[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2723-H2724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 THE ROLE OF THE ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY IN INTERNATIONAL 
                                AFFAIRS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, this past week in a press conference with 
the President's Presidential press secretary, we heard him say that, 
``Prime Minister Rabin is calling. I think it is fair for us to say 
because he is upset and alarmed by the action taken in the House of 
Representatives to cut back on funding in the fiscal year 1995 
supplemental bill for debt forgiveness for Jordan.''
  While he said that, we do not know if that is why Prime Minister 
Rabin was calling. We have learned that very often what this White 
House says has no relation to the facts, but that is what he said.
  He further said the President told the Prime Minister in candor that 
we face a very tough audience on Capitol Hill. ``This is an example of 
the tilt toward isolation that you now see in the Republican-dominated 
Congress.''
  That is vintage Bill Clinton, blame the other guy, ``I didn't do it, 
I am trying to help you, the devil made me do it, the dog ate my lunch, 
the dog ate my homework.''
  Madam Speaker, the President's entrance into the Middle East is to 
first make it partisan and to politicize foreign affairs. It is most 
shameful that it is done in one of the most troubled areas of the 
world. Why does he do this? Because for 2\1/2\ years this Nation has 
lacked a coherent global vision, a global view.
  What are our U.S. national security interests? When I look across 
world, I see our friends in NATO, the former Soviet bloc, it is 
absolutely in the interests of the United States that the former 
Soviet-bloc nations discover that capitalism and freedom work.
  I see our increasingly important trading partners on the Pacific rim 
and, of course, the tinderbox for the world, the Middle East. And where 
are our troops that are supposed to be the shield of the Republic and 
the shield of our foreign affairs? Our troops are in Rwanda, Somalia, 
Haiti, Cambodia, Macedonia, northern Iraq, hardly a reflection of a 
coherent world view.
  The peace process today in the Middle East has been carried out 
without United States leadership. This is the first administration of 
the last four that has shown no interest in leadership in the Middle 
East peace process.
  The PLO agreement was reached, not in the United States, but in Oslo. 
Of course, the great handshake took place on the south lawn, but we 
were not involved until after the agreement had been reached.
  The Jordanian-Israeli agreements were bilateral. The agreements were 
signed on the south lawn, but we were not there in the leadership. But 
lacking any domestic agenda this year, the President has decided to 
weigh in on the Middle East and has done so by politicizing it and 
making it partisan. He can do something about this right in his own 
administration. Israel is a nation that is in a defensive posture, with 
armed aggressors all around her, and is building a defensive ARROW 
missile system for protection to shoot down incoming ballistic 
missiles. We now have an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency that has 
been in effect since 1972--and an ABM agreement--that is negotiating 
further agreements with former Soviet-bloc nations for reasons that 
absolutely escape me.
  We are the only Nation that can add to the technology required for a 
bullet to intercept a bullet. We have done that with the ERINT missile, 
called the PAC-3, built by Rockwell. But this administration, under 
what I presume to be simply bureaucratic inertia, has chosen to limit 
further technological advances in this intercept missile technology to 
3 kilometers per second, precisely what we have now. I do not know why 
we would want to limit any future technology, since there is not a 
nation in the world competing with us in this technology, why would we 
ask them to agree with us to limit what we can do?
  Mr. President, if you want to do something about the Middle East and 
for the future safety of this very vulnerable friend in this troubled 
part of the world, abolish the Arms Control 
 [[Page H2724]] and Disarmament Agency, get out of ABM, and let her 
protect herself.


                          ____________________