and wanting to build and 
deploy Star Wars or not interested? If he does not want to build star 
wars, then accept the amendment. If he does want to build it, then 
admit that and let us continue the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Weldon was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, what I would say to the 
gentleman is, I do not know what the future holds. If I could somehow 
have a crystal ball, perhaps I could predict that. What I am saying is 
I am not the defense expert. The people in the Pentagon and our joint 
chiefs are. If they come back and tell us that they want to have a 
system that within 5 years we should deploy some kind of system in 
space, that is something we will have to debate then. But we should not 
handicap them. We should not tie their hands. That decision should be 
left for another day.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
so the gentleman is saying he wants to keep open the option of star 
wars, that is what I am trying to----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. What I said is what I said. Do not put 
words in my mouth. What I said is I want the Secretary of Defense to 
come back within 60 days and make recommendations to us that we can act 
on.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering whether we go 
back to the cold war.
  Mr. Chairman, I have supported this SDI research. I represent the Los 
Alamos Laboratories. But today we do not need SDI. There is no 
justifiable threat. The technology is not there. And we cannot afford 
it. And we cannot afford readiness.
  So the decision today is do we proceed with a system that we cannot 
afford and we do not need? The answer is no.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding to me.
  I rise in support of the Edwards amendment. The point I want to make 
to the gentleman in the well and to my colleagues is that I am worried 
about where will we get the billions of dollars to pay for this new 
weapons system. I know where you are going to get it. We are going to 
take part of the money from the National Guard and Reserve. We are 
going to take it from the readiness of active forces.
  We need the Edwards amendment. It will pin it down. It will be 
ground-based missiles, and it will not be interceptors. And I am 
worried again about taking the money away from the Reserves and from 
the active forces on readiness.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I rise in support of the Edwards amendment.
  This amendment precludes the deployment of space-based interceptors 
as part of a national missile defense system such as Brilliant Pebbles.
  This does not preclude the development of a national ballistic 
missile system, it just limits it to ground-based missiles.
  We don't need to return to the old so-called star wars concept of 
past years. To do so would cost billions on a system that has a very 
high-risk technology and limited potential.
  I am told whatever elaborate star wars system you have, the engineers 
cannot guarantee that an enemy ABM will not get through the screen.
  We cannot afford to pour billions into space-based interceptors when 
readiness of forces is being stretched to the limit, when modernization 
of equipment is being delayed, and the quality of life of our personnel 
is not up to even minimum standards.
  What type of missile systems might be developed by Iran or Iraq? The 
Chinese already have missile technology. Let's prevent the costly 
mistakes of the past and vote yes on the Edwards amendment.
  When you move billions of dollars into a new weapons system, you have 
to take it from something else. I worry now about the National Guard 
and Reserve getting enough funds to be in a category of readiness. 
Listen to the figures: 38 percent of our military forces in 1996 will 
be in the National Guard and Reserve, and the Reserve budget for 1996 
is 7.6 percent of the defense budget.
  The Guard and Reserve is a terrific buy for the taxpayer, but there 
is a tendency when the active forces might need equipment or additional 
funding you look at reducing the Reserve. Talking about this star wars 
add-on in H.R. 7 could directly or indirectly affect the Reserve 
forces.3
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Tanner].
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, those of us who support the Edwards 
amendment take a back seat to no one in supporting a strong national 
defense. But we believe that setting the wrong priorities diverts 
needed funding in a deleterious way for necessary technology and 
equipment for our front-line men and women. Effective theater missile 
defense systems are being built to protect our people here at home and 
our U.S. and allied forces abroad.
  Research and development must continue so we will be able to deploy a 
national missile defense system whenever a threat to our shore emerges. 
I strongly support that, research and development.
  But this Contract With America provision will risk national security 
when deployment of space-based interceptors diverts billions of scarce 
defense dollars and resources from acquisition funds that provide our 
soldiers and sailors protection from Scuds and other theater missile 
attacks.
  That is what our military leaders will tell us and that is what is 
real national security.
  Those of us who support the Edwards amendment take a back seat to no 
one in supporting a strong national defense but we believe that setting 
the wrong priorities diverts needed funding in a deleterious way from 
necessary technology and equipment for our frontline men and women.
  Effective theater missile defense systems are being built to protect 
our people here at home, U.S. and allied forces abroad.
  Research and development must continue so we will be able to deploy a 
national missile defense system whenever a threat to our shores emerges 
and I strongly support that--research and development.
  But, this Contract With America provision will risk national security 
when deployment of space-based interceptors diverts billions of scarce 
defense dollars and resources from acquisition funds that provide our 
soldiers and sailors protection from Scuds, and other theater missile 
attacks. That's what our military leaders will tell you and that is 
what is real national security.
  I urge support for the Edwards amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly changes the 
direction of national defense. We do not need star wars. Readiness is 
subordinate to star wars in this bill. Modernization is held hostage to 
star wars. Troop and military family quality of life programs are held 
hostage. And we think we need to make the message clear.
  Troops are our responsibility. We absolutely must ensure their 
readiness.
  Now, the threat does not support deployment of a national missile 
defense, but do not take my word for it.
  The former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell said, 
``at the moment the threat does not warrant a national missile defense. 
Political, budget and security factors have combined to make national 
missile defense a thing of the past.''
  Let us not live in the past. Let us live in the future in the 
military strategy of this Nation.
  [[Page H1828]] Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not bad enough that H.R. 7 represents a radical 
assault on the ability of the President of the United States to conduct 
foreign policy. But here we are, after all these years, revisiting the 
issue of star wars when there is no appetite across this land for 
taking up the star wars mechanism at this particular time.
  I find it astounding that the Joint Chiefs of Staff could suggest 
that this proposal is ill-conceived, and ill-timed and at the same time 
we are bringing it up here tonight.
  I am proud to stand here tonight in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. He has spoken time and again in 
support of a strong national defense system in this country, as have 
other speakers tonight. At the same time, they both have suggested that 
this proposal is unwise and unwarranted.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The amendment that is being offered is to 
a section that is no longer in existence because of the passage of the 
previous resolution. So what in fact are we amending?
  Maybe I should address that to the parliamentarian. What are we 
amending?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from 
Texas has prepared a modification of his amendment to conform with the 
Spratt amendment's adoption.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Where is that amendment? May I see it? I 
have not seen it.
  The CHAIRMAN. It has not been presented yet. This amendment is 
pending and no point of order was raised against it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman: Is it the correct understanding that the Chair is ruling that 
this amendment is amending a section that is no longer in existence and 
that is allowable?
  The CHAIRMAN. At this point the Chair is not ruling on the 
consistency or form of the amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. What section are we amending with this 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The modification may correct that amendment, but no 
point of order was raised against the amendment when it was offered.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. It is allowable now to waive a point or 
order?
  The CHAIRMAN. No point of order was raised at the time the amendment 
was offered. It is not appropriate to raise one now.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Can a point of order be raised when a 
changed amendment is offered?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not appropriate to raise one now.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. EDWARDS. If the gentleman will yield, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to say this to my friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Richardson was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. To answer the question of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] about the passage of the previous amendment, 
in good faith, Mr. Chairman, I approached the Parliamentarians and 
asked them if it would be necessary to have a perfecting amendment, so 
my amendment would be in order.
  At one point, I can say in good faith, the interpretation I received 
was that would not be necessary. It is presently my intent to ask for 
consent to have simply a technical, conforming amendment to see that 
the exact same language we had had in my previous amendment would apply 
correctly to this language.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman also 
apply to the majority side for that technical change?
  Mr. EDWARDS. In the 30 or 40 seconds I had, I simply went to the 
Parliamentarian to see if technically, because of the passage of the 
previous amendment, any changes needed to be made.
  I was told, I believe in good faith, at one point it might not be 
necessary.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we have no idea what the 
gentleman is amending. That is our problem.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, today, we consider going back to the 
cold war. Today, we consider spending billions on a system to defend 
against a threat that no longer exists.


                What is the use of a space-based system?

  Who are we defending against? What is the threat that demands a 
space-based missile defense system?
  The last time star wars was considered in 1983 the Reagan 
administration estimated its cost at $120 billion.
  The threat to our security at home and abroad is not an ICBM attack; 
it is tactical missiles. Our experience in the Persian Gulf war proves 
the point.
  A star wars system would have been useless to defend our troops 
against Scud attacks in the gulf.
  This political proposal has no legs. The Joint Chiefs do not consider 
star wars a priority.


                            Budget Questions

  We are talking about building a system that would cost billions 
without having a hearing on it and with more glaring defense needs.
  Ensuring funding for training, development, pay raises, and housing 
will be impossible if we force feed this political program down DOD's 
throat.
  Since 1983, we have spent $30 billion on a space-based defense system 
and there are few tangible results.
  This is fiscal irresponsibility. This is jeopardizing troop readiness 
and force modernization.
  I would like to remind my colleagues what Gen. Colin Powell recently 
stated about this issue: ``A national missile defense system would be 
too expensive and impractical * * *'' He went on to say that ``* * * at 
the moment the threat does not warrant a national missile defense.''
  Today, we are considering a political proposal that puts both U.S. 
security and global interests at risk. There have been no hearings. 
There will not even be time to discuss the issues properly.


                        star wars vs. readiness

  H.R. 7 threatens the readiness of our service women and men and 
gambles on a star wars space based defense system. Star wars was an 
idea born out of cold war concerns about an intercontinental missile 
attack. Today, the risk of an all-out nuclear blitz is significantly 
reduced but smaller threats have proliferated. This bill requires us to 
make a blind wager on star wars. How much will it cost? What does it 
mean to readiness? Will we have money to handle the real threats?


                           u.n. peacekeeping

  This bill will needlessly put American soldiers at risk. By tying the 
executives hands this political proposal would hinder U.S. involvement 
in conflicts like the Persian Gulf war. This political proposal forces 
the U.S. to act unilaterally when a global crisis erupts. It puts more 
American lives at stake and, in the end, the U.S. will bear the entire 
financial burden of any military actions.


                             expanding nato

  This bill will force the U.S. to create an unspecified military 
assistance program for former East European countries. How much will it 
cost? Which countries will we allow into NATO? NATO should be expanded 
in concert with our European allies. We must ensure collective security 
and that the U.S. is not unilaterally committed to ensuring a secure 
Europe.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  [[Page H1829]] Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to know precisely what 
we are dealing with in terms of the parliamentary questions and 
responses just made.
  However, leaving aside those problems, and I know that the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Edwards] has proceeded in nothing but good faith, and I 
would say also that the gentleman from Texas is one of the most 
steadfast supporters of a strong national defense for this Nation, and 
I commend him for it. I am grateful to him for that reason.
  I cannot, however, Mr. Chairman, support his amendment. The reason I 
cannot support the gentleman's amendment is it seeks to bar something 
that no one has proposed to do.
  I would support his amendment, Mr. Chairman, if all that he says as a 
rationale for it is demonstrated to be correct at a point when someone 
says ``We propose to go forward and deploy a space-based system.'' 
However, there is nothing in this bill that says ``Deploy a space-based 
system.'' It says ``Deploy a practical system that is cost-effective.''
  If a space-based system fits that criteria, I will be for it. If it 
does not, and I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that it does not, then I will be 
against it, and I will support the gentleman's effort not to authorize 
or fund it at that point.
  However, at this juncture, Mr. Chairman, we are simply saying to the 
Department of Defense ``We want you to come back to us with 
recommendations for the deployment at the earliest practical time of a 
cost-effective, functional anti-ballistic missile system.''
  There is nothing in it that says space-based or not space-based. If 
space based is impractical, if that is not cost-effective, if that is 
not the best technology and the most economical, then the heck with it. 
We do not do it.
  I support the gentleman in that. However, we are not at that point. I 
would suggest that the amendment is actually not necessary.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. He 
and I have worked together on many issues. I respect the gentleman's 
leadership on our committee.
  I would just say in this particular case, Mr. Chairman, I happen to 
believe that after having spent already $30 billion and some 12 years 
on star wars, enough is enough. Finally here is a time to say no. I 
understand the gentleman's comments, but I would say to the Members, I 
just think that after 12 years and $30 billion, and not one brilliant 
pebble in space, it is time to end the program.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if this little bill 
proposed a nickel's worth further right now for star wars, I could see 
the gentleman's point. However, it does not expend anything. It does 
not put us at risk of expending anything.
  I think genuinely the amendment, however well conceived and 
supportable it may be at another time, really is unsupportable at this 
time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, of all the dubious proposals that are contained in this 
particular bill, perhaps the most dubious is the space-based star wars 
system which we are debating. I learned at West Point and in 8 years as 
an infantry officer in the Army that you build a strategy around a 
realistic assessment of the threat and then you use that strategy to 
allocate scarce resources. This proposal does neither.
  They do not have to take just my word for it. This is what the 
Defense Budget Project has said about this particular proposal. I think 
most Members are conversant with the fact that this is one of the most 
well-respected, nonpartisan, analytical military think tanks operating 
today in the United States.
  Here is what they said, Mr. Chairman. Point 1, ``There is no 
significant long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States, 
nor is there likely to be such a threat over the foreseeable future.''
  Point 2, ``A military revolution is underway. Information 
technologies that are critical to the ballistic missile defense 
activities, such as sensing, discrimination, and battle management, are 
progressing rapidly. There is a danger that if we buy into national 
missile defense too soon, it may rapidly obsolesce, leaving us with 
another huge capital investment to make if and when a long-range 
missile threat does emerge.''
  Point 3, ``Perhaps nowhere is this danger greater than in the case of 
space-based interceptors. A national missile defense system that 
included space-based interceptors could cost tens of billions of 
dollars to acquire and deploy. This is clearly not a commitment that 
the United States should consider entering into in the foreseeable 
future.''
  Mr. Chairman, the final point, ``With deficit and tax reductions a 
priority, funds for defense will almost certainly remain tight. A 
national military defense system is an expensive proposition, and 
defense systems often end up costing substantially more than projected 
by initial estimates. This mix could, over time, have the effect of 
presenting the Defense Department with an unfunded mandate; that is, 
with a program requirement that cannot be fully offset with additional 
resources necessitating substantial cuts from worthy DOD programs 
already under considerable stress.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is a nonpartisan group that thinks closely and 
well about defense issues. Their conclusions are very dramatic. I urge 
that they be considered and this amendment by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Edwards] be supported.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The question I want to ask is, why in the world would the Republicans 
want to revive star wars? They'll use any euphemism to fool the 
American people, but the bottom line is that among the other foolish 
ideas presented in this bill, probably the most foolish idea is that we 
need to knee-jerk ourselves all the way back to star wars.
  Aside from totally upsetting all of the arms control agreements that 
both Democratic and Republican Presidents have been able to hammer out 
with nuclear nations, this bill might just encourage those missiles 
that no longer are aimed at us, to make an about face.
  The subject matter of national security policy is much too serious to 
be cooked up by a few pollsters and spinmeisters.
  Remember star wars. For the $36 billion already spent did we get our 
invisible, global, protective shield against missiles? No.
  For the $36 billion already spent, did we protect ourselves from 
terrorist acts like the World Trade Center bombing? No.
  And do we really want to go back to space-based ballistic missile 
defense when there are other critical domestic needs that are tearing 
at our own social fabric?
  It was Dwight D. Eisenhower who said:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from 
     those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are 
     not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone; 
     it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its 
     scientists, and the hopes of its children.

  This group of Republicans that came up with this bill make Dwight D. 
Eisenhower look like a flaming liberal. The fact of the matter is, 
however, that:
  When we choose star wars over feeding the hungry; and
  When we choose star wars over housing the homeless; and
  When we choose star wars over even our own children.
  We surely make a grave mistake. Let us support the Edwards amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.


          modification to the amendment offered by mr. edwards

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be modified by the form at the desk to conform to the adoption of the 
Spratt amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       [[Page H1830]] Modification to the amendment offered by Mr. 
     Edwards: At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 203. DEPLOYMENT WITHOUT SPACE-BASED INTERCEPTORS.

       The national missile defense system developed for 
     deployment shall be developed and deployed without the 
     inclusion of any space-based interceptor.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, if I might inquire of the author of the amendment, is it his 
intent that that inclusion of ``any space-based interceptor'' also 
includes the development and deployment of a ballistic missile system?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman say of a 
ballistic missile system?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. A theater ballistic missile system.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. EDWARDS. In no way is this amendment intended to affect either a 
national missile, continental ground-based national missile defense 
system or--in fact, if anything it is intended to help save more money 
to put into theater missile defense instead of putting it into star 
wars.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. In other words, the gentleman is saying 
that if it is determined that the theater ballistic missile system 
should have space-based interceptors, it is OK?
  Mr. EDWARDS. If the theater missile defense system would require 
space-based interceptors, on that issue I am not aware of a particular 
program that is recommending that.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am asking if that is in fact----
  Mr. EDWARDS. Rather than deal with hypotheticals, let me let the 
words speak for themselves. They basically would prohibit space-based 
interceptors for a ballistic missile defense system.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Including theater ballistic missiles?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So it would apply across the board to 
theater and ballistic. So the amendment is actually going further than 
what we originally thought?
  Mr. EDWARDS. No. In this perfecting amendment, as I mentioned a few 
minutes ago based on the gentleman's request, this amendment does not 
change the intent or the content in any way of my original amendment. 
The only purpose of this change is to adapt my language to the Spratt 
amendment that had been recently adopted.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right 
to object, and I will not object because I respect the collegiality and 
the past cooperation of the gentleman with whom we have worked. Even 
though I may disagree with his amendment, I want him to have the right 
to amend it. But I think it further shows that there is confusion about 
what the intent of the language is, not in the gentleman's mind but the 
application of the language of this amendment which I think comes about 
when you try to micromanage what it is that is going to come back in 
the form of a recommendation to us, but I will not object.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment as modified, offered by Mr. Edwards: Page 11, 
     line 18, after ``missile attacks'' insert the following: 
     ``and that is deployed without the inclusion of any space-
     based interceptors''.
       Page 12, line 6, after ``missile attacks'' insert the 
     following: ``without the inclusion of any space-based 
     interceptors''.
       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 203. DEPLOYMENT WITHOUT SPACE-BASED INTERCEPTORS

       The national missile defense system developed for 
     deployment shall be developed and deployed without the 
     inclusion of any space-based interceptors.

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Secretary Perry came before us a few weeks ago and he 
asked us not to micromanage his programs and he asked us to give him a 
chance to bring forth his programs and explain them, explain the 
options, and then we would make some decisions on exactly what we would 
do with our spending authority.
  We are cutting out options with this amendment by the gentleman from 
Texas. What he is saying is this: It is okay to shoot down an incoming 
ballistic missile with a missile that is launched from the ground.
  I want everybody to understand the collision takes place in space. So 
you do not stay out of space. So if your objection is doing something 
in space, you cannot do that with any system. Because the collision 
between the incoming ballistic missile and the defensive missile takes 
place in space. It is above the Earth's atmosphere.
  So if you believe, like Walter Mondale, that there should be ``war in 
the heavens,'' then nothing fits your pistol on this particular 
amendment.
  Let me just say this to the gentleman from Texas, whom I respect 
greatly. We are on the cutting edge of technology in many areas, 
miniaturization of electronics, capability of our systems in space.
  We had several experts from two of our national laboratories come and 
tell us about a week ago that they could make space-based interceptors 
very inexpensively.
  What the gentleman from Texas is saying is, ``I don't even want to 
hear your arguments. I don't even want to have a scientist come up and 
testify to me as to what he can do with technology today.''
  That is like President Kennedy saying, ``We are going to shoot a 
missile to the Moon, we're going to land people on the Moon, but I 
don't think we should use solid rocket fuel. I've been told that's very 
expensive so I'm going to put in a prohibition against using solid 
rocket fuel to go to the Moon.''
  It does not make any sense. It does not make any sense to limit our 
options.
  We are asking Secretary Perry to come out and testify to us. We are 
also going to ask people from our national laboratories. We are going 
to ask these very intelligent people, who are a national resource, 
``What's new in technology? How can you shoot down an incoming missile 
better and cheaper than the guy who just testified?''
  What the gentleman from Texas is saying is, ``I've seen it all. I 
don't want to have anything in space because I heard that `War in the 
Heavens' speech and it makes sense to me, and the only thing that I'll 
go with is the old 6-gun shot from the ground. That's the only thing I 
believe in.''
  He is asking 435 of us to accept his judgment and not even allow 
testimony on any other system before we make a decision.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I am not asking this House to accept my judgment. I can 
pull out all the experts you would like:
  Gen. Colin Powell who said a national missile defense system is a 
waste and would take money away from important defense priorities.
  I could quote Admiral Crowe who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff for 4 years under President Reagan who said that this would be a 
dangerous program.
  This is not Chet Edwards' idea on February 15, 1995. This was debated 
for 12 years, $30 billion was spent. This program was stopped. And now 
in a short debate it is trying to be revived.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me take back my time and remind the gentleman, you 
can buy about a million times as much computing power today as you 
could in the 1960's for the same amount of money.
  Now, when we have experts from our national laboratories that we put 
there to come up with ideas on defending the country and they come to 
us and say we would at least like to be heard on the issue of how we 
have made it a lot more effective and a lot less expensive to shoot 
down this incoming missile with a different idea, I think we should 
listen to them. And I would just say to the gentleman, I go back to my 
Billy Mitchell argument. You had a lot of people saying you cannot sink 
ships with planes and we do not even want to 
[[Page H1831]] hear General Mitchell. They tried to scrub the test.
  This is a democracy. These Members who are representatives want to 
hear the evidence. I say let's let the evidence be put out there. And 
if the gentleman sits with me in Armed Services hearings and hears the 
evidence and then says, ``I'm not going to change my mind,'' then fair 
is fair.
  But let's hear the evidence. This amendment precludes us from even 
hearing the evidence.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. The gentleman makes a great point. Had we 
had adequate hearings in committee, we could have gone through all of 
these details. That is exactly the point here. We are rushing to 
conclusion as opposed to examination we could have done in committee. 
We are doing committee work on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me take back my time one more time and say the 
gentleman is wrong.
  When President Kennedy said, ``We're going to put somebody on the 
Moon,'' he did not go through all the hearings first. He said, ``That's 
our goal, that's our policy.'' Then he convened his scientists to tell 
him how to most effectively do that.
  We are saying let's defend against incoming ballistic missiles and 
let's convene our scientists in the Capitol in these hearings and 
decide the most effective way to do it.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to approach this from a different 
perspective. You cannot have it all. We just passed a balanced budget 
amendment in this House that was part of the contract. We are coming 
with a supplemental very soon now that violates the balanced budget 
amendment. We do not pay for it. The Speaker of this House said, even 
though the balanced budget constitutional amendment will not be passed 
we are going to operate just as if it were passed.
  I have been chairman of Military Construction for many, many years, 
up until this year. I also sit on the Subcommittee on National Security 
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations. I have been all over this 
country. We need to talk about readiness here. Star Wars is an idea 
whose time has passed and is not appropriate to be talked about.
  If you want to talk about some of the things that are affecting our 
people and our readiness and our retention, you start talking about 
quality of life.
  As you talk with the people, the commanders of all of these bases 
across the country, and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] 
and I were in Fort Bragg
 a couple of weeks ago and we talked to the wives and the husbands who 
are living in conditions that people were living in in World War II, in 
barracks they were living in in World War II. We are talking about 
retention and we are talking about asking our troops to go out and 
operate the most sophisticated weapons that man has ever invented and 
we are asking them to live in conditions that prevailed in World War 
II.

  If you buy something like Star Wars, it is going to come from 
someplace, and it is going to come from the unsexy sector, like 
barracks. You can go to any base in this country and have a ribbon-
cutting for barracks and you cannot even get the press to come out and 
cover it. But if you talk about Star Wars and B-1's and B-2's, and they 
are sexy items, but they do not get the job done.
  Several years ago I went to Fort Hood, TX, and we had some ladies 
there at Fort Hood that were trying to clean up an old cafeteria to put 
in a day-care center for our children that belonged to the parents of 
our armed services people.
  We need to concentrate on quality of life and retention for our armed 
forces and we need to stress all of our efforts on readiness. To spend 
$40 billion on Star Wars, that is going to be taken out of the hides of 
readiness, and our military quality of life is going to be affected 
drastically. I think it is the wrong-headed way to go.
  I strongly support the Edwards amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
                              {time}  2000

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on Mr. Hefner's 
quality of life admonitions to us and I want to speak to Members like 
my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], with whom 
I have worked on these issues. I do not think on this issue there ought 
to be a hawk or a dove or those kind of designations. We are all 
responsible members of the Committee on National Security, the 
Committee on Armed Services and we operate on the basis of that 
responsibility.
  And in this particular instance, no matter what designation I might 
come under to suit the convenience of the newspaper, Members know that 
we work together on these issues like the theater missile defense. I am 
fully in accord with that.
  But at the same time, I take no second place to those who want to see 
a quality of life. I have a special responsibility to all of the 
Members in the House of Representatives, I almost said in our 
congregation because that is the way I feel about it on the armed 
services and the National Security Committee; that is the way we work 
with one another.
  Out in Hawaii it is not my constituents that are being housed in 
these barracks and in these housing projects that the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] is referring to, it is your constituents, 
it is our friends, our neighbors all around the country. And I have had 
to struggle year in and year out and I have had the support of the 
people, no matter what kind of convenient designations are used, to try 
to upgrade this housing, to try to upgrade the quality. The gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] is correct and if we are being honest 
with one another we know if we move into what has been called Star 
Wars, into this missile defense in the heavens kind of system, we are 
going to be cutting the ground out from underneath those men and women 
now serving and their families who serve with them throughout our 
country.
  So, my plea is let us be sane and sensible about what we are doing 
with missile defense.
  Mr. HEFNER. Make no mistake about it, with the limited resources that 
we have, if we embark on Star Wars, it is going to impact drastically 
on quality of life and readiness for our troops and readiness for our 
military.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I just want to point out we are not in disagreement. And in 
fact if we look as we have cut defense spending over the past 5 years 
by 25 percent, we have increased nondefense discretionary spending.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hefner was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I did not yield for a chart show.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am making a statement.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, let me remind the gentleman that when his 
administration was on Pennsylvania Avenue, on quality of life we had a 
pause. We have lost money, we have lost money in military construction 
for our quality of life and for our barracks and for living conditions 
for our military folks, and it has not been a priority because our 
priorities was B-1s and B-2s and we did not stress military 
construction. We have lost in the quality of life, and today we are 
reaping the benefits because retention is suffering among our services 
and we have had testimony to that effect. And if we spend $40 billion 
for Star Wars we are going to suffer further and we are going to suffer 
quality of life and we are going to suffer in readiness.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I do not disagree with the gentleman. In 
fact I applaud his leadership on the issue of military installations 
and facilities.
  My point is we are taking a bigger and bigger chunk out of the 
defense 
[[Page H1832]] budget for nondefense items, up 361 percent over 40 
years.
  Mr. HEFNER. I take my time back. We are debating priorities except in 
quality of life and Star Wars and readiness. The argument is are we 
going to stress readiness in this country and are we going to look 
after quality of life of our troops and get them off of food stamps, or 
are we going to spend $40 billion in space for Star Wars where there is 
not one person in this House that knows whether it will even begin to 
work or not?
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have come here through long, national discussion. It 
began in our time, in 1981, when T.K. Jones, who was the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense in charge of strategic and theater nuclear forces 
made a statement. He said that we would be able to protect our country 
against nuclear war if everyone dug a hole 6 feet deep, we put a door 
over that hole, and with enough shovels and enough dirt, everyone would 
be able to make it. That was the assistant Secretary of Defense for 
theater and strategic nuclear weapons in 1981.
  Now, as you can imagine, that caused quite a controversy in this 
country, but that was the civil defense plan for our Nation in the 
event of a nuclear war.
  Now it took 2 years to come up with an alternative plan; it was 
called star wars. We were Luke Skywalker, they were Darth Vader, and we 
were going to go to the heavens to knock down their intercontinental 
ballistic missiles. That is what we are talking about here.
  Now, there were cartoon versions of what that system would do. There 
was a moonbeams and stardust vision of what it would do, but in reality 
there was never even the remotest approximation of a working model of 
it, $30 billion later.
  What we have before us today is the latter day version of it, but 
this is no longer moonbeams and stardust, this is the giant pork barrel 
in the sky for defense contractors. This is just a follow-on to all of 
those contractors that want to continue on the gravy train without 
having produced anything yet.
  Even as we know it is going to put tremendous pressure on the 
resolution the rest of our budgets, we have to make very tough 
decisions in this Congress and the next. We are going to have very 
tough ceilings placed on us, we are not going to continue to support 
the things that do not work.
  I was not paying that close attention, but I am not aware of an 
amendment that passed on the floor earlier today that put the Soviet 
Union back together again. We won, Darth Vader lost, he is gone, he is 
not in the heavens, he is in Chechnya, and he is losing on the ground 
to a Third World power. We cannot afford an additional $40 billion in 
order to continue to pursue a defense strategy that might have made 
some sense at the height of the cold war but in the aftermath of the 
cold war and the present condition of Russia no longer makes sense, 
given the other constraints upon our limited fiscal resources.
  So, my argument to you would be this: that just as a practical fact 
of the matter, this system does not work, from Brilliant Pebbles to 
smart rocks to the nuclear bomb that was going to go off over our heads 
and stop the incoming missiles, none of this ever worked. If we want to 
continue to flow money into it, and the gentleman from North Carolina 
and many other Members out here on the floor made the point over and 
over, we are going to have to cut other things and cut them 
dramatically. It might be military readiness, it might be Medicare, it 
might be student loans, it might be Meals on Wheels.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. I will get time for 1 more minute.
  I just wanted to see if we could get on the historical record 
something very important from the book of the former minister from the 
old Soviet Union in its dying days, from Shevardnadze, Edward, nice 
man. I will get an autographed copy for you. He says in his book that 
Ronald Reagan pushing SDI broke the will, along with Afghanistan, of 
the Evil Empire, and when they realized that they could not combat, 
this is Shevardnadze again, the unraveling of the Soviet Union, 
whatever the technological merits are about star wars, moonbeam, Darth 
Vader, it did accomplish a 30 million dollars' worth of the freedom for 
all of the so-called 15 Soviet Republics.
  Mr. MARKEY. If I may reclaim my time, it is only to make one point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Dornan and by unanimous consent, Mr. Markey 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DORNAN. I yield back to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. Notwithstanding the 
arguments which the gentleman makes, and we can debate over whether 
that was an accurate assessment or not, but just for the sake of the 
discussion let us say it was accurate and let us say that the Soviets 
did panic, and let us say that the Soviets did go to the table and we 
were able to gain those strategic nuclear weapons, treat all of that as 
being conceded for the sake of this discussion, what possible gain 
would it offer us now to spend an additional $40 billion? We have won 
the concessions which are necessary in order to have these treaties put 
in place.
  We now have an inexorable and inevitable decline on both side's 
missiles, we have no technological proof that this system works. If 
they went for the bluff, so be it. But for the future, we have to now 
make our decisions based upon the technological capacity of this, of 
the technology.
  Mr. DORNAN. Will the gentleman yield for one short question?
  Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. DORNAN. Where are you getting this $40 billion, off the planet 
Glatu Barato Niktu? Nobody is suggesting that kind of money 
expenditure. We are talking about rogue missiles. I am conceding we 
have got a bigger problem with suitcase missiles in the mud of our 
harbors. Where does this $40 billion come from?
  Mr. MARKEY. I am only using the Bush administration numbers that 
there would be $35 billion that would need to be spent in order to 
finish this project, and additional tens of billions of dollars if an 
alternative Brilliant Pebbles project was adopted as well. We are only 
using the Republican administration numbers in this debate. The only 
question we have now is whether or not, given our success in basically 
destroying the Soviet Union, there is an identifiable enemy in the 
world that can justify this kind of expenditure.
  I would argue not, given the other tremendous pressures on our 
military and on our civilian budget that is going to become more 
evident as this unfolds.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I am opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would ask the gentleman, everyone has said that the 
Soviet Union is gone. Is the gentleman aware of how many Typhoon-class 
nuclear submarines Russia built last year and what they plan on doing 
with those nuclear tubes? They built five nuclear Typhoon-class 
submarines last year. Why?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Earlier obviously some people were not here, but there 
was a discussion about whether or not there was a threat and what the 
gentleman points out with regard to submarine construction and what was 
quoted by or what was said by Bill Studeman, the Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency on January 18, pointed out quite clearly 
that we have a problem or that we soon will have.
  Let me read this quote once again. Bill Studeman said, ``The 
proliferation relates to the nonproprietary nature of technology,'' 
meaning that technology is not hardware or software, it is know-how, 
and he says, ``This means that the 
[[Page H1833]] proliferation will be new and more diverse forms of 
lethability, increasing threat reach, that is, longer ranges including 
ultimately ranges from problem states that can reach the United States 
toward the end of this decade.''
  So the gentleman makes a good point with regard to submarines, and 
your director of your Democrat-controlled administration says clearly 
on the record there is a problem that we have to face.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further to me, I would 
also like to point out that Russia today, who is no longer the Soviet 
Union, just sold to Iran two Kilo-class nuclear submarines. They also 
sold to Iran and to China rocket-based missiles and long-range 
missiles.
  I am not sure if we need to spend all the money that the gentleman is 
talking about either, but I am saying that at least I would like to 
give the President and the Secretary of Defense, whoever he is in 1996, 
the option to take a look and see if that is an option.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. One further point besides the sale of 
Russian submarines to Iran, which we now have documented, we also know 
that the Russians offered to take the SS-25, which is their mainstay 
nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, and offer that technology 
to Brazil to be used for space flight. We know that.
  So somehow we are thinking that this technology for nuclear 
capability is staying within Russia. That is just not borne out by the 
facts.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further, I would like to 
bring out one other point. When we are talking about quality of life, 
let us take a look at the broad class, when we cut $177 billion out of 
the defense budget, that hurts quality of life, and my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle passed that Clinton tax package that did 
that.
  In that budget was also a COLA for veterans, and you take a look at 
how many of the billions of dollars it is costing us for Haiti, and 
then we take a look at quality of life that our soldiers were ripped 
out, our sailors, after a 6-month cruise, ripped out with a 30-day 
turnaround and shipped off to Haiti. Then we had two people commit 
suicide.
  So when we talk about quality of life, let us really take a look at 
quality of life across the board.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I know most of the discussion here tonight has been on the readiness 
and the defense aspects of this amendment, and that is appropriate. But 
I do want to point out the foreign policy ramifications of it as well, 
and just simply to say that the nationwide missile defense system, in 
my view, does jeopardize American foreign policy interests.
  A nationwide defense missile system abrogates the antiballistic 
missile treaty. That treaty has been the most successful treaty we have 
ever had in the strategic area, the most successful arms control 
treaty. It saved a very, very costly missile race for the world.
  I think a nationwide missile defense system jeopardizes the 
implementation of START 1, which is an enormously important foreign 
policy interest of this Nation right at this moment, and likewise, the 
ratification of START 2.
  I think you are quite right to say that there is a threat to the 
Nation from long-range missiles, but I also think that threat is 
secondary to the theater missile threat. Nationwide missile defense, in 
effect, reverses what our defense priorities, it seems to me, ought to 
be. The missile threat today is in the short- and medium-range 
missiles, and that is what our priority ought to be on in the defense 
program. I think that is what it is on.
  We must not be complacent, as others have pointed out, with respect 
to the possibility of an attack on the continental United States, and 
we should proceed, in my judgment, with a research and development 
program for that, but the priority ought to be on the area missile 
defense.
  I think the Edwards amendment has it exactly right. I commend him for 
it.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Edwards amendment. I am one 
of the few Members of Congress to serve in the signal intelligence area 
of our armed services, and I spent time looking at this very matter we 
are talking about.
  If we are seriously concerned about defense of America to all 
threats, the first thing we need is a military force that is prepared 
and ready and trained to go to war, and the next thing we need is for 
them to have the good quality of life every Member of this body has 
spoken in support of.
  Part of the time I worked as a signal intelligence officer. I looked 
at this very project because it was an assignment I had, and I fully 
support and will vote continuously for research and development for 
star wars. But I am absolutely opposed to spending money that we need 
for the defense of this Nation to look at putting these intercepts in 
space.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a freshman, but I am a sad freshman tonight, 
because I think that the last vote, and if we pass this amendment, has 
in large part broken the Contract With America, not a Contract With 
America that was formed just in this last election cycle, but a 
Contract With America that was formed in the formulation of this 
Nation.
  When we talk about quality of life, there is no quality of life if 
this country is vulnerable to missile attack, and you and I all know 
that the entire dynamics of the debate changed in 1984 when SDI became 
a potential reality.
  The quality of life in America was more peaceful, because the Iron 
Curtain came down.
  I have trouble with H.R. 7, but it was President Reagan who said in 
1984 that history teaches that wars begin when governments believe the 
price of aggression is cheap.
                              {time}  2020

  Mr. Chairman, upon the formation of this country was John Jay in the 
Federalist Papers No. 4, who reminds us that--

       Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good 
     national government as necessary to put and keep them in such 
     a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress 
     and discourage it. That situation consists in the best 
     possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the 
     government, the arms, and the resources of the country.

  I wish I felt this strongly about a few other parts of the bill, but 
I must stand firm on my principles. First, I feel that the United 
States should not become involved in any ``peacekeeping'' activities of 
the United Nations. This includes provision of troops, funding, in-kind 
contributions. Such activities are beyond the scope of the 
Constitution, and if vital U.S. interests are involved, the 
Constitution provides the proper avenue for dealing with those 
interests in a national, rather than international manner. We are 
walking on a very slippery slope when we involve our troops with U.N. 
``peacekeeping'' activities, and I caution all of the relevant 
committees to scrutinize any action very carefully before we consider 
any actions with the United Nations.
  Second, there are a number of waivers in this bill that concern me. I 
point to page 47, line 19. This section gives the Secretary of Defense 
a waiver to decide that in the case of an emergency the United Nations 
will not be required to reimburse the United States for in-kind 
contributions to ``peacekeeping'' activities. I believe that Congress, 
not the Secretary of Defense, should decide if the United Nations 
should foot the bill. This loophole has the ability to be abused.
  Lastly, I mention section 512 of the bill, conditions on the 
Provisions of Intelligence to the United Nations. I realize that this 
strengthens the conditions of intelligence being provided to the United 
Nations. However, I object to any U.S. intelligence being provided to 
the United Nations. In principle, providing classified intelligence 
information to any international body is undesirable. A government-to-
government action has been possible with adequate controls, known to 
the Congress. However intelligence provided to the United Nations is 
the same as publishing it in the National Enquirer.
  [[Page H1834]] I thank the gentleman for the time to voice these 
concerns. I hope that the committees with jurisdiction on these issues 
will take careful consideration of these concerns when these issues 
arise again. This is a very important issue to the people of Idaho and 
to the people of America, very sensible people, and they deserve the 
proper consideration, and they deserve a good strong defense, and they 
remember what happened in 1994, 1984, when SDI possibly became a 
reality. Even if this body does not remember, the American people do, 
and I will cast my vote for this bill and encourage all of my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment briefly on the threat.
  I have heard several comments here tonight like ``the threat does not 
warrant the development of an ABM defense system.'' I have heard words 
like ``there is no conceivable threat.'' I have heard the question, the 
statement, made, that we have no threat because who could put the 
Soviet Union back together?
  Let me remind our colleagues that Zhirinovsky, possibly the second-
most popular, maybe the most popular, politician in Russia, he wants to 
have a child in every one of the provinces of what used to be the 
U.S.S.R. and then when he assumes power, the first thing he wants to do 
is take back Alaska. He will have at his command 25,000 nuclear weapons 
and the ability to deliver them. If they are targeted somewhere else 
now, within less than 2 minutes he can target every one of them back 
here, and we do not have a threat, a potential threat?
  Come on now. Let us get real.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], that I listened to his statements about the 
possible destabilization of our armed situation with the Soviet Union, 
and let me just remind my colleagues that this amendment eliminates 
some possibilities of working together with the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Yeltsin said in two speeches, January 29 and January 31, 1992, 
that the strong possibility existed of the Soviet Union teaming up with 
the United States and using Soviet technology and U.S. SDI technology 
to develop what Mr. Yeltsin, not President Reagan and not President 
Bush, but what Mr. Yeltsin described as a global protection system.
  Now we are giving up that possibility. We are giving up that 
opportunity, if we adopt this amendment, that we are not going to hear 
any evidence about anything except the system that the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards] thinks will work. That is a ground-based system. It 
does not make sense to give up not only the possibilities that our 
technicians offer us and our scientists say they want to testify about, 
but also to give up the possibilities that have been offered to us by 
the Soviet Union.
  Since Mr. Yeltsin made that statement, Mr. Chairman, a number of our 
technical people have been working with Soviet scientists, Soviet 
diplomats, and talking about the opportunity to have a partnership. I 
say to my colleagues, ``You give that up, you limit yourself, you limit 
the United States, if you go with this Edwards amendment.''
  Let me tell my colleagues what else they give up. As my colleagues 
know, it has been suggested by all of our experts that we might want to 
have a layered defense. I say to my colleagues, ``That means, if you 
have a ballistic missile coming in, you try to shoot it down first when 
it launches. That's the best time to get it, before all of the multiple 
warheads, if it has multiple warheads, break away from the bus, and 
then you have 10 problems instead of 1 problem. So you try to get it 
when it boosts up. Second, if it survives, that you might want to get 
it when it's up high in space. If you can get it then, you don't have 
to worry about it coming down and having to deal with it with your 
terminal defense. Last, if everything fails and that missile is coming 
into San Diego,
 CA, or New York, or Mr. Edwards' district in Texas, then you have one 
last shot at it, and that's with this ground-based system.''

  I would suggest it does not make much sense for us as Members of the 
House to limit our technical experts and say we have adopted the idea 
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] of the best technology, and 
he says the only thing that works is the stuff that is launched from 
the ground. We are not going to try to shoot that missile down when it 
first boosts up, and we sure do not want to shoot it down in space 
because that would be a war in the heavens. But we will go with that 
good old six-gun that the gentleman from Texas says we have got. We can 
shoot it as it is coming in on our cities.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``So you give up, my 
colleagues, the chance to have a layered defense, and all we are asking 
here is not that you choose one. We are asking that you let the 
committee process take its course, and you listen to our scientists, 
and experts, and military leaders as they come in and testify as to the 
cheapest, most cost effective way to shoot down incoming ballistic 
missiles.''
  I think that the Edwards amendment, as much as I respect my friend 
from Texas, is one that limits us in a way that we should not be 
limited.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is true that the real threat to our security 
does come from the former Soviet Union, nuclear threat to our security 
does come from the former Soviet Union, but not in the way that some of 
our friends and colleagues imagine. It does, in fact, come in a way 
that was described for us an hour or two ago by the former chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California. He 
talked about the ability to smuggle into the country, in the tons of 
contraband that cross our borders daily, a nuclear device, or parts of 
a nuclear device, to be assembled here and then set off possibly by 
terrorist or terrorist organization. That constitutes the real most 
immediate threat to our security.
  Now coincidentally, just within the last several weeks in 
Czechoslovakia authorities seized an automobile and the contents of 
that automobile. In that care were approximately 6 pounds of highly 
enriched uranium which were smuggled out of the Soviet Union by a 
Russian, a Ukrainian, and a citizen of Belarus. They were trying to 
take that 6 pounds of enriched uranium and sell it to terrorists on the 
open market. Now there are within the former Soviet Union at least 150 
sites that contain enriched uranium from which those people, or people 
like them, can obtain that fissionable material, take it out of the 
former Soviet Union and put it on the marketplace for terrorist 
organizations.
                              {time}  2030

  We are not paying any attention whatsoever to this most immediate, 
most serious threat to the security of the United States and in fact 
our allies, and we fail to recognize this threat at our peril. That is 
the most serious threat and the most immediate threat, and that is the 
one we need to pay attention to.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, when this debate began some time ago, some of my 
Republican colleagues said on this Floor they are not interested in 
Star Wars. My friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], 
volunteered to donate to charity for every instance when the word 
``Star Wars'' were used. Now, a few minutes later, other Members are 
arguing for a Star Wars deployment.
  Well, this amendment is simple and it is straightforward: If you want 
to say no to Star Wars, vote yes on this amendment. If you think $30 
billion and 12 years is enough on one program, then simply vote yes on 
this amendment.
  [[Page H1835]] On the other hand, if you believe in Star Wars and you 
want to spend more money on its deployment and good faith, then simply 
vote no on this amendment. It is that simple.
  But this amendment is not about whether today or some day there might 
be a threat to the continental United States. Nothing in this amendment 
stops a ground-based national missile defense system or even continued 
research for some space-based system. It simply says no to the 
deployment of Star Wars, a $30 billion boondoggle, after 12 years, for 
which there is no evidence that the technology would even work.
  Finally, I am not asking that you agree with Chet Edwards' opinions, 
because mine are not important. I am asking that this House agree with 
the opinions of our top military leaders and past leaders such as Colin 
Powell and Admiral Crowe, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
under President Reagan, to say enough is enough, and tonight it is time 
to say no to star wars.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman. A 
ground-based system is treaty compliant. Anything that we do in space 
would abrogate the antiballistic missile agreement. This would then 
lead to a reconsideration by the Russians of the START I-START II 
agreements, which called for a two-thirds reduction in our offensive 
ballistic missiles on both sides. They are not going to go out and 
approve START II if we are rushing to deploy a space-based system.
  So I think we made a lot of progress with the Spratt amendment, and 
if we could get this amendment through, I think we would have done a 
good job for our country. I believe a space-based missile system is 
extremely expensive, is not treaty-compliant, it violates the ABM 
agreement on a prime facia basis, and it is not something we should do 
on this point.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Members to pay strict attention to 
what they are doing here this evening. You know, you have to be very 
careful because these guys on this side of the aisle are very cagey. 
The next thing you know, you have a bill and you have got nothing to 
it, and it will be like cotton candy. You know what happens when you 
get cotton candy. They come over here and talk about Star Wars and you 
have all this debate, and in the meantime your bill is slipping away 
from you. None of you paid strict attention the last vote you had where 
you had to strike a clause dealing with congressional funding. Do you 
know what you just gave away? You gave away a key portion of this bill. 
Because under this bill, DOD funds under this bill had to be approved 
by Congress for peacekeeping. Under Amendment 12 that you just passed, 
you gave it all away. You gave up a major portion of your bill.
  You have got to pay attention to what is going on here on the floor. 
My dear friends here on the floor and back in your offices, watch these 
amendments when you are voting on them. You are getting cotton candy, 
my friends. You are getting a bill that is going to have nothing to it.
  For example, when you look at this bill, there is $1.7 billion by 
Congress last year for peacekeeping. It did not have to have the 
approval of Congress. You pass this amendment now, you are not going to 
have to need the approval of Congress either. And that is the entire 
point of this bill. That is what the Contract With America is all 
about. You are putting Congress back in the game. And you just took 
Congress out and no one even paid any attention.
  Look at these amendments. Look at this amendment. They make a lot of 
noise over here. They wave to you up here and underhandedly take it all 
away from you. You got to watch these guys or they will hornswoggle 
you. So I am asking you, watch these amendments or you are going to end 
up with cotton candy.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing talk about Darth Vader being dead 
and Star Wars and all of these comical type figures, when we really 
need to be looking at what we are facing in this world today.
  The fact of the matter is, we are not facing Darth Vader, even if you 
want to call the Soviet Union Darth Vader and say that Darth Vader is 
dead. If we want to talk about it in those simplistic terms, if we want 
to talk about something that is this important, national security, in 
those comical terms, fine, let us talk about it. Darth Vader has had 
children now and they have spread across the world.
  The fact of the matter is, the world is not safer today than it was 5 
years ago before the collapse of the Soviet empire. The fact of the 
matter is we now have, it has been estimated, 20 to 25 countries that 
are going to have nuclear capability within the next 5 to 10 years, and 
have that ability to launch nuclear missiles across continents.
  We are not talking about Darth Vader; we are not even talking about 
the former Soviet Union. The nuclear club is going to be expanded 
beyond the Britains and beyond the Chinas and beyond the Russias and 
beyond the Americas, and beyond the Indias, and instead the people who 
are going to be possessing nuclear capability are going to be the 
Kadafis and the Saddam Husseins and the North Koreas. I keep hearing 
all this concern about all these wonderful treaties, START I, START II, 
all these treaties that are going to be thrown out the window.
  Well, I am only a freshman and I suppose I did not recall the full 
debate, but I did not think Saddam Hussein or anybody in North Koera 
had anything to do with these treaties. They are not signatories to 
these treaties, they are not concerned about these treaties. And if we 
sit back and continue to frame this debate in comical terms such as 
Darth Vaders and Star Wars and all these other things that are not 
relevant to the debate tonight, that is not relevant to what is going 
on inside of North Korea, does anybody in this Chamber know what is 
going on inside of North Korea? Does anybody inside this Chamber? If 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], knows about North 
Korea's nuclear capability, then I will gladly yield to him and let him 
talk about the nuclear capability. But the fact of the matter is the 
gentleman does not know any more than the rest of us know.
  And yet we are not talking about North Korea. We are not talking 
about North Korea tonight. We are not talking about the problems that 
we may be facing with Kadafi. We are not talking about the unknowns 
that we are going to be facing with Saddam Hussein. Instead, we are 
hearing talk about Darth Vader and these other things that demean the 
process and trivialize in the end what I am the most concerned about, 
and that is my seven-year-old son and my four-year-old son, my 
children, my grandchildren. I am concerned about them.
                              {time}  2040

  I am concerned about the homeless in the inner cities, and I am 
concerned about those who are going to bed tonight in south central 
L.A. afraid they are not going to wake up in the morning because of 
violence. But their threat not only comes from the inner cities, the 
threats in South Bronx not only come from the problems in the South 
Bronx, it comes from threats across the globe. And they are just as 
dead in the morning, if we do not defend them nationally, as they would 
be from the spread of violence and poverty.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an 
excellent point. Over the past 30 years we have had two wars in 
America. We had the war on poverty, and we spent $6 trillion and we 
lost. And we had a strong buildup with support from Democrats and 
Republicans, and we spent $5 trillion during that same period of time. 
And what happened? The world is a safe and secure place because we won 
that.
  What we are saying is, we want to continue to be strong to deter 
aggression. We lost the war on poverty where we spent more money, but 
certainly our investment in defense allows all of us to be here where 
we are today.
  [[Page H1836]] Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, last March I was in Israel and talked to 
mothers and fathers who have had to hide their children.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Scarborough] has expired.
  On request of Mr. Bilbray, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Scarborough 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
last March, when I talked to mothers and fathers who had lived in fear 
of their home being bombed by ballistic missiles, the comments they 
made were very strongly saying, we need not only this for Israel, we 
need this for the entire world so every country has it.
  My problem I am having is, I am hearing my colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle agree that we need to develop the technology. We need to 
be able to address the point that the facts are that there is more of a 
threat of a ballistic missile crossing into the United States territory 
than it is a foreign enemy tank coming in. But we have antitank 
technology. But we have not developed the technology.
  I think the issue comes down to the fact, I keep hearing the dialogue 
going back and forth of what not to do. I think the people of the 
United States say, if we are going to develop this technology to 
protect foreign countries, doggone it, the taxpayers have the right to 
have their country, America, defended with the same technology.
  I think that is all we are saying here. As this technology is 
developed to protect other countries, let us darn well make sure that 
we are protecting our children, our neighborhoods and our homes in the 
same way.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure the gentleman's comments 
are not misunderstood to misrepresent my amendment. My amendment does 
not stop research and development of any program. And, furthermore, I 
hope those same Members that have some concern for ballistic missile 
attack on the United States understand that those same minds can take a 
thousand-pound missile, rent a U-haul truck and deliver that missile to 
any city in the United States.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to consider that 
when we secure our borders, I hope that the gentleman understands that 
same threat when we talk about Border Patrol.
  And Border Patrol, because I live one mile from the border, it does 
not take a long distance missile to hit me. My family is under that 
threat. So let us remember the national defense.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we are missing here is, we are talking 
about what our priorities should be. And I think the Spratt amendment 
makes it very clear. Our priorities should be readiness and theater 
missile defense.
  I was out with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, now 
ranking minority member, to the Gulf War twice. And it was very 
apparent to me that when we deploy our kids to the Gulf, maybe someday 
it will be the gentleman's children, we want to have for them theater 
missile defense to defend them against incoming SCUD missiles which 
would carry chemical, biological warfare weapons.
  That is a priority. Readiness is a priority. And we would argue that 
we are spending $400 million of the taxpayers' money to do research and 
development about a national ballistic missile defense system. That 
seems to me to be a rational program. We ought to stay with that 
program.
  The problem is, we have passed a balanced budget amendment. The 
comptroller of the department of defense tells us that under the most 
favorable scenario, defense will be cut by $110 billion over the next 7 
years. Under the worse case, if there are no tax increases and if there 
are very cuts in entitlements, the cuts in defense will be up to $520 
billion over the next 7 years.
  So what we are saying is, we have got to take care of business first. 
The most important thing we have learned over the years is to have our 
troops ready and prepared so that if they have to go into harm's way, 
they can do an effective job as they did in the Gulf.
  And second, if we are going to send them to the Gulf, then we have to 
protect them against the threats that they could face. And theater 
missile defense is crucial to that.
  I believe that out of the 400 million and what we are learning about 
theater missile defense, we someday will have the capability to give 
the country a treaty-compliant land-based system. The question is, 
should we rush out and say within 60 days we are going to have demand 
from the secretary of defense for a plan to deploy some system? And I 
am told if there were such a system to be deployed, it would have to be 
something that would not be treaty compliant. I think that is a 
mistake, because we are at the very point when we are asking the 
Russians to dismantle two-thirds of their land-based ICBM's. And 
believe me, that is the biggest threat that is out there.
  Let me remind all of my colleagues of something else that we forget, 
that even though we do not have a national ballistic missile defense 
system, we still possess tremendous offensive nuclear capabilities 
against these countries. So if somebody attacks us, they better think 
through whether they want to completely destroy their country because 
it would be my judgment that the President, the commander in chief, 
would retaliate using nuclear weapons against somebody who used that 
kind of a weapons system against us.
  What I am arguing is that this amendment today is a good one. It puts 
us in a position where we can go forward, do the development for a 
land-based missile defensive system. And it is treaty-compliant. It 
makes sense.
  To rush out and try to do some space-based thing today would get us 
in trouble with Russia, undermine our arms control agreements, cost of 
a lot more, return us to a cold war fronting with the Russians.
  It does not make any sense. I think the Edwards amendment should be 
adopted.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I just wanted to make a couple of remarks. I did not intend to speak 
on this amendment, but I, as I listened to the debate and noted that 
there was a great deal of concern about whether or not Members who are 
against this amendment and for developing and deploying, whether or not 
we care about other things, I think the fact of the matter is that we 
care a lot.
  The fact of the matter is we care a lot about our country. The fact 
of the matter is we care a lot about our national security, and that is 
all for the people we represent. If we did not care as a country during 
the 1950's, we would not have developed the technology and bought the 
hardware that led us to send in very rapid order, very quickly, 450,000 
troops by air to the gulf. That technology today is almost worn out, C-
141's and C-5's. But that was developed in the 1950's, and we bought it 
and put it in place in the 1960's.
  If we did not care about this thing, we would not have developed the 
technology in the 1960's that resulted in the M1A1 tank that was used 
in the gulf which, believe it or not, Iraqi soldiers let us look 
through clouds of dust and look through clouds of fog and look through 
rains, rain storms and allowed us to fire on and hit enemy tanks, when 
they could not see us.
  If we did not care about these subjects, we would not have developed 
during the 1970's munitions that we saw used in the Gulf war that were 
so accurate that the old saying today, and today it is an old saying, 
it is kind of neat, those smart munitions went right down the chimneys 
of the Iraqi houses. If we did not care, we would not have developed 
those technologies.
  I want to make a point. The point is this, that if we do not get 
serious about this issue, based on what I know about development of 
weapons systems and development of technology, we are 
[[Page H1837]] going to find ourselves dead behind the eight ball.

                              {time}  2050

  I do not want to find ourselves there. Mr. Chairman, again, and I do 
not want to overuse this statement, but today the Director of the CIA 
says that this threat is imminent; that by the turn of the century we 
are going to have to be concerned about this issue from unfriendly 
countries in far off parts of the world, not the old Soviet Union, but 
other people.
  It was neat when we had the Soviet Union. They were rational folks 
and we could sit and talk with them. They understood that they had a 
gun pointed at us and we had a gun pointed at them, and they cared 
about that issue, so deterrence worked.
  I wanted to ask the gentleman, does he think deterrence will work the 
same way with countries in the Middle East that are trying very 
desperately to gain this technology? Will it work with the Koreans? I 
do not want to bet on it, Mr. Chairman. I would rather develop and buy 
this technology that works, when it works, and that is what our 
position on this side of the aisle is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, finally, one point: Secretary of Defense Perry just 
last week or the week before came to the Committee on National Security 
and said, ``Please do not micromanage my programs.'' The amendment just 
recently passed speaks to a ground-based missile defense system. We 
have made the judgment that that is the way we want to go.
  This amendment goes further and says, ``Don't buy space-based.'' I do 
not feel like I am in a position to make those decisions, and Secretary 
Perry just last week said, ``Please don't make those decisions for 
us,'' so I think this is an ill-advised amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I would add, Mr. Chairman, this is the only case I can think of where 
we are going to see an amendment offered that eliminates a specific 
type of technology that may or may not be requested by the Pentagon. We 
could say, ``Why don't we limit the nuclear capability of our aircraft 
carriers?,'' or ``Why don't we build our nuclear-powered submarine?''
  We are talking one technology that may or may not be requested by the 
Defense Department and saying, ``Do not explore this even if it may 
down the road provide protection for our citizens.'' I do not 
understand that mentality. What we are saying is not to force them to 
deploy a space-based system, we are saying, ``Come back and tell us 
what it is that you think we should do and how quickly can we do it.'' 
That is what we are suggesting.
  I think it is ill-advised in this case to limit the technology.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, a few days ago this Congress in its wisdom passed a 
Balanced Budget Amendment. Two-thirds of the Members in this body said 
that ``We want to balance the budget,'' and I understand that. I 
realize the deep concern of the American people about the deficit.
  On the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, 
for years we have been trying to reduce the size of the expenditure 
because we know that the pressure is on defense versus domestic. We 
recognize that we have to do it in a way that we do not have the same 
debacle we had after World War II, after Korea, and after Vietnam. I 
think we have done a pretty good job. There is no question many of the 
things that my good friend, the gentleman from California, Duke 
Cunningham, has said are true. Many of the things that each of the 
Members have said today are true. There is a threat from the former 
Soviet Union.
  However, Mr. Chairman, more of a threat to our viability is the 
readiness of the troops. I think this Congress spoke absolutely 
correctly when it said
 ``Readiness is first, theater missile is second, and third is a space-
based national missile ballistic system.'' When we go to a base and 60 
percent of the kids are on food stamps, when you have a billion dollar 
backlog in real property maintenance, which is the heart of readiness, 
when you have a $2 billion backlog in depot maintenance, when you 
deploy troops to Iraq or to Korea and cannot sustain that deployment, 
and I know the chiefs say they can deploy to two different theaters. 
They cannot deploy to two different theaters and sustain that for any 
length of time, in my estimation.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not adopt this amendment, the thrust of this 
amendment, I believe that we will be hurting the very thing that all us 
are trying to improve and keep.
  I have been working 7 years trying to make sure that the medical 
facilities and the quality of life for the men and women under arms is 
at a higher level, and it is no easy task, because every time I turn 
around, the military finds a way to reprogram that money, finds a way 
to use it for something else.
  The Members will be facing the supplemental in a few days. My good 
friend, the gentleman from Florida, Bill Young, and I have worked out 
the best type of supplemental we can possibly work out. I do not think 
the money should be offset because it is paying for extraordinary 
operations.
  I think it ought to be money that is emergency money, as the 
President asked for, but because of the pressure of the budget, it is 
going to be offset. I understand that. I do not agree with it, but I 
understand that.
  There is nobody in this Congress that knows more about the effects of 
missile attacks than I do. As Members will remember, I am one of the 80 
Democrats, and I led the fight for the authorization to go to war in 
Saudi Arabia. A unit from my home town, one young fellow a block and a 
half away from me, was killed in a missile attack.
  I lost more people in the Saudi Arabia war than any other Member of 
Congress, so there is nobody that understands the importance of a 
theater missile system more than I do. There is nobody who understands 
the importance of protecting this great country against any threat.
  However, we do not have the money to protect against any threat in 
the world. Anybody on our Subcommittee on Defense on the Committee on 
Appropriations will remember the difficulties we face every year.
  Somebody got up a few minutes ago and they said that the Committee on 
Armed Services put a pay raise in for the Members of the Armed Forces. 
Half the people I have talked to have been deployed over 50 percent of 
the time, and the Administration had not asked for a pay raise.
  I forced the issue, and the Committee on Armed Services did in fact 
put the pay raise in. The tally for that pay raise was $11 billion, one 
of the most important things we could have done last year, because it 
had such a beneficial impact on the men and women serving in our Armed 
Forces.
  Certainly, if we ask them to go forth and spend so much time away 
from home, as many of the Members have done, the least we can do is 
make sure they have the quality of life.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of what we are trying to do 
today to take a reasonable position, continue the research, but do not 
make people believe that we can deploy this system prematurely. I would 
hope the Members would consider very seriously supporting the Edwards 
amendment and keeping the readiness of this great country at the 
highest level possible.
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] 
and I know from whence he speaks. I know that he, probably more than 
any Member of this Chamber, knows the price that is paid in our 
Nation's defense.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded, and I think we all ought to be 
reminded, by the fact that it is now February of 1995, and 50 years ago 
we were ending one of the bloodiest conflicts in world history, where 
we were defeating two totalitarian regimes, one in the Pacific, one in 
Europe.
  One of the key systems that resulted in the defeat and a victory for 
this country was a little-known system called radar. I do not know very 
much about radar and I do not know very much about the history of 
radar, but I 
[[Page H1838]] wonder what the debate was in the late twenties or early 
thirties when people probably just as committed and honorable as those 
who are in this Chamber were debating the feasibility of whether or not 
we were going to use a radar system, or even develop it.
  Given the fact that in the thirties defense spending was at an all-
time low, in fact, I am advised that our current level of funding is 
the lowest since the thirties, but at that time, how many other 
competing demands were there?

                              {time}  2100

  What other issues relating to quality of life were there? And what 
system ultimately saved more lives in that conflict than that one 
system of radar? In fact, I kind of wonder whether or not the 
perceptions of radar in the 1930's equate with the perceptions that 
exist today in this body relative to space-based systems.
  I would point as evidence of that to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 
December 1941. We had an early radar system that was in fact deployed 
in Hawaii. I do not know what went through the minds of those two 
technicians who saw those flights of aircraft coming towards that 
harbor. I do not know whether they thought it was a big joke. I do not 
know whether they thought it really was a flight of B-12's, B-29's 
coming from the United States. But whatever it was, they did not take 
it seriously and the net result was one of the greatest naval defeats 
in American history.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment, because I think we would be 
ill-advised to preclude a system that potentially could play a role in 
the defense of this country.
  I certainly appreciate and understand and would agree with the 
comments that have been urged on this Chamber by those who suggest the 
possibility that we could be facing attacks from barges, or taxis or 
border crossings or whatever means that someone could use to deliver 
some means of mass destruction. But the fact remains we must defend 
against those threats as well as any other, particularly a threat that 
can be activated on a massive scale by some one individual bent on 
destruction pushing a button.
  When I look, and I heard the comments earlier this evening from the 
gentleman talking about Russia. And, yes, they are being hammered by a 
Third World country. But at the same time they are taking their missile 
technology and selling it to China, they are taking their submarine 
technology and selling it to Iran and to China, and we are finding that 
briefcases are being found with plutonium in western Europe, and there 
are thousands of nuclear warheads and missiles that are not accounted 
for as we speak on the floor of this Chamber.
  All I would suggest is that I think that there are some issues here 
that go beyond our immediate perceptions of reality. I think that when 
I look, for instance, at my own district and the men and women who 
produce the Aegis destroyers and yes, it is part of our theater missile 
defense system but very definitely it could be linked into a satellite 
or a space-based system that potentially could play a valuable role, 
not only in protecting our men and women in uniform but protecting the 
shores of this great country.
  I urge on this Chamber the defeat of the amendment. I think that, 
yes, we need to act reasonably and prudently. But I think to preclude 
one system would be a grave mistake and a grave danger to the future of 
this country.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LONGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I certainly appreciate your comments. The question 
really should be framed not whether they funded radar in the 1920's and 
1930's leading up to World War II but whether they were open-minded 
enough to be willing to look into funding radar technology. I certainly 
appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but it 
seems to me that you can be for readiness, you can understand the 
troubles, the readiness troubles that we are having, that there are 
unfortunately men and women in our armed services who are on food 
stamps, without excluding this, without saying we are just not going to 
even consider looking into this technology that can save our lives in 
the future.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment end in 5 minutes.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take the full 5 minutes. The 
gentleman, the previous speaker, raised a question that is entirely 
relevant to the question at hand today but in the wrong historic 
context.
  The fact of the matter is that radar was developed in England in the 
1930's. It was developed as an alternative to a weapons system that had 
been proposed by a variety of military thinkers in England at that time 
to create an airborne system of barrage balloons armed with explosives 
designed to stand in the way and provide a shield against the invading 
air forces from Germany.
  Radar was proposed as an alternative to that in one of the most 
interesting chapters in public policy thinking that has been talked 
about in this country in recent years. It was the subject of a series 
of lectures at Harvard by E.B. White in the early 1960's. I commend it 
to the gentleman. It is a real illustration in sound scientific 
military policymaking.
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. LONGLEY. This is precisely the point. What if that system of 
barrage balloons as ill-advised as it might have been had precluded the 
development of radio electronic detection?
  That is what I am saying, is that I think we are ill-advised to 
preclude one form of technology until we understand where it might 
lead. That, I think, is precisely the issue.
  Mr. SAWYER. I understand the gentleman's point, he has made it 
several times. I think it is in the wrong historic context. It is the 
reason I rose to try to correct the point, that the radar was not 
developed in this country, was not developed in the 1920's, it was done 
for a vastly different purpose.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I think we have had an 
honest debate today and it is time to vote. Both sides have been heard 
on the floor of this House. I simply want to conclude by saying this is 
not a debate about who cares about protecting the American people. 
Every Member of this House cares deeply about protecting our national 
security and every American family.
  This debate on this amendment is simply an issue of do you want to 
deploy Star Wars after we have already spent $30 billion researching it 
over 12 years and do not even have the capability of saying the 
technology will work? Or do you want to save that money, perhaps use it 
for theater missile defense, use it for a ground-based national missile 
defense system, use it for pay raises for members of the military, use 
it for quality of life issues for the military, use it for deficit 
reduction.
  You are either for Star Wars deployment or against. It is that 
simple. It is not a question of integrity or who cares or who does not. 
I would urge that the Members of this House vote.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are fixing to take a vote, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts on the Democratic side I think framed the entire issue 
from here, and I think that if you believe him, you should vote for 
this amendment. If you do not believe him, you should oppose this 
amendment with every fiber in your body.
  Let me repeat what the gentleman from Massachusetts said. He said, 
``There is no more Darth Vader.'' He said, ``The world is not the 
dangerous place that it used to be.''
  If I believed that there were no Darth Vaders in the world today, I 
would probably vote for this amendment.
  But, Mr. Chairman, before we take this vote, every Member of this 
House needs to remember what the Central Intelligence Agency has 
advised this Congress. It says there are 25 nations 
[[Page H1839]] in this world presently pursuing the technology to build 
a ballistic missile capable of hitting, not Kuwait, not our carriers, 
not eastern Europe, capable of hitting the United States.
  I recently read that a poll in this country conducted of American 
citizens said 58 percent of Americans believe that we have the 
technology to stop such a missile attack. I believe that an equal 
number in this House apparently are under that misconception.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have the technology to stop a long-
range ballistic missile attack. That is what this bill is about.
  If this amendment passes, then among those 25 nations, we have Iran, 
we have North Korea, and we have Libya, 3 nations that have said, ``We 
will destroy America if we can.'' And they are building the technology 
to do just that.
  So we are fixing to vote. You can vote to give the military the 
technology and the ability to stop such an attack, or, as the gentleman 
from Massachusetts said, you can say there is no Darth Vader.

                              {time}  2110

  You can say that Russia is stable and that Russia is our friend, and 
you can ignore one of the lead stories on NBC News tonight that said 
Yeltsin is unstable. Or you can vote against this amendment, vote for 
the safety of the American public that you represent.
  If you believe that this world is safe, and that those 25 countries 
that the CIA says exist, if you do not believe that, then vote for this 
amendment. But if you want to protect your families, your neighbors, 
and those people you represent, you will vote against this amendment 
and you will vote for this bill.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the gentleman's amendment and I would like to briefly outline the 
consequences of proceeding down the path that the bill H.R. 7 suggests.
  We find ourselves today again debating the merits of a space-based 
multi-billion-dollar ballistic missile defense system. For those of us 
who participated in these same debates a decade ago this has a ring of 
great familiarity. Yet, the context of this debate today is vastly 
different than March of 1983 when then President Reagan presented his 
vision. We are facing deficits of over $200 billion as a result of the 
Defense buildup of that era. We no longer live in fear of Russian space 
and missile technology--in fact we are jointly building a space station 
using that very technology. Simply said, there is no threat and there 
is no money. We cannot afford to embark on such an expensive fantasy.
  The bill before us reverses the path that we have followed over the 
past two administrations--that is, to develop a lower cost theater 
defense system that addresses the very real threat posed by potentially 
hostile Third World nations. Now we spend roughly $3 billion per year 
and will continue to do so for the next 5 years according to the 
President's budget. This is a rational program which is aimed at the 
deployment of a theater high altitude area defense system which will 
provide a moderately reliable defense against ballistic missiles with 
ranges up to 3,000 km.
  To undertake the national missile defense program required by this 
bill will require doubling this spending level almost immediately with 
substantial increases in future years with outyear costs exceeding 
about $35 billion by the end of the decade. It is intended to engage a 
ballistic missile capability which does not now exist.
  As my colleagues well know, we have already spent about $35 billion 
on star wars over the past dozen years and have precious little to show 
for it. There is no question that the financial burden of a new program 
will be placed exclusively on the American taxpayer. Other nations 
including Israel, South Korea, and Japan have balked at even paying a 
share of a theater missile defense system. They do not perceive the 
risks to be sufficient to justify the costs.
  There is no question that the development of a substantial long-range 
missile capability by potentially hostile nations would take at least a 
decade of highly visible testing. I have no doubt that the most cost 
effective approach here is simply to intervene through diplomacy, 
economic pressure, or ultimately through force. Our missile technology 
control regime has been highly successful over the past decade and it 
hasn't cost the taxpayer a dime.
  The question of achievability of a national missile defense system--
and any cost--should be a major consideration for this body. After 
extensive development and testing of the Patriot missile we have 
learned that it faced substantial difficulties during Desert Storm. 
Despite the enormous psychological comfort this system provided, the 
hard evidence calls into question how many Scud missiles were actually 
intercepted. Simply said, we have a long way to go in perfecting even 
this relatively unambitious capability. The challenges posed by a 
national missile defense system are orders of magnitude beyond a 
theater missile defense system.
  We must face the reality that President Reagan's vision is simply not 
achievable in the foreseeable future. There is a continuum of ground-
based technology development beyond THAAD that could make sense and 
perhaps should be pursued in favorable economic times. The quantum leap 
to a space-based long range missile defense system makes no sense now 
and perhaps never will.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically supported the Spratt 
amendment--to fund and deploy a theater missile defense system first. I 
also agree with Mr. Spratt that a ground-based system is the place to 
start.
  And I agree with the author of this amendment, Mr. Edwards, that a 
lot of money has been wasted on space-based systems that were poorly 
designed and extravagantly funded.
  But I am not prepared to support an amendment that prohibits 
deployment of space-based interceptors which, using new technology, we 
may need to defend against future threats.
  And so, with reluctance, I will cast my vote against the Edwards 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified offered 
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 223, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 137]

                               AYES--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--223

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     [[Page H1840]] Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Becerra
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     McCollum
     Pickett

                              {time}  2127

  Mr. HOUGHTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DIXON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  2130


                    amendment offered by mr. skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: At the end of title II 
     (page 12, after line 25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 204. READINESS CERTIFICATION.

       Of the total amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996, 
     the amount obligated for national missile defense programs 
     may not exceed the amount made available for national missile 
     programs for fiscal year 1995 until the Secretary of Defense 
     certifies to the Congress that the Armed Forces are properly 
     sized, equipped, and structured and are ready to carry out 
     assigned missions as required by the national military 
     strategy.

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to title 2. This 
afternoon I had the opportunity to speak on the telephone to a friend 
of mine from Jefferson City, MO, Bob Hyder, who shared with me that 50 
years ago today, as an American frogman, he went to the beaches of Iwo 
Jima to prepare that island for an attack by the American forces. Bob 
Hyder, besides being courageous, was fully trained, and ready, and 
competent at what he did.
  This evening I appear here in support of the finest in America, those 
who wear the uniform of the United States, the men and women who lay 
their lives on the line, if that be the case.
  Members should realize that I speak for a strong national defense. 
Members should realize, particularly my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, that I have not made myself overly popular in the White 
House as a result of a recent budget proposal which exceeds that of the 
administration by some $44 billion because in my opinion we need more 
funds for readiness for those in uniform.
  I speak on this amendment which would require that before there is an 
increase in spending for accelerated development and deployment of a 
national missile defense, the Secretary of Defense must certify to 
Congress, to us, that the armed forces are properly sized, equipped, 
and structured and fully ready; that is the readiness issue; to carry 
out assigned missions as required by the national military strategy.
  The national military strategy is set forth in the bottom-up review. 
It has been our strategy for at least 2 years, and we should understand 
fully what it is. The national military strategy calls for us having 
the capability to fight, to win 2 nearly simultaneous major regional 
conflicts such as a Desert Storm and a defense of South Korea.
  That is our national military strategy.
  That is why I have said before, and I say again, that we must do a 
better job in funding the young men and women to carry out this 
strategy for our country.
  What this amendment does limits the amount for the national military 
defense, as opposed to theater defense, to this same amount that was 
expended and authorized in 1995. That sum is $400 million. It keeps it 
at that level for 1 year. It is a very simple amendment.
  I think that we should understand that we need to
   put our funds into readiness and into the troops. I visited field 
commands, I have spoken with military personnel and their families from 
our country both here in the continental United States and abroad, and 
let me share with my colleagues that, although our nation possesses the 
most able military force in the world, our country is at a crossroads 
in readiness. We should not ignore these signs. We do so at the peril 
of the young man and young woman wearing the American uniform.

  Some units are reporting a C-3 in training. Exercises have been 
canceled. Quality of life has been degraded. The increased load of 
peacekeeping, humanitarian relief and forward presence have stretched 
our military so very thin. As we debate this tonight, young men and 
young women in uniform are in Guantanamo, Alaska, South Korea, 
Macedonia, Germany, elsewhere in this globe, standing tall for us. We 
should not degrade the readiness, the quality of life, the equipment 
and the modernization for them one iota.
  That is why we should keep, that is why we should keep, the figure at 
$400 million as a cap for 1 year. We need to do more for the readiness 
of our troops.
  I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will understand this issue 
and that we will ask that the Secretary of Defense certify to us that 
this national military strategy can be performed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Skelton was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SKELTON. All it says, Mr. Chairman, is that the Secretary of 
Defense certify to us, to my colleagues and I, that the armed forces 
are properly sized, equipped and structured to carry out this national 
military strategy which is a major undertaking. This is not pie-in-the-
sky. This is our strategy. It is our design for 2 years. It is being 
strained at the seams, and that is why we should pass this amendment, 
because it puts the troops first, it allows national missile defense 
research, it allows $400 million a year. Let us not take that money 
from readiness, from fixing the refrigerators and the roofs for the day 
care centers, for the equipment, for the backed-up backlogs of materiel 
for the spare parts shortage. That is why we are today.
                              {time}  2140

  Consequently, I urge quite sincerely that we adopt this amendment, 
because it is reasonable, it is fair, and it stands tall for the troops 
of the United States of America.


amendment offered by mr. spence to the amendment offered by mr. skelton

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Spence to the Amendment Offered by 
     Mr. Skelton:
       [[Page H1841]] Strike out all after ``SEC.'' in the matter 
     proposed to be inserted by the amendment and insert the 
     following:

     204. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE AS A COMPONENT OF MILITARY 
                   READINESS.

       (a) Use of Fiscal Year 1996 Funds.--Of the total amount of 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996, the amount 
     obligated for national missile defense programs may exceed 
     the amount made available for national missile programs for 
     fiscal year 1995.
       (b) Findings.--In carrying out program execution of 
     national missile defense programs using funds appropriated 
     for fiscal year 1996, the Secretary of Defense shall consider 
     the following findings by Congress:
       (1) A critical component of military readiness is whether 
     the Armed Forces are properly sized, equipped, structured, 
     and ready to carry out assigned missions as required by the 
     national military strategy.
       (2) In testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of 
     the House of Representatives on February 22, 1994, the 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that 
     ``modernization is the key to future readiness and it is the 
     only way to provide our next generation with an adequate 
     defense''.
       (3) Given the growing ballistic missile threat, the 
     deployment of affordable, highly effective national and 
     theater missile defense systems is an essential objective of 
     a defense modernization program that adequately supports the 
     requirements of the national military strategy.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--In light of the findings in 
     subsection (b), it is the sense of Congress that an effective 
     national and theater missile defense capability is essential 
     to ensuring that United States Armed Forces are ready to meet 
     current and expected threats to United States national 
     security.

  Mr. SPENCE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.


                             point of order

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is not germane to the amendment that 
is presently pending. This amendment will completely turn around the 
amendment of the gentleman from Missouri and make it completely 
inoperative. It will also provide actually that the amendment 
previously adopted by the House by the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] would be obviated, and therefore I feel that it is not in 
order. It is basically a game that is being played by the majority to 
try to rid themselves of that amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would indicate that comments should be 
confined to the point of order.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Fine. Mr. Chairman, this is an obvious attempt to do 
just the opposite of what the gentleman from Missouri's amendment 
proposes to do, and also to reinstate the language of the bill 
basically as it was before the Spratt amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] 
seek to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is incorrect in his point of 
order, period. It does not. The germaneness question is up to the 
Chair, but it is germane to the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Does any other Member desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] limits obligations of funds for 
fiscal year 1996 for missile defense to the level of such obligations 
for fiscal year 1995 until such time as the Secretary of Defense 
renders a specified readiness certification.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton] permits obligations of funds for fiscal year 1996 for missile 
defense to exceed the level of such obligations for fiscal year 1995 on 
the basis of legislative findings concerning readiness. The amendment 
and the amendment thereto share a common subject. Each proposition 
addresses the relationship between 1996 funding levels for missile 
defense and readiness.
  The amendment and the amendment thereto also are alike in both 
purpose and method. Each proposition seeks to enhance missile defense 
without impairing readiness. Although the two propositions may reflect 
differing perspective as to what constitutes readiness, each bears a 
germane relationship to the other.
  The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is germane to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and the point of order is 
overruled.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, needless to say, I have tremendous respect 
for the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. I always have.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and I are 
friends. We have been for a long time. We have both labored in the same 
vineyard. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman. We are both 
dedicated to providing the best kind of defense we can provide for this 
country. I have tried to accommodate the gentleman and the committee on 
other occasions in pursuit of the gentleman's views.
  But I have to say that no one in this body is more concerned about 
readiness than I am. I will say that to the gentleman or anybody else. 
This issue, if you remember, was raised by this Member the latter part 
of last year, and indeed some of the things the gentleman quoted in his 
remarks came from the report that we issued.
  I take no back seat to anyone on this Earth to the readiness of our 
Armed Forces. All I am simply saying in my amendment to the gentleman's 
amendment is that we also consider missile defense and other 
modernization things as part of readiness, as they indeed are.
  No one can say that modernization is not a part of readiness. All of 
our leaders tell us, that is readiness. That is a matter of life or 
death. The readiness will depend on our modernization.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the comments of our chairman about our 
good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. 
No one has ever questioned his integrity when it comes to the support 
of our troops, and his leadership in coming up with the budget that is 
in fact very thoughtful and looks at increasing defense spending over 5 
years by $44 billion is a tremendous help in this debate to move the 
problems that we have with our military forces, and we thank the 
gentleman for that.
  We are in agreement that readiness and acquisition and modernization 
are key issues. The key thing is that we do not think that we have to 
jeopardize readiness to support missile defense. We would hope that the 
leadership would come back to us and tell us how we can do it together.
  We have made the arguments that in fact there are areas of the 
defense budget where we have to take money that is being spent on 
nondefense categories. The gentleman's budget is in fact based on the 
fact that we would take $2 billion a year from the almost $20 billion a 
year that we are currently spending on nondefense items. We think we 
can take more. $13 billion for environmental costs.

                              {time}  2150

  Some $4.7 billion for add-ons that the Pentagon never requested, that 
are not important to our national security, that were added in; $3 
billions of which could be questioned regarding defense conversion. And 
then look at the savings from acquisition reform and from the base 
closing savings that should occur.
  We are not necessarily arguing one against the other. We are saying 
we can do both. We want to work with the 
[[Page H1842]] gentleman. We want to work with the administration.
  If it means we have to raise the top line for defense, then so be it. 
But we are not talking about big numbers. We are talking about, first 
of all, cutting into the 361-percent increase in nondefense spending. 
While we all agree with cancer research, should the Department of 
Defense fund the bulk of it? Should the Department of Defense be asked 
to pay for programs that should be funded through the Committee on 
Commerce, through Transportation, through Public Works?
  What we are saying is, let us spend the defense budget on defense. 
And if we do that, we will have enough money to up the readiness 
accounts. We will be able to recapture that $9 billion in the 
acquisition accounts that we lost just in 1 year. But we will also be 
able to work with the administration on the beginnings of their missile 
defense program.
  We think we can have both, and we want to work with the gentleman on 
the budget that he put together as a first step because it certainly is 
a move in the right direction.
  I support the amendment of our chairman, and I urge our colleagues to 
support it as well.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, and I have a lot 
of affection for our friend from Missouri also.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hunter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Spence was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we need balance. The key is balance.
  In 1987, a number of members of this committee wrote to the Israeli 
Defense Minister and said, you can defend against air attacks. You can 
defend against land attacks. But you have no defense against missiles.
  Their response has been to build the Arrow missile that will shoot 
down incoming ballistic missiles coming into Israel. They did not 
hesitate, because they knew that was an important part of national 
security.
  We have the ability to repel land attacks. We have the ability to 
repel naval attacks. We have the ability to repel bomber attacks. We 
have no defense at all against incoming ballistic missiles.
  I say to my friend, who is on the Procurement Subcommittee with me, 
that this subcommittee will pass out a bigger, better, more efficient 
modernization budget than the President has proposed us. So 
modernization will not go begging. I know readiness will not go 
begging. I know research and development will not go begging.
  We need a balanced approach. That is why the chairman's amendment is 
appropriate.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston], chairman of our Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I regret that I was not here for the earlier debate when this issue 
arose, but I thoroughly support the gentleman's amendment at this 
point.
  I think it is important that we not tie our hands with the amount of 
money that we spend on missile defense. There are only a couple of 
threats that the American people are faced with. We are not going to 
get an invasion from the sea or from land or even from space. But the 
fact is that we could get that rogue missile coming in to the United 
States from Mu'ammar Qadhafi or Saddam Hussein or some other character 
around the world who thinks that he will get to Valhalla a little bit 
faster when he lobs a big one on New York.
  We cannot defend against that. That is insane.
  So what is the President of the United States telling us today? In 
order to defend against that, we are going to cut spending on missile 
defense. We are going to start going to Geneva and negotiate with the 
Russians to limit the size, the lethality, the speed of our missile 
defenses.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of the gentleman's amendment and the 
defeat of the previous one.


amendment offered by mr. montgomery as a substitute; For the Amendment 
                         Offered by Mr. Skelton

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute 
for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Montgomery as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: At the end of title II 
     (Page 12, after line 25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 204. READINESS CERTIFICATION.

       Of the total amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996, 
     the amount obligated for national missile defense programs 
     may not exceed the amount made available for national missile 
     defense programs for fiscal year 1995 until the Secretary of 
     Defense certifies to the Congress that the Armed Forces are 
     properly sized, equipped, and structured and are ready to 
     carry out assigned missions as required by the national 
     military strategy.

  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] 
for 5 minutes in support of his substitute.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I offer this substitute to the Skelton 
amendment in order to make a technical correction of the underlying 
amendment before us tonight, to limit fiscal 1996 spending on national 
missile defense to fiscal year 1995 spending levels on our national 
missile defense effort.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the substitute would make certain that we spend 
for national missile defense an amount of money that is both sufficient 
to continue to develop that program and not so much that it threatens 
our readiness.
  I strongly support the efforts of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton] to ensure that the readiness of our troops is of paramount 
importance for our national security.
  In order to ensure that they are ready, we must make sure, Mr. 
Chairman, that they have the right equipment, that they have the proper 
personnel that are serving in our forces. And this is a difficult job 
to have readiness.
  We have talked about it tonight. We certainly cannot afford to spend 
less money on these essential elements of our readiness.
  Mr. Chairman, my substitute ensures that we are using the proper 
measure to gauge the appropriate level of funding for national missile 
defense. And this is the key to it. If we have full funding for our 
readiness needs, then we can spend more money on missile defense. If we 
do not have full funding for readiness, then the national missile 
defense program will have to get by on $400 million.
  In effect, what we are saying is that we have got to do readiness 
first and then if we have any money left over, then we can increase the 
$400 million. That is why it is a substitute to the Skelton amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Montgomery substitute.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of 
order.


perfecting amendment offered by mr. dellums to the amendment offered by 
mr. montgomery as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. skelton

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the 
amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Dellums to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Montgomery as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: In the matter proposed to 
     be inserted by the amendment, insert ``housed,'' after 
     ``equipped,''.
                              {time}  2200

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the 5 minutes.
  My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Montgomery] is an ardent proponent of quality of life, and I am sure 
that in his amendment he inadvertently left out the term ``housing.'' 
This gentleman's perfecting amendment simply includes the term 
``housing'' so that it 
[[Page H1843]] is very clear that he is also talking about the quality 
of life.
  With that brief explanation, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the gentleman. I did 
leave that out about housing. I think this is a good perfecting 
amendment, and I will accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks this would be a good time to put the 
question on the Spence amendment. If it fails, another perfecting 
amendment would be in order.
  Is there further debate on the Spence amendment?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DELLUMS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The debate 
is now occurring on the Spence amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Four amendments are pending. The first one to receive a 
vote is the Spence amendment to the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my good friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, offered an amendment to 
mine which, as a result of the amendments of the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums], the substitute and perfecting amendments, brings us back for 
all intents and purposes on a vote on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand there are those that do not wish to vote 
on my amendment, because it places those at the crossroads of choosing 
readiness for the troops or for national defense missiles. The choice 
is clear. We should look out for the troops. We should vote for my 
amendment or the substitute amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Montgomery] and the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], for that is the same as mine.
  Mr. Chairman, let us take up for those in uniform tonight as they 
stand guard for our interests.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is a person of great 
comity and likes to get along with everybody.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that there are endeavors 
going on right now by the majority to try to get an amendment in order 
after the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to 
the substitute amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Montgomery] in order to change it around.
  What concerns me about this whole thing is the gentleman had a very 
simple amendment, straightforward. Now we have started on this 
progress, and Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say it, and I have not taken 
much time tonight, but we are going to spend a whole bunch of that 10 
hours on this little game that is being played. That is what it is, a 
big game that is being played.
  Instead of letting the gentleman from Missouri have his amendment and 
have it be voted on, straight up-or-down, then we have an amendment to 
it, and the gentleman from Mississippi offered basically the same 
thing, to try and get that straight vote.
  Now we are going to try and get another amendment, so we never get 
that vote. I just wanted to let the gentleman from Missouri know what 
kinds of games they are playing.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I speak strongly in 
favor of the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums]. It includes housing. What is more important 
than taking care of our troops? I think that is very, very important. I 
thank him for that perfecting amendment to the substitute amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spence amendment and against 
the other pending amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to understand what we are doing here. I 
agree with the gentleman, if he wants a straight shot on his amendment, 
because I think his amendment is fatally defective in the same way that 
the Edwards amendment was fatally defective. It removes balance from 
our defense structure.
  I want to tell the Members what we are doing here. The Bush 
administration, including Dick Cheney and the chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, Colin Powell, put together before President Bush left office an 
outline of the defense spending pattern they would have followed, that 
they thought was prudent.
  The Clinton administration has cut 80 percent of the national missile 
defense money out of the Bush baseline. They have cut it by 80 percent. 
That is not adequate to continue with decent funding for research and 
development. It is not adequate to bring the scientists from our 
National Laboratories and from DOD and ask them what we can do.
  If Members vote yes on the Skelton amendment, on basis that Members 
want to help readiness, they have done exactly what President Clinton 
wants them to do. He is forcing us to shop off two important aspects of 
national defense against each other. He has done that by cutting $127 
billion out of the defense budget.
  Let me just say, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Procurement, I am 
going to be voting and putting together a Chairman's mark that is much 
higher than President Clinton's, so don't worry, I would say to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] who I respect greatly, he will 
have a higher modernization budget.
  The gentleman from Virginia I feel surely will present a better 
readiness budget than what President Clinton has offered us, so do not 
let them shop off two important aspects of defense against each other. 
Vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri, and vote for 
the amendment of the chairman, and Members will be offering a balanced 
defense budget.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I am happy to yield to my great friend and general.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, what is 
wrong with trying to help the troops and improve conditions for them? 
That is all our amendments do. I am really surprised that the gentleman 
is opposed to it.
  We are saying if the missile systems run over a certain amount in 
1995, that they will have to go into readiness. Then if the money is 
there, the gentleman can move ahead with missile defense.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me offer my general a lieutenant's 
perspective. It is very important to have the security of your loved 
ones at home in good shape because you have a national missile defense. 
That is important to the Israelis, it is important to the British, and 
it should be important to American soldiers.
  There are a lot of aspects of readiness. One aspect of morale is 
having good protection of your family at home in their community. I 
think most American service people would feel good about their family 
in Mississippi or their family in San Diego or Chicago being protected 
against a rogue missile attack, and I think they would be very upset 
about the idea that somehow the defense budget had that aspect of 
defense cut out of it so we could have more money for readiness.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think what 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] said tonight, and he 
understands readiness and understands the troops, when he said American 
soldiers, some of them are on food stamps, the housing is no good, and 
I am really kind of surprised that the lieutenant would have any 
problem with that.
  Mr. HUNTER. I want to tell the general that the cavalry has arrived. 
It is a Republican majority and we are going to increase the defense 
budget as well as national defense.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman really see anything 
wrong with all of our troops being ready to fulfill the national 
military 
[[Page H1844]] strategy as set forth in the Bottom-Up Review? That is 
all in the world I want.
  Mr. HUNTER. I will answer my friend in this way. First, we have 
numerous reports from the field and from some of the leadership itself 
in the DOD that the Clinton defense budget has slashed readiness, but 
second, I think that question is akin to saying ``Would you as an 
infantry commander want to certify that you have a perfect defense 
against machinegun fire before you do anything against mortars?''
  We need balance. A national missile defense is an important part of 
that balance. I think it is foolhardy for us to foreclose missile 
defense until we get a certification from some other aspect of defense.
  Once again, we will increase the Clinton readiness budget, I assure 
the gentleman, so we are going to do more than the President has 
offered.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we need balance. I am one 
Member on this side of the aisle who supported the balanced budget 
amendment, which most of the Members on the gentleman's side did, too. 
We need to make some tough choices.
  We cannot have everything. We cannot fully fund every single line 
item in the defense budget. My choice is for these amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)

                              {time}  2210

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton], I am not sure what this amendment does, if it really does 
anything.
  You say if it is not certified by the Secretary of Defense that we 
are ready. And what does he do every time he comes before our 
committee? He certifies that we are ready.
  We know that we are not ready. The gentleman cited the litany of 
deficits that we have and yet every time the Secretary of Defense comes 
down there, he says we are ready.
  The reason he says that is because the Commander in Chief tells him 
to say we are ready because the Commander in Chief wants a certain 
level.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. When Les Aspin was before us, when he was Secretary of 
Defense and we asked him about the Bottom-Up Review if it came out of 
the air or if it was a threat assessment, he looked at the ceiling a 
minute, and he said, ``Well, it really came out of the air.''
  Then when we got the Bottom-Up Review finished, we discovered that it 
complied with his initial estimates of that. So they are going to 
certify that we are ready, so I do not know what good this amendment 
does.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me say to my friends, this 
cuts the President Bush, Powell and Cheney baseline for national 
missile defense by 80 percent, and this vote, if you vote for Skelton, 
will lock in that 80 percent cut. Vote no on all of the amendments 
pending except for the chairman's amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote. Under rule XXIII, the 
Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the following recorded votes if there is 
no intervening debate or business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 204, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 138]

                               AYES--221

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     [[Page H1845]] Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Becerra
     Burton
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Stark
     Thurman
     Yates

                              {time}  2228

  Messrs. BISHOP, NEY, and LAUGHLIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. HALL of Texas and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  2230

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], as 
amended.
  The perfecting amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for 
the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, but I think Members on both sides of 
the aisle, especially the freshmen Members on both sides of the aisle, 
better realize what they are getting ready to do if they vote against 
the Montgomery-Dellums substitute.
  Now, if this situation comes up, it boils down to this: If you want 
to protect readiness and you want our troops to have decent living 
quarters, if you want to have them off of food stamps, then you will 
vote aye on the Montgomery-Dellums substitute.
  If you are determined to increase the spending on missiles and star 
wars, then you ought to vote no. But I tell you, you are making a 
mistake if you do not support the Montgomery substitute that looks 
after the troops of this country, and that is what we are trying to do 
We are not going Democrat or Republican. We are trying to look after 
the human beings that represent this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote on the Montgomery substitute.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let us make this very clear. The Montgomery amendment 
is the exact opposite of the Spence amendment that we just voted on. It 
essentially guts the Spence amendment. It cuts national missile defense 
by 80 percent below the baseline that was set by Secretary Chaney and 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell. As much as we love our 
friend from Mississippi, this would absolutely gut what we have just 
done. So if you voted ``yes'' on Spence, vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
the Montgomery amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there is probably no one who helped me more than three 
Democrat Members, especially when I was a freshman and sophomore Member 
of this House, than the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], the 
gentleman from Mississippi, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha].
  Mr. Chairman, I want to tell Members something: This whole debate is 
about how we are going to cut readiness in the future. That totally 
distracts from what the readiness is today. It is lousy. I spent the 
last 4 years of my life fighting on this side of the aisle the liberal 
leadership that has been gutting defense and cutting readiness levels, 
time after time after time again. I take a look at the Bottom-Up 
Review, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] said 
``Don't you support the Bottom-Up Review?''
  Remember history, my friend. The Bottom-Up Review came up after the 
President cut defense $177 billion, and was there to justify that $177 
billion cut that gutted defense and gutted readiness.
  I look at Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Mandela given billions of 
dollars and Russia billions of dollars that detracted away from 
defense. I take a look at the A-6's and F-14's. Kara Holtgreen, the 
first female naval aviator, I pinned on her wings, was killed, and they 
are looking at it, because of an F-100 engine that stalled in Desert 
Storm, and we could not replace them because we did not have the money 
to replace the engines. The first female F-14 pilot. And you are 
talking about readiness now?
  Mr. Chairman, we have air wings that are not flying right now, today. 
Navy fighter weapons school top gun did not fly against his class 
because he did not have the fuel to fly against one class. The Navy 
lost five airplanes in the last 2 weeks, Mr. Chairman. An Air Force 
general lost his son, who was a good friend of mine. And when I hear 
that we are fighting to cut readiness, I look at today. I hate it with 
a passion, the same liberals that culled us in Vietnam. The same type 
of nonsupport.
  All we are asking to do is to have the support of the readiness that 
we want, and in the past we have not been able to do that. This side of 
the aisle, time after time and time again has prevented us from doing 
that. And I take a look at operation Proud Deep, in which we lost a lot 
of good friends. I still bear the scars from it, because we did not 
have the support of this body, and I still bear the pain of that.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Hunter, has stated 
we are going to plus-up readiness with him as the chairman of 
procurement. We are going to do that. We are going to do what you and 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] have not been able to do with the liberal 
leadership of this party.

                              {time}  2240

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Mfume, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in the moment that we have 
remaining, I would suggest that we join together in opposing the 
Dellums-Montgomery substitute in order to support our colleague on this 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, surely the distinguished gentleman did not 
mean to suggest by his comments, which are now public record, that 
President Nelson Mandela is responsible for readiness or the lack 
thereof of our armed services.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not. I say it is all part of the 
problem that we are taking away from the readiness of this country by 
devoting billions of dollars to foreign countries, and it is causing 
the lives of our people right now.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
understand the gentleman named countries, but in this particular case, 
lifted the name of President Mandela as if he were responsible somehow. 
This gentleman seeks clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has expired.
  The question is on the amendment, as amended, offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203, 
noes 225, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page H1846]]

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               AYES--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--225

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Becerra
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Yates

                              {time}  2256

  Mr. BROWDER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the 
amendment, as amended, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?

                              {time}  2300

  The CHAIRMAN. Will the Members please clear the aisles and take their 
conversations out of the Chamber.
  Will Members on this side please clear the aisles and take your 
conversations out of the Chamber.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], 
chairman of the committee, seek recognition?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, we are waiting to see if we have another 
amendment right now.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will Members please clear the aisles.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is all this dead time coming out of the 
10 hours for which we have to debate this important issue?
  The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact it is, and that is why the Chair is 
trying to get order.
  For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California rise?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina 
rise?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7) to 
revitalize the national security of the United States, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________