[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1298-H1305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MISSILE DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to 
speak, perhaps not for an hour but certainly for some time, on the 
issue of missile defense and partially in response to the 
administration's announcement of a little over a week ago in regard to 
their missile defense program for this fiscal year and the request to 
Congress which we anticipate receiving in the next several weeks.


                      tribute to mc lean stevenson

  Mr. Speaker, before I get into that, let me make a few comments about 
the unfortunate passing during the February work period of McLean 
Stevenson. Most of our colleagues in this Congress and most of the 
people around the country know McLean Stevenson as a Hollywood star who 
made his fame primarily through the program ``M.A.S.H.''
  However, I want to speak briefly about McLean Stevenson and his 
commitment to fire and life safety issues. McLean Stevenson, at a young 
age, was rescued from a house fire by a group of firefighters in his 
hometown, and because of that incident had a lifelong interest in 
promoting the welfare of firefighters in general and promoting the 

[[Page H1299]]
issue of fire and life safety. It was not until he retired from the 
M.A.S.H. series that he devoted his full time to working on these 
issues.
  In that context, many of us who are involved in the fire and 
emergency services caucus here on the Hill came to know McLean 
Stevenson. For the past 3 years he has been a regular attendee at our 
national fire and emergency services dinner. We have held seven of them 
here in the Nation's capital, and in the last three of those dinners 
McLean Stevenson was not just an attendee but one of our speakers, and 
for the most part one of our most popular and funny speakers. He 
intertwined with his humor the basic lessons of life safety and 
concern, the importance of installing smoke detectors in individual 
residences and multifamily dwellings and talked about his effort 
nationwide to promote these issues to people both young and old.
  McLean Stevenson was to have been, again, a guest at our dinner at 
the end of April this year, as he was last year when we had President 
Clinton as our keynote speaker, and honored the Oklahoma City Fire 
Department for their heroic efforts in response to the Oklahoma City 
disaster.

                              {time}  1815

  Unfortunately, McLean Stevenson died on the operating table. He was a 
friend, he was someone who was beloved by the entire fire service of 
this country, and whose true mark in terms of his life will be 
remembered in terms of the lives that he helped save by his efforts in 
promoting fire and life safety issues.
  So it is with a deep sense of sadness that I rise to wish his family 
well and to say that certainly McLean Stevenson has left his mark on 
all of us. At our dinner in April we will pay appropriate tribute to 
our friend McLean Stevenson.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, in addition, to respond to the 
administration's press conference of a little over a week ago, which in 
itself was a travesty. Many of us had been in contact with the 
administration in terms of the fiscal year 1997 budget request for 
missile defense and where the priorities would be in terms of programs.
  I in fact wrote to both Secretary Perry and Deputy Secretary 
Kaminski, as well as to General O'Neill expressing my interest in 
meeting with them before any final decisions were made from a program 
standpoint relative to missile defense funding for this next fiscal 
year. In fact, that issue was repeated both verbally and in written 
form.
  What really bothered me, Mr. Speaker, was that the administration saw 
fit, Secretary Perry and Dr. Kaminski, to hold a press conference at 3 
o'clock on a Friday afternoon right before a 3-day holiday break, 
giving no advance word to Members of Congress except for an attempted 
phone call to myself the day before and other senior members of the 
defense committee and a call that I received on the day of the 
conference by General O'Neill. So there was no attempt in a bipartisan 
way to reach out to this Congress to work together on the issue of 
missile defense.
  That is especially troubling, Mr. Speaker, because the single biggest 
change to the Clinton defense budget made by this body and the other 
body last year was in the area of missile defense. We plussed up the 
missile defense accounts by approximately $800 million because of the 
threat, both the near-term threat and long-term threat. We plussed up 
the national missile defense accounts, the theater missile defense 
accounts, as well as ballistic missile defense and Brilliant Eyes, 
space-based sensing program.
  Those changes were made with strong bipartisan support in this House. 
In fact, when the bill left committee, it had the strongest vote in the 
10 years I have been here, 478 to 3. When the bill was brought up on 
the House floor, for the first time in my 10 years we had 300 Members 
of the body vote in favor of the defense authorization bill, and that 
is with the significant changes from the Clinton administration 
relative to missile defense. So we thought it would be important to 
establish this new year in a bipartisan tone, working with the 
administration to try to find common areas.
  Unfortunately, that did not occur. The press announcement that was 
held basically announced this administration's continuing policy to 
decimate defense spending as it relates to missile proliferation and 
the threat of missile attack, either accidently or deliberately. The 
mismatch relates between rhetoric and reality, and it is large and 
growing.
  In fact, and I hate to make the statement on the House floor, but 
after looking at this issue as I have as a member of the National 
Security Committee and the chair of the Military Research and 
Development Subcommittee, I am firmly convinced this administration has 
no commitment to defend America whatsoever and under President Clinton 
never has. Even the sacred programs now that the Clinton administration 
said it supported, namely the theater missile defense programs, have 
been plundered to pay for other modernization needs.
  The outrage here, Mr. Speaker, is that we have boxed our Joint Chiefs 
into a corner. As we have decimated defense spending, we have driven 
the leaders of each of our services to look to cut other areas beyond 
those programs that are important, parochially important to their own 
services. That has in fact caused the Joint Chiefs to come in and make 
recommendations, to have draconian cuts in the vital programs important 
to our national security from the standpoint of missile proliferation.
  In addition, the press conference and the announcements of the 
program by Secretary Perry in fact are in major violation with the law 
that this Congress passed, most specifically section 234, which 
provides for specific dates relative to theater missile defense 
systems. In fact, we right now on the committee are considering whether 
or not to take legal action in suing the administration over these 
disconnects with the law.
  Mr. Speaker, the concern that I have is that this administration has 
just not been serious in dealing with the American people and this body 
on the growing threat that is posted to this Nation and other free 
nations from the threat of missile proliferation. That is in spite of 
requests by the leaders of this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, also during the February break there was an article in 
the Washington Times, which I will include as a part of my statement. 
The article that was in the Times, Mr. Speaker, cites a letter that was 
sent, a communications by General Luck. General Luck, Gary Luck, is our 
commanding officer in Korea. He sent a letter to the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, pleading for an enhanced 
funding profile for the THAAD missile defense system.
  Why did he make this plea? Because there are serious concerns on his 
part as our commanding officer in South Korea relative to the threat 
posed by North Korea as they develop their state of the art missile 
systems, the No Dong and the Taepo Dong-II systems. These systems are 
sophisticated and pose a real and genuine threat, not just to South 
Korea and our troops in South Korea, but in fact as Secretary Deutch, 
the head of the CIA, mentioned in Senate testimony last week, even to 
the State of Alaska by the year 2000 and beyond.
  General Luck made the case to General Shalikashvili that we needed to 
be able to deploy at least two batteries of THAAD systems at the 
soonest possible time. General Shalikashvili wrote back to General 
Luck, and this article which I have asked to put in the Record has the 
exact quotations from General Shalikashvili, that he is not able to 
fully fund the THAAD Program at what they thought was going to be the 
deployment program established last year by the Congress, and also a 
priority of this administration, because of the budgetary pressures and 
the need to fund other priorities in the military.
  So here we have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. 
Speaker, acknowledging in a letter to General Luck in South Korea that 
we cannot give hem the resources he needs, not because they are not 
warranted, and General Shalikashvili even mentions he fully supports 
the THAAD development, but because we have boxed the leadership of the 
military into a corner where they cannot fund the most basic 
priorities, and therefore have to cut wherever possible.

[[Page H1300]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. In fact, this communications and 
this request by General Luck and the negative response by General 
Shalikashvili reminds me of a situation that occurred several years 
ago. That situation was when our commanding general in Somalia sent a 
communique back to the Pentagon, which ultimately went to then 
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. That communique, Mr. Speaker, said that 
the commanding officer in Somalia said that he needed additional backup 
support to protect the welfare of our troops.
  That request for additional support was denied. It was only after 18 
of our young troops were killed in a massacre in Mogadishu that 
Secretary Aspin came up on the Hill along with Secretary of State 
Warren Christopher and addressed a bipartisan group of over 300 Members 
of the House and Senate assembled in one of the Capital meeting rooms, 
and under questioning Secretary Aspin said that he denied the 
additional support for the troops requested by the command officer in 
Somalia because of the political climate in Washington. This is the 
first time, Mr. Speaker, since Vietnam, that we have had an 
administration say that it has denied the support to protect American 
troops for a political reason.
  That is exactly what we are seeking here in Korea. Out commanding 
officer in South Korea is concerned about the safety of our troops. He 
has communicated that to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and 
the response by the administration is we agree with you, we would like 
to help you, but there is just not enough money, so we will have to 
risk the lives of those troops in terms of protection from a missile 
attack by the North Koreans. Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, during the debate of the defense authorization bill last 
year, we went to great lengths to work with the administration on 
missile defense. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Research and Development, I made sure that at every possible 
opportunity we were not forcing something down the administration's 
throat that they could not live with.
  Some in my party, Mr. Speaker, as you know, wanted to have language 
in the defense bill that would have immediately caused a problem with 
the ABM treaty. They wanted multiple site language for deployment of a 
national missile defense system in the bill. I argued against that, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The ultimate compromise bill that we presented to the President did 
not contain any language that would have violated the ABM treaty. In 
fact, everything we did in our bill, Mr. Speaker, General Malcolm 
O'Neill, the administration's point person on missile defense, 
acknowledged publicly would be in compliance with the ABM treaty. But 
what did President Clinton do when he vetoed the bill? He said that he 
had concerns about the possible impact of our bill on the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, that statement was absolutely outrageous. What we did in 
the bill is said that we should look to those threats that are there 
now. The most immediate threats, Mr. Speaker, are those posed by 
countries that either have the capability now, like North Korea and 
China with the SCSS-2 and SCSS-4, that have the potential in a few 
short years to have their missiles reach the shores of Alaska or 
Hawaii; or to have the threat posed by the Russians aggressively 
selling off the SS-25 architecture, which is currently their mainstay 
in their missile system.
  An SS-25 has a range of 10,000 kilometers and it is mobilly launched. 
The Russians are now actively marketing that system to any nation that 
will buy it as a space launch vehicle. Once a rogue nation gets an SS-
25, Mr. Speaker, without the nuclear tip on it, bit perhaps with a 
chemical, biological or conventional weapon, that poses an immediate 
threat to the mainland United States for which we have no system today 
that can shoot down one of those missiles. The American people, when 
you tell them that, they are amazed. They cannot believe that with our 
focus on defending this country, we today have no capability to shoot 
down an incoming ICBM. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, we do not.

                              {time}  1830

  A further outrage is the Russians do. Under the ABM Treaty, each of 
the two signatory countries is allowed to have an operational ABM 
system that can be operated from a single site. The Russians have had 
an operational ABM system around Moscow that protects 80 percent of 
their population for the last 15 years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the 
Russians have upgraded that system several times.
  When I was in Moscow last month, I asked to visit one of the ABM 
sites. They told me if I came back a week later, I could visit it, but 
they would not let me visit it the week I was there. But we all know 
and they know and acknowledge publicly they have an operational ABM 
system. We do not, Mr. Speaker. We do not have an operational ABM 
system. We have no capability if, in fact, a rogue nation deliberately 
or accidentally launches one missile aimed at America.
  Now, it doesn't matter whether it is aimed at New York and hits 
Miami, the fact is that we have no protection against a rogue launch 
against this Nation. Now, the administration said they didn't want to 
support the bill because it would violate the ABM Treaty. So we were 
very careful and we came up with provisions in the bill that said, OK, 
two branches of our services today have acknowledged publicly that they 
can build a system compliant with the ABM that, in fact, would protect 
all 50 States. Nothing in the way of violating the ABM Treaty. And that 
is exactly what we called for in the bill.
  It wasn't until after President Clinton vetoed the Defense 
authorization bill the first time that Mal O'Neill, the head of BMDO 
for the Clinton administration, came out publicly and verified what I 
had been saying all along. And that is, yes, the Army has a variant of 
an existing single-site system. And the Air Force has a variant of the 
current Minuteman system at Grand Forks, ND, that with a modest upgrade 
over 4 years can provide a limited protection for all 50 States. 
Totally treaty compliant.
  Cost? The administration and President Clinton has railed on about 
numbers in the $20 and $30 billion range. Mr. Speaker, I have had 
briefings. The Army says it can deploy a modified system in 4 years for 
a cost of less than $5 billion. The Air Force says they can modify the 
Minuteman, again a single-site system, again deployable in 4 years for 
a cost of less than $3 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, there you have it. Working with the administration's own 
leadership and the military, we put together a scenario where we can 
protect the American people and we can do it at a cost of less than $4 
to $5 billion and deploy it within 4 years. Each of those systems would 
provide a thin layer of protection against incoming missiles up to 10 
with a 90-percent effective rate. Today we have no such system. And 
under the administration's revised program, we won't have a system. 
They are talking about a 3-year option and then making a decision and 
maybe 3 years down the road. Mr. Speaker, we can't wait 6 years. We 
can't wait 6 years, Mr. Speaker.
  When the administration finally realized that we had, in fact, dealt 
with the ABM compliance issue and that we had, in fact, offered in our 
bill language to take existing technology, which the Air Force and the 
Army says they can do for the cost that I have mentioned, they realized 
they no longer had an ABM issue, even though President Clinton got up 
and said that. Everyone who knows the issues technically knew that he 
didn't know what he was talking about, and the ABM Treaty was not, in 
fact, jeopardized by our actions in the bill. Even his own people said 
so. So they raised a new issue, Mr. Speaker.

  They then said through people like Bob Bell for the National Security 
Council at the White House, they said, well, there is no threat, we 
don't see a threat emerging. In fact, for the first time since I have 
been here, they politicized an intelligence study that was released 
early to minority Members in the other body that said that the Defense 
authorization bill had overstated the threat. Now, that was in early 
December, Mr. Speaker. On December 15--actually before December 15, I 
requested the briefing, the closed briefing, security briefing of the 
NIA, the updated assessment from our intelligence community.
  I was so embarrassed by the briefing and so outraged by the lack of 
depth in the briefing, and I had staffers from both the National 
Security Committee 

[[Page H1301]]
and the intelligence committee with me, that I got up and said to the 
briefer, Dave Lazius from the CIA, that it was not worth my time to sit 
through.
  They did not answer the most fundamental questions upon which the 
results of the briefing were based. In fact, Secretary Deutch later 
agreed with me the briefing was not what it should have been and has 
asked me to sit through a rebrief which I have agreed to do.
  Mr. Speaker, the brief, parts of which have been leaked to the media, 
not by the Congress but by the administration itself, made the case 
that there is really no threat, we don't have to worry.
  Less than a week after the administration deliberately in a political 
manner leaked out parts of that what is supposed to be a secret brief 
on intelligence relative to the threat from rogue nations. Less than a 
week later, the Washington Post, on December 15, ran a story.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this story is important. It is important because it 
gets to the heart of what we are talking about here. The Washington 
Post story documented that the Jordanian intelligence agency, working 
with the Israeli intelligence agency, had intercepted a shipment of 
sophisticated advanced accelerometers and gyroscopes. Now what is so 
important about a shipment of advanced accelerometers and gyroscopes? 
And I can't divulge the exact number. It is a classified number. But we 
know how many were confiscated in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, those advanced accelerometers and gyroscopes were going 
from Russia to Iraq. In fact, that is where they were intercepted. Mr. 
Speaker, the items in question can only be used for a long-range ICBM. 
Now Mr. Speaker, we have been told that there is no threat from a long-
range intercontinental ballistic missile coming from Iraq. Then why 
would there be advanced accelerometers and gyroscopes going to Iraq 
from Russia? And should we not question the Russians about why this 
technology transfer was taking place? Because if, in fact, they were 
taking place, that is a violation of the missile control technology 
regime.
  So Mr. Speaker, when I was in Russia for a week back in January, on 
my seventh trip there, meeting in the Kremlin with Yeltsin's key 
defense advisers, Mr. Kortunov and others and meeting with Ambassador 
Pickering and our staff at the Embassy in Moscow, I asked the question, 
what is the Russian response to the technology transfer of equipment 
that can be used for a long-range ICBM from Moscow to Baghdad? 
Ambassador Pickering said we haven't asked them yet. And the Russians 
said, we don't know what you are talking about, even though it was a 
story in the Washington Post, even though we had the devices now in our 
hands since they had been confiscated by the intelligence community in 
both Jordan and Israel, that no one knows about this.
  I can't believe it, Mr. Speaker. Here we have a technology transfer 
that is a direct violation of the missile technology control regime 
that only has one fundamental end purpose, and that is to give the 
Iraqis the capability for the long-range missile that we know Saddam 
has been after for a decade and we haven't even asked the Russians how 
it happened.
  Now here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. If those items were stolen from 
Russia, that is a problem because that means the Russians don't have 
adequate controls over the advanced technology that would help Iraq or 
another nation build a long-range ICBM. But, Mr. Speaker, if the 
Russians did know they were being transferred and being sold to Iraq, 
that is a problem because that is not allowable under the MTCR.
  And perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that is why the administration hasn't asked 
the question. Because this administration, back in August and September 
of last year, without a lot of fanfare, very quickly, without much 
attention from this Congress, although I asked questions of the 
administration at that time, rushed Russia into the MTCR. Because they 
wanted Russia to become a player of those countries who would abide by 
the controls put into place by the missile technology control regime.
  The problem this administration knows, Mr. Speaker, is if they ask 
the question about the technology being transferred, they then have no 
recourse but to apply economic sanctions against Russia. And if they 
apply economic sanctions against Russia, that means we undermine Boris 
Yeltsin's leadership and perhaps cause turmoil inside of Russia and 
instability in this, an election year.
  Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely the worst reason not to question the 
Russians about the transfer of technology that could ultimately pose a 
threat to our country. And it further undermines our confidence in the 
intelligence community assessing for us in a logical way without 
sanitization which is really occurring in terms of missile 
proliferation and technology proliferation around the world. I wrote a 
three-page letter to President Clinton asking him, and I would ask 
unanimous consent at this time, Mr. Speaker, to include my letter in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Asking the President some very specific 
questions about the technology transfer and I am still waiting for a 
response 1 month later. I also, Mr. Speaker, had a three-page letter 
drafted to the intelligence community asking for specific responses to 
questions about the upgraded intelligence assessment that was used by 
the minority party in the Senate to say we don't really have a threat 
to worry about.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, some listening to this might think well, here is a 
Member of Congress who only wants to stick it in the eye of the 
Russians, he doesn't really care about relations with the former Soviet 
Union, he just wants us to build a bigger and bigger defense industrial 
base. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me make this point. I have no 
parochial interest in missile defense. There were no contractors in my 
district, I don't have a military base in my district. I do chair the 
R&D committee.
  Let me make one additional point, Mr. Speaker. I will match my record 
on Russian-American relations with any Member of this body. For the 
past 3 years I have cochaired the Russian-American energy caucus where 
I have worked with Members of the Russian Duma on joint energy deals, 
two of which are now in place, Sakhalin I and Sakhalin II with Mobil, 
Marathon, and McDermott Corporations. Western companies will invest 
between $50 and $70 billion in Russia to help them develop their energy 
resources. We are now working on Sakhalin III. In fact, the Russian 
Duma last December passed a new production sharing agreement which will 
encourage other projects of this type to help Russia stabilize the 
economy. Just 2 weeks ago, I was the only Member of the Congress in 
attendance at a luncheon with Mr. Chernomyrdin and the Energy Minister 
from Russia Mr. Shafranik where we talked about joint cooperation in 
terms of energy investment. Secondarily, Mr. Speaker, I work with 
Russia on environmental issues, Nikolai Vorontsov, a member of the 
Duma, has chaired the globe task force in Russia on environmental 
issues. I have worked with him as a member of globe U.S.A., in fact, 
was in St. Petersburg leading the effort on the part of our Navy to put 
funding in to help the Russians clean up their nuclear waste in the 
Arctic Ocean and in the Sea of Japan. As a member of the National 
Security Commission have fought for the past several years to get 
additional funding to help the Russians deal with their terrible 
environmental problems, working with Bob Colangelo and Vartov to 
establish joint Russian-American energy initiatives. In fact, just in 
December of last year had the leading Russian environmental activist in 
our country testifying before my subcommittee on ways that we can work 
with the Russians on environmental initiatives. Mr. Speaker, we are 
doing a ton of work with the Russians on the environment. Mr. Speaker, 
we have also proposed establishing a new Russian-American Duma to 
Congress forum. In January of this year when I was in Russia, I carried 
a letter from you, Mr. Speaker, which I delivered to the new speaker of 
the Russian Duma, Mr. Seleznyov. This letter suggested that both 
speakers should support the establishment of a formal process where 
Members of Congress and the Duma company meet at least twice a year 
focusing on specific issue areas; namely, the environment, energy, 
defense, foreign policy, and relations, as well as other issues that 
are going to 

[[Page H1302]]
come up in the forefront, like the economy, health care, adoption laws, 
and so forth. That letter from you, Mr. Speaker, was delivered to Mr. 
Seleznyov by me. In addition, I met with members of the four major 
political parties in Moscow to convince them that it was in their 
interest to have more formal relationships with Members of the 
Republican and Democrat Parties in the Congress. I met with the Yabakov 
Party, Zhirinovsky's party, the Communist Party and Yavlinsky's party, 
and Mr. Speaker, the response was overwhelmingly positive from all of 
them.

  But you know, Mr. Speaker, and we expect, by the way the Ambassador, 
the Washington Ambassador from Russia will be in my office tomorrow 
where I will meet with him, Ambassador Aleksey Arbatov where we will 
discuss the Russian administration, Mr. Seleznyov's response to your 
letter, Mr. Speaker, to establish this new forum, as well as your 
letter also outlining a proposal to establish a direct internet linkage 
where Members of Congress and members of the Russian Duma can 
communicate through simultaneous translation in a written form back and 
forth on an instantaneous basis. These are concrete proposals that we 
have made. These are concrete actions, Mr. Speaker, that we are taking 
on an ongoing basis. Last year I have hosted over 100 members of the 
Duma in my office. My goal is the same goal as President Clinton and 
that is to build a solid relationship between Russia that encourages 
economic growth, that encourages democratization and encourages the 
reforms you have been seeing in Russia. But the difference, Mr. 
Speaker--and this is a key difference, this administration wants to 
sanitize and ignore the realities of the Russian military threat.

                              {time}  1845

  The key thing that we have to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that the 
leaders of the Russian military are the same leaders who led the Soviet 
military; they have not changed. They are not a part of the reform 
movement and many of the actions being proposed by the leadership of 
the Russian military potentially pose a threat to this country's 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the Russian people want us to call their 
military leadership when things occur which they even cannot ask in 
their own country about, yet this administration tends to want to put 
its head in the sand and not acknowledge issues that occur like the 
transfer of technology of the Acceleramas, like the effects of the 
morale problems in the Russian military, like threats posed by the 
transfer of the SS-25 technology and the threat that poses to the 
United States in terms of a rogue nation getting that capability.
  It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, the Clinton's administration policy 
reminds me of my first amendment that I offered on the floor of the 
House in 1987. At that time there was a debate in this Congress that 
was going on about the ABM Treaty much like there is now, and on that 
debate, Mr. Speaker, the liberals were saying that we should adhere to 
the strictest interpretation of the ABM Treaty. My amendment was very 
simple. It said the Russians in fact were in violation of the ABM 
Treaty because they had installed a large fader-phased radar system in 
a town called Krasnoyarsk. My amendment passed the House 418 to zero; 
no Member voted against it. But many of the liberals who voted for it 
stood up on this floor, Mr. Speaker, and they said it is not an 
important issue. The Russians just built that radar for space tracking 
purposes. They do not plan to use it in violation of the ABM Treaty; 
that has never been their intent. It is an accidental location. Yes, it 
is a technical violation of the ABM, but it does not really matter 
because it is not going to be used for battle management and certainly 
would not be used against the United States.
  That was in 1987, Mr. Speaker. In 1995, General Voitinsev in the 
Russians' Military Historical Journal was interviewed. Now General 
Voitinsev for 18 years was the commander of Russian air and space 
defenses for the entire Soviet Union. In the interview he was asked 
about Krasnoyarsk radar, Mr. Speaker, and in response to the question 
he said he was ordered to place the Krasnoyarsk radar where it was by 
at-that-time General Ogarkov. General Ogarkov was ordered to place it 
there by the Politburo, the ruling body in the Communist Party and in 
the Soviet Union. So here we have the 18-year commander of air and 
space defense command for the Soviet Union now admitting in a public 
record in Russia that he was ordered to place the radar where it was in 
direct violation of the ABM that would eventually allow the Soviet 
Union to break out of the ABM Treaty and have battle management 
capability that would directly threaten the United States.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have to understand the context in which the 
Russian military operates. There are some in our Congress and there are 
some in the White House who want to do whatever they can to bolster up 
Boris Yeltsin, and what I am saying is, Mr. Speaker, we have got to be 
candid and frank with the Russians. When they violate a treaty, we have 
got to call them on it. When they violate by sending equipment or 
technology to Iraq, we have got to call them on it. When they want to 
send SS-25 technology out around the world as a space launch 
capability, we have got to call them on that.
  Mr. Speaker, that is in our interest and it is in the interest of the 
Russian people that we understand what is going on and that we want 
them to be as compliant as we expect ourselves to be. But Mr. Speaker, 
that is not happening in this administration. This administration wants 
to lift up the rug, bury everything under the rug and say do not worry, 
everything is OK. Mr. Speaker, it is not OK, and I am not about 
advocating massive increases in funding in these areas. Every dollar 
that we plused up, Mr. Speaker, last year was done so with the request 
of Gen. Malcolm O'Neill. General O'Neill is President Clinton's point 
person on missile defense.

  In fact, Mr. Speaker, General O'Neill is retiring this May. Right 
before our break in January I got wind that he was retiring. I talked 
to him, tried to convince him to stay on because I have confidence in 
him. I think he is a great American and a great leader. I put together 
a letter, Mr. Speaker, asking Secretary Perry to reconsider and ask 
General O'Neill to reconsider and stay on as head of BMDO. Within 1 
hour I was able to get 22 Members of this body who were the leaders on 
defense issues to sign that letter asking that General O'Neill stay on, 
12 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Everyone from Jack Murtha to Floyd 
Spence to the key leaders on both sides of the aisle on defense issues 
signed that letter asking to keep General O'Neill on board. Why? 
Because we in a bipartisan way have confidence in him. he did not do 
that. He decided and announced this past week that he is going to 
retire and I got the word, Mr. Speaker, through the grapevine of the 
Pentagon that the administration, to further downplay the whole 
potential threat for missile defense, that they were going to replace 
General O'Neill, who is a three-star general, with a two-star, and the 
notion was that if Bill Clinton won the election by lowering it to a 
two-star position there would not be as much visibility. But if a 
Republican won the Presidential election, then the Pentagon would 
elevate it back up to three-star to give it the visibility it warrants.
   Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous.
  I will say that when I raised this issue with Dr. Kaminski he said he 
would not support that and felt that the appropriate level of support 
that has been displayed by General O'Neill as a three-star should be 
continued by whoever replaces him.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the turmoil continues. The program outlined by this 
administration is not logical, it is not based on threat, it is not 
based on reality and we are going to counter that with every ounce of 
energy in our bodies this year, Mr. Speaker. In fact, tomorrow we will 
have our first missile defense hearing. Thursday I was supposed to have 
General O'Neill come in along with the Air Force and the Army. I am 
still scheduled to have that hearing on Thursday, where they can talk 
about their national missile defense capabilities. But, Mr. Speaker, 
unfortunately I heard in a phone call from General O'Neill yesterday 
that he is being told by superiors not to come before my committee. 
Perhaps there is something that he cannot say or perhaps the 
administration does not want 

[[Page H1303]]
it on the record again that, in fact, the people who are responsible 
for these programs are going to say directly opposite of what the 
Commander in Chief said, that in fact we can deploy a system that is 
not in violation of the ABM Treaty.
  Well, I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I am having a hearing on 
Thursday, and I am having a hearing with General O'Neill and with 
General Garner from the Army and with the general from the Air Force to 
talk about it and if they are not there, we will have empty seats, and 
we will let the people of America decide.
  Now, the Pentagon said we are sure we want them to come in because 
Dr. Kaminski has not briefed the Congress on program needs for this 
year. Mr. Speaker, that hearing has nothing to do with program needs. 
All we are talking about is what capability do we have now, what 
capability do we have now, and can we in fact deploy systems in the Air 
Force and in the Army using existing capabilities at a low cost that 
can give us some protection.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone in the Pentagon listening 
tonight, we are going to have the hearing on Thursday and I hope you 
show up because if you do not show up, we are going to have the hearing 
anyway.
  Mr. Speaker, beyond that hearing we are going to have 10 hearings 
this year on the threat from missile proliferation, on the Russian 
command and control problems. We are going to have a hearing on joint, 
dual American-Russian cooperation in missile defense programs. We are 
going to have a hearing on the standpoint of political implications of 
the ABM from Russia's standpoint, just as I have asked the Speaker, 
their Duma, on the political implications of the ABM from our 
standpoint. We are going to have the most aggressive debate in this 
country's history on the threat to our people from a proliferation of 
missiles, and I would hope in the end, Mr. Speaker, that when we have 
to make a final decision on a defense bill that it will be based on 
fact and not rhetoric.
  It troubles me though, the direction I see the administration going. 
The week before we left for the February work break, Mr. Speaker, we 
were called in as members of the Committee on National Security and we 
were told the administration was going to ask for a $3 billion 
reprogramming request from this year's defense bill. Now this 
administration, who is telling the American people we do not have 
enough money for defense, we do not have enough money for the 
priorities of missile defense, General Shalikashvili's letter to 
General Luck saying we would like to help you, but we do not have 
enough money for that and to protect our troops in Korea, this 
administration asked for a reprogramming, Mr. Speaker. One of the items 
was to reprogram $80 million of DOD money to train the police force in 
Haiti. Now, Mr. Speaker, to me that is outrageous.
  I live near Philadelphia. Philadelphia could use $80 million for its 
police force. So could New York. I think Washington, DC, could use $80 
million to train its police force. But this administration wants to 
reprogram $80 million of this year's DOD money to pay to train the 
Haitian police force, and they are telling us they do not have enough 
money for their priorities. This administration wants us to reprogram 
$200 million to pay the Jordanians for the peace agreement that 
President Clinton signed, $200 million out of this year's defense bill 
to assist Jordan in coming to the peace table; not coming out of State 
Department funds, not being appropriated publicly, but in a 
reprogramming request coming from this administration out of this 
year's DOD dollars.
  Third, the administration wants to reprogram money for nation 
building in Bosnia. Now we are not asking the Germans to put money up, 
or the French or any other NATO country. We are going to reprogram 
money from out DOD budget to nation build in Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, those are some of the outrages that I feel, but one that 
really got my attention during the break more than anything else dealt 
with the B-2 bomber. Mr. Speaker, I chair the Research and Development 
Subcommittee for the Committee on National Security, and I have 
consistently opposed the B-2 bomber this past year despite intense 
pressure from my party leadership, and the reason is not that I think 
the technology is bad, it is not. It is because we cannot afford it. In 
the current budget environment we cannot afford to buy more B-2's. But 
that battle was fought on the floor and those that supported the B-2, 
some of the most liberal Members who hate defense spending voted for it 
and we funded it. I think it was a mistake. But the ultimate goal of 
this President to go out to southern California, Mr. Speaker, just this 
past month and have a press conference and say to the workers working 
on the B-2, I think we ought to take another look at whether or not to 
build more B-2 bombers: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. 
Talk about hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, that a President who says that we 
put too much money into the defense bill, that we plused up programs we 
should not have plused up is now talking about a study to determine 
whether or not we should build more B-2's. For those poor workers out 
in California who may be watching, Mr. Speaker, I would ask them to ask 
the President when that study is expected back. I would tell them it is 
probably the week after the November election and that is when the 
report will come back, no more B-2's.
  Mr. Speaker, what I am saying in summary is it is time to stop 
playing politics with the defense of our country. Missile defense and 
the programs and priorities we have are not a Republican issue. Every 
gain that we made last year was done with support from my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. They were in the forefront of this debate. 
They were in the forefront on the committee, on the House floor, in the 
Senate, as well as the House of Representatives. This is a bipartisan 
issue that should be based on fact. If Neil Abercrombie's Hawaii is 
threatened by a missile from North Korea, every one of us needs to pay 
attention, and that is exactly the situation, Mr. Speaker, just as if 
Don Young's Alaska is threatened from a missile that can potentially 
hit parts of Alaska from North Korea.
  This year, Mr. Speaker, we are going to lay the facts on the table 
through the extensive series of hearings that we are going to have, 10 
in the subcommittee, 2 in the full committee, starting tomorrow, 
through briefings we are going to have. We are going to make the case 
that it is in our interest to work aggressively toward missile defense; 
it is in our interest to work with the Russians to convince them that 
they have more of a threat from missile proliferation than even we do. 
In the end we have got to work together to only defend the people of 
America, the people of Russia and freedom loving people everywhere, 
just as we are doing with Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, we have helped Israel build the prototype for what will 
be their national missile defense system; it is called the Aero 
Program. The taxpayers of this country have put a half a billion 
dollars into that program and it is justified, it is a good program, 
and it is good to give Israel the security they deserve. Why do not the 
American people deserve the same security? Why should we build a system 
that can protect the people of Israel from a missile attack and leave 
the people of America vulnerable?
  That is the question we have to answer, Mr. Speaker, and we can do it 
without massive increases in funding, we can do it with a very careful 
and deliberate approach that builds upon the technology we have today 
that will deal with the threat we have today and build and allow us the 
options down the road to build a more elaborate defense capability, a 
more robust defense capability.

                              {time}  1900

  Does this mean that eventually the ABM treaty may have to be 
renegotiated? Absolutely. Mr. Speaker while I am not willing to take 
the treaty on this year, I am one who is firmly convinced the treaty 
has outlived its usefulness. But we need to understand the political 
considerations in Russia if we attack that treaty head on. My proposal 
is to grab the hand of the Russians and work with them to show them 
that we are no longer in a bipolar world with just two countries, with 
offensive military missile capability. We now have North Korea, we have 
Communist China, we have Iraq trying to get long-range missile 
capabilities, and it is in our interest to work together.

[[Page H1304]]

  That should be the approach we use this year. Mr. Speaker, that will 
be the approach that I use as we begin our hearing process, and as we 
move forward to provide security for the people of this country with 
our fiscal year 1997 budget request.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Washington Times article of 
February 15, 1996, and the letter to President Clinton of January 30, 
1996.
  The material referred to follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 15, 1996]

                Plea for Missile Defense in Korea Fails

                            (By Bill Gertz)

       The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has declined to 
     back the commander of U.S. forces in Korea in seeking to 
     reverse a Pentagon decision to delay a new missile-defense 
     system urgently needed in Korea to protect U.S. troops from 
     North Korean missile attack.
       Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff, in a cable told Gen. Gary Luck, the commander in 
     Korea, that the Pentagon plans to scale back funds for the 
     Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to pay for other 
     weapons modernization programs.
       The Shalikashvili cable calls into question Clinton 
     administration support for building effective regional anti-
     missile systems.
       ``Five years after 28 Americans were killed in the Gulf war 
     by an Iraqi Scud, we still have no effective theater missile 
     defense, which the administration has said is its top defense 
     priority,'' said Heritage Foundation defense expert Tom 
     Moore, commenting on the cable.
       ``It is absolutely reprehensible that the administration is 
     leaving American forces abroad exposed to these growing 
     threats,'' he said.
       A spokesman for Gen. Luck had no comment. A spokesman for 
     Gen. Shalikashvili said no final decision on the missile-
     defense funding has been made since the cable to Korea was 
     sent.
       Mr. Shalikashvili was responding to an earlier cable from 
     Gen. Luck, who warned the threat of North Korean missiles is 
     growing and that two THAAD batteries--18 launchers--are 
     needed as soon as possible.
       Delays in fielding THAAD, the first modern anti-missile 
     system in decades, could have serious consequences for 
     defending the peninsula against attack from the north, Gen. 
     Luck stated in a Dec. 11 cable to Gen. Shalikashvili,
       Gen. Luck wrote to seek the chairman's support for 
     reversing the Pentagon's decision in October to hold up a new 
     phase of THAAD development.
       In his reply cable, Gen. Shalikashvili said that ``I 
     understand your concern,'' but he did not say he supported 
     efforts by Gen. Luck to reverse the decision placing a hold 
     on THAAD's engineering and manufacturing development program, 
     a new stage that would move the system closer to deployment.
       Instead, the four-star general indicated THAAD may not be 
     deployed at all. In 2002 or 2003, the Pentagon will put it in 
     a ``shoot-off'' competition with a Navy wide-area missile 
     defense system, he said.
       Until the shoot-off, the Joint Requirements Oversight 
     Council, which sets priorities for defense spending and 
     weapons programs, ``is recommending THAAD funding at a 
     minimum level,'' Gen. Shalikashvili stated.
       ``A final decision has not been made,'' he said. ``Will 
     keep you advised.''
       North Korea has deployed scores of modified Soviet-design 
     Scuds, like those fired against U.S. troops during the 
     Persian Gulf war, and reportedly is in the early stage of 
     deploying a longer-range missile known as the No Dong.
       The Shalikashvili cable also indicates that Pentagon 
     missile defense policy is not in line with new provisions of 
     the 1996 defense authorization bill, signed into law Saturday 
     by President Clinton.
       The authorization law orders the defense secretary to 
     restructure regional missile defense programs to make Patriot 
     PAC-3, THAAD and two Navy systems, known as lower and upper 
     tier, top-priority programs. The law sets specific dates--all 
     by 1999--for deploying the first models of the systems. Full-
     scale deployment must begin by 2000 for THAAD, and by 2001 
     for upper tier.
       Gen. Shalikashvili stated in the cable that the primary 
     objective of the internal review of missile defense needs to 
     to ``free up dollars for critically underfunded areas of 
     recapitalization.''
       The proposed competition in 2002 or 2003 between THAAD and 
     Navy upper tier could delay production of the wide-area 
     defense system by three to five years, Gen. Shalikashvili 
     said.
       More than a dozen Senate Republicans, including top party 
     leaders, wrote to Defense Secretary William Perry last fall 
     urging him not to delay THAAD.
       Any slowdown in THAAD development would be considered ``a 
     declaration by the administration of a lack of commitment to 
     theater missile defense,'' the senators stated in a Nov. 7 
     letter to Mr. Perry.

                            Missile Defense

 [Excerpts of a cable sent to Gen. Gary Luck, commander of U.S. forces 
in Korea, from Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
                          Staff, on Jan. 19.]

       In response to Ref. A [a cable from Gen. Luck of Dec. 11], 
     Ballistic Missile Defense programs are under internal DoD 
     review to evaluate the cost-effectiveness strategies for 
     meeting validated theater missile defense requirements. The 
     primary objective is to free up dollars for critically 
     underfunded areas of recapitalization. For this reason the 
     Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) is recommending 
     THAAD funding at a minimum level necessary to continue 
     development toward a shoot-off with the Navy theater-wide 
     ballistic missile defense system in 2002-2003.
       ``My execptation is that this JROC plan, if adopted, will 
     possibly delay an upper tier production decision three to 
     five years. Full impacts of the JROC course of action under 
     consideration are to be assessed by the services and Office 
     of the Secretary of Defense Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization. I understand your concern. A final decision has 
     not been made. Will keep you advised.
                                                                    ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 1996.
     President William Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my concern 
     about the recent attempted shipment of Russian missile 
     components to Iraq. While this shipment, which included 
     gyroscopes and accelerometers designed for use in long-range 
     missiles, was intercepted in Jordan, it raises serious 
     questions about the Russian government's willingness or 
     ability to halt proliferation.
       Reports of this shipment, in contravention of the Missile 
     Technology Control Regime (MTCR), surfaced publicly in 
     December, several months after Russia was admitted as a full 
     member of the MTCR regime. Whether the Russian government 
     sanctioned the shipment or not, the events which transpired 
     underscore the fact that Russia is at best unable or at worst 
     unwilling to fulfill its MTCR obligations.
       Recently, I travelled to Russia and met with members of the 
     Duma, defense advisors to President Yeltsin and officials of 
     Rosvooruzheniye, the main Russian state arms export company. 
     Russian government officials with whom I raised the issue 
     denied all knowledge of this highly reported incident. 
     Rosvooruzheniye officials were aware of the attempted 
     transfer, but denied any involvement. I also met with 
     Ambassador Pickering, who indicated that the United States 
     neither sought nor received any information or explanation 
     from the Russian government about the attempted transfer.
       This recent incident is not the first time that Russia has 
     transferred missile technology to non-MTCR states. In 1993, 
     Russia sold an associated production technology for cryogenic 
     rocket engines to India. Recently, Russia transferred missile 
     components to Brazil. To this very day, Russia continues to 
     aggressively market a variant of its SS-25 missiles under the 
     guise of a ``space launch vehicle.''
       If nonproliferation agreements are to have any meaning, 
     they must be aggressively enforced through careful monitoring 
     and the application of sanctions for violations. I believe 
     that the Russian shipment of missile components deserves a 
     forceful response from the United States, and I am deeply 
     troubled by the U.S. government's apparent inaction in this 
     regard. I would appreciate answers to the following questions 
     in that regard:
       1. Has the United States demanded from the Russian 
     government a detailed explanation of the attempted shipment 
     of gyroscopes and accelerometers to Iraq? If so, when did 
     this occur and through what channels? If not, why not?
       2. Has the Russian government responded, and what was the 
     substance of the response? Does the Administration find it 
     credible?
       3. Do you believe that this shipment occurred with or 
     without the knowledge of the Russian government, and what 
     does your answer imply about Russia's willingness or ability 
     to advance the U.S. nonproliferation agenda?
       4. Why have sanctions not been imposed on Russia as a 
     result of this attempted transfer of MTCR-prohibited missile 
     components? What does the failure to impose sanctions, as 
     required by U.S. law, say about the Administration's 
     commitment to ensure the viability of the MTCR regime? Why 
     wouldn't this set a dangerous precedent for others that might 
     seek to circumvent or violate MTCR guidelines?
       5. Russia's ascension to the MTCR regime as a full member 
     imposes certain obligations on it that this incident 
     demonstrates Russia is unwilling or unable to fulfill. What 
     does that Administration intend to do to ensure full Russian 
     compliance with its MTCR obligations in the future? Without 
     acting firmly now in response to the attempted component 
     transfer to Iraq, why should Russia believe that similar 
     transfers will carry severe consequences in the future?
       6. Please provide the dates and topic considered by the 
     Missile Trade Analysis Group since the Russian shipment was 
     reported.
       7. Please list and describe all instances which raised U.S. 
     concerns regarding compliance with the MTCR, all instances 
     since 1987 in which the U.S. government considered imposing 
     sanctions on a ``foreign government or entity,'' whether 
     sanctions were in fact imposed and against whom; how long 
     those sanctions remained in effect, and the reason why they 
     were lifted.
     
[[Page H1305]]

       Thank you for responding to these serious issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Curt Weldon,
     Member of Congress.

                          ____________________