[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 87 (Friday, June 20, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4103-H4121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 169 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1119.
{time} 1144
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 further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and
1999 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Young of Florida in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June
19, 1997, amendment No. 5, printed in part 1 of House Report 105-137,
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], had been
disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6, printed in part 1 of
House Report 105-137.
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Luther
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Luther:
At the end of title I (page 23, before line 7), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 123. TERMINATION OF NEW PRODUCTION OF TRIDENT II (D-5)
MISSILES.
(a) Production Termination.--Funds appropriated for the
Department of Defense for fiscal years after fiscal year 1997
may not be obligated or expended to commence production of
additional Trident II (D-5) missiles.
(b) Authorized Scope of Trident II (D-5) Program.--Amounts
appropriated for the Department of Defense may be expended
for the Trident II (D-5) missile program only for the
completion of production of those Trident II (D-5) missiles
which were commenced with funds appropriated for a fiscal
year before fiscal year 1998.
(c) Funding Reduction.--The amount provided in section 102
for weapons procurement for the Navy is hereby reduced by
$342,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Luther] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Hunter] each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
{time} 1145
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I am pleased today to join with
my fellow Minnesotan [Mr. Ramstad] in offering this bipartisan
amendment to the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization bill to
terminate further production of the Trident D-5 submarine launched
ballistic missile.
The Trident D-5 is a ballistic missile with a range of more than
4,000 nautical miles. Each is capable of carrying up to 8 independently
targetable nuclear warheads at speeds in excess of 13,000 miles per
hour. The U.S. Navy currently operates a force of 17 Ohio-class fleet
ballistic missile submarines with an eighteenth boat scheduled to join
the force later this summer. Eight of these submarines, homeported at
Bangor, WA, carry the older C-4 missile system. The other 9 Ohio-class
subs and the new sub being deployed this year are homeported at Kings
Bay, GA, and carry the new Trident D-5 missile system. Each submarine
carries 24 missiles.
In order to comply with the START II Treaty, the Navy is planning to
retire four of the older subs carrying the C-4 missiles, but the Navy
is currently planning to back-fit the other four with the new D-5
missiles. Although the Navy has already an inventory of 350 D-5
missiles, it nevertheless plans to procure an additional 84 Trident D-
5's through the year 2005, unless Congress intercedes.
We believe the responsible course is for our Navy to cancel the
proposed back-fit of the older C-4 subs and, over time, reduce its
fleet of Ohio-class submarines to 10 vessels. With a fleet of 10
[[Page H4104]]
Ohio-class submarines carrying the new D-5 missiles, the Navy will no
longer need the additional 84 missiles they have requested through
fiscal year 2005. The current inventory of 350 missiles will be
sufficient, 240 for the 10 Trident D-5 subs and 110 for testing
purposes.
There are very important reasons why this amendment should be
approved by the House of Representatives. The Trident D-5 missile is a
cold war weapon specifically designed to destroy hardened missile silos
and other military targets found in the former Soviet Union. But today
the nuclear threat from the former Soviet Union is dramatically
reduced.
While there is still an important role for strategic nuclear weapons
in our arsenal, that role is dramatically reduced from what it was in
the past, and weapon procurement should reflect that.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this amendment would
save taxpayers with this act this year and with future subsequent acts
more than $5.7 billion over 10 years, including $342 million in fiscal
year 1998. This savings would then be available for personnel readiness
and military training purposes or to reduce the deficit.
Members of the House, the United States has an unchallenged world
lead in the area of submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Only Russia,
China, France, and Great Britain have this capability. China has just
one submarine with 12 ballistic missiles, and the Russian fleet is
outmoded and largely rusting away in port. A fully modernized fleet of
10 Ohio-class subs carrying Trident D-5 missiles will continue our
leadership in this critical area of strategic defense.
Balancing the budget requires continuing scrutiny of every dollar the
Government spends. We need to maintain a strong military and an
absolutely credible nuclear deterrent force, but we must maintain that
defense while keeping in mind the realistic threats facing our country.
A 10 Trident submarine fleet, carrying the new D-5 missile, is enough
to secure our interests. And saving over $5.7 billion by canceling the
production of more D-5 missiles will make it much easier to balance the
budget in the year 2002.
I ask that we think about the way we think about military spending.
Times have changed, and I hope this amendment that the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] and I are proposing will help move us into the
future.
I urge my colleagues to join taxpayers for common sense in support of
this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for both proponents of this
amendment, but I have to tell my colleagues that this amendment is not
grounded in common sense, for a couple of reasons. There are a lot of
things with respect to arms control that we disagree with,
conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, arms control
proponents, and people who are very skeptical of the arms control
process.
But there are certain cornerstones of our deterrent force and our
overall strategy of deterrents that we all agree on. When I say, ``we
all agree on,'' I am speaking of not only of the majority in the
Congress but also the President of the United States, whether he is a
Democrat or Republican, and his respective military leaders in the
Pentagon.
I have a lot of disagreements with President Clinton on security, but
this is not one of them. The President, and I have several letters, one
from his CNO and one from his director of the Commander in Chief, the
U.S. Strategic Command, President Clinton does not want to see our
strategic force, and the most important part of our triad, which is our
submarine force, upon which we are going to rely for 50 percent of our
deterrent counterstrike force under START II, he does not want to see
that force reduced, and especially to reduce it unilaterally.
So let us review the bidding here. We have three legs of the triad.
We have our missiles based on land. We have our bomber force. But the
most survivable forces of our triad, our deterrent system that has
worked for so many years, is undersea. It is difficult to target. It is
difficult to preempt. And that deterrent force will become more and
more important under START II if the Russians ever approve START II.
Now here is what my colleagues should reflect upon: START II has not
yet been approved by the Russian Duma. Our friends who are offering
this amendment are proposing to cut back on the number of ballistic
missile submarines, in anticipation that at some point in the future
there will be a START III and the Russians will give us reciprocity on
this cut and will somehow come through with cuts of their own.
That is a very dangerous thing to do. Let us leave all the chips on
the side of our negotiators so that, as we work down our strategic
forces, they give a chip, we give a chip, they give a chip, we give a
chip, and we still guard or act to detour not only the Russians but
others who are now developing nuclear systems around the world.
And there are others developing those systems. The Chinese, for
example, are not a part of the START II agreements. They are developing
nuclear systems aimed at American cities. So it is a very dangerous
thing to try to get a jump-start on arms negotiations and start
unilaterally to pull down our strategic forces, especially the
underwater part of our strategic forces.
All of our military experts, the White House leadership, the
Pentagon, and the majority in Congress, agree the undersea part of our
ballistic missile submarines are the most survivable part of our triad.
And to do away with the large portion of those in anticipation of some
future concession on the part of our negotiating partners makes no
sense.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Dicks].
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I rise in opposition to the Luther amendment and in support
of the committee's position on this.
One of the problems here is that we have a missile on these older
Tridents. The Pacific Tridents were built first. And the older missile,
the C-4 missile, has a lifetime up to about 2004. Then, if we do not
build the D-5 and replace the C-4's with the D-5's, we are going to
have to go out and spend billions of dollars to fix up the C-4 missile.
In fact, I have been told that that course is more expensive than
buying the newer, more capable missiles. So why would we not want to
retrofit? The other problem is, if we have two missiles, then we have
to have two infrastructures for the missiles, the D-5's. And if we can
go to an all D-5 force, than we can have one missile, one set of repair
parts, and it is actually, in terms of ownership, less expensive.
I would agree with my friend from California [Mr. Hunter] that until
we see what happens in the START talks, we would, in my judgment, be
premature to go even from 18 to 14 in terms of the number of submarines
that we have. And the D-5 program is in place. We should buy these
missiles now while the line is open. We need to keep this open until we
see whether, in fact, we are going to get an arms control agreement.
To cut it off now would be premature and we would have a situation
where the submarines in the Atlantic have D-5's and none of the
submarines in the Pacific would. The D-5 is a more capable missile, and
we need to have that capability, in my judgment, in both oceans.
So I understand the intent here to try to save some money. We all
want to save money. But there is a lot more to this, and it goes right
to the security of the country. The D-5 and the Trident submarine are
the most survivable part of our triad. I think until we get these arms
control agreements in place we should stay with this program, support
the administration, who strongly is committed to keeping the D-5
program going.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to
my friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from California, Mr.
Hunter yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. It seems like we always go through
this every year or so on what to do with the
[[Page H4105]]
D-5. I think the point has been made, and made very well, that as we
finally had the cold war come to an end, the thing that did it was the
triad system, or the system where we figured out how we were going to
handle this problem.
We had the aircraft, and we looked at the old B-52, which is a very,
very old airplane, came out with the B-1 and now the B-2. We got the
land-based missiles, and now we are going to take the MX and take it
out of the silos and all we will have is the Minuteman III.
But the ace in the hole, all this comes down to, is the D-5. I think
most people, when they look at this, find out that if you can take a
boat and hide it somewhere and just sit it somewhere, fine. But I still
recall, when Les Aspin was the chairman of the committee, bringing in
some admirals and generals from the old Soviet Union, as it was then
constituted, and talked about how difficult it was to stay up with the
modernization of the United States. And the key to this whole thing is
modernization. C-4 has been a reliable missile, but it is the D-5 that
now gives us the ace in the hole.
It would seem to me that now we have the opportunity to finish out
all 14 boats, get them up to this very, very accurate missile, a
missile with more range, a missile that can do the job that gives us
that deciding edge that we finally won with the Soviet Union years ago.
It would be very foolish, in my humble opinion, to do away with it. It
also puts our negotiators in a very bad position when we have Congress
micromanaging what they are going to do and what type of armament they
would use.
I have great respect for my friend from Minnesota, but in my humble
opinion, it would be a smart thing to defeat this amendment and go
ahead with the production of the D-5.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], cosponsor of the amendment.
(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Ramstad amendment
to terminate further production of the Trident D-5 submarine launched
ballistic missile. As we continue our efforts here to balance the
budget and reduce the Federal debt, each and every Government program,
including defense, must be scrutinized for potential savings. The
further production of the Trident D-5 missile is one such program.
We already have over 350 Trident D-5's in service. At a cost of over
$50 million each, we simply cannot afford to continue increasing the
size of this missile force, nor do we need to, as our missile
capability is more than adequate. By ending production of this missile,
we will save taxpayers $5.7 billion over the next 10 years, without
sacrificing our national security.
We must all strongly support the need for a strong national defense.
But, at the same time, we cannot continue to fund programs that
excessively spend scarce resources.
{time} 1200
Mr. Chairman, let me read from this letter from Taxpayers for Common
Sense:
As the United States moves to a balanced budget, it is
unacceptable for taxpayers to finance an outdated missile
program originally designed to counter Cold War threats. With
350 D-5 missiles already in service, the U.S. Navy is well-
equipped, making further D-5 purchases unnecessary. Only a
select few nations possess SLBM capabilities. The United
States already leads the world in this area, with 4 other
nations, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, all
trailing in the distance. To the extent that the SLBM remains
a viable strategic weapon in the redefined global arena, the
United States possesses an adequate deterrent capability.
Let us save the taxpayer $5.7 billion. Please vote for this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from Jill Lancelot
from Taxpayers for Common Sense:
Taxpayers for Common $ense,
June 19, 1997.
Support Luther-Ramstad Amendment to DOD Bill: Cut D-5 Missile--Save
$5.7 Billion
Dear Representatives Luther and Ramstad: Taxpayers for
Common $ense is pleased to support the Luther-Ramstad
amendment to the FY98 Defense Authorization Bill to end
further procurement of the D-5 submarine-launched ballistic
missile (SLBM) and deactivate eight Trident submarines
currently equipped with an older missile system. This
amendment would both eliminate future purchases of a weapon
costing $50 million per missile and cancel the backfitting of
submarines with older missile systems, leading to ultimate
savings of $5.7 billion.
As the United States moves to a balanced budget, it is
unacceptable for taxpayers to finance an outdated missile
program originally designed to counter Cold War threats. With
350D-5 missiles currently in service, the U.S. Navy is more
than well-equipped, making further D-5 purchases unnecessary.
Only a select few nations possess SLBM capabilities. The U.S.
already leads the world in this area, with four other
nations, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, all
trailing in the distance. To the extent that the SLBM still
remains a viable strategic weapon in the redefined global
arena, the U.S. possesses an adequate deterrent capability.
To ensure that we achieve the goal of a balanced budget,
Congress must make difficult decisions regarding each and
every dollar. Your amendment represents a sensible balance
between sound defense policy and sound budget policy.
Sincerely,
Jill Lancelot,
Legislative Director.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond
briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota cited a taxpayer group and
their decision, their unilateral decision to disarm approximately one-
third of America's most important leg of the strategic triad on the
basis that they think it is a good deal and it makes sense. I might
remind my colleagues that of all of the hundreds of arms control
experts and military experts and deterrent experts that we rely on,
including our scientists and our policy-makers, whether they are
liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, in the administration or
in the Congress, none of those people have been cited as justifying or
backing up this unilateral decision to jump start or prejump the
negotiators by sacrificing one-third of our underwater deterrent. No
experts have been cited. It just looks like it is a good deal for a
taxpayers group.
I would suggest that the reason this defense budget today is $140
billion less than the defense budget in 1985 is because we were strong,
and we built lots of Tridents and we put them in the water. That
brought the Russians to the negotiating table. The Russians were never
brought to the negotiating table by us making unilateral concessions.
They were brought to the negotiating table by us being strong and then
doing one for one, under Ronald Reagan and George Bush and now under
Bill Clinton. That means they give a chip, we give a chip. We do not
unilaterally pull the rug out from under our negotiators by giving up
big pieces of our triad.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, in fact I think Secretary Longuemare makes a
good point in support of what the gentleman just said:
Delaying the backfit of 4 SSBNs with D-5 missiles sends the
wrong message to Russia. It removes Russia's incentive to
ratify START II in a timely manner and begin START III
negotiations as agreed in Helsinki.
I have to agree. I think this would send the wrong message. If we are
going to bring down the strategic forces, we want to bring them down on
both sides.
I also would take some umbrage about the status of the Russian Navy.
As the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and someone who has served 19 years on defense
appropriations, this is one area in the submarine area where the
Russians are still making significant investments. I would not
characterize their submarine capabilities as defective or weak. They
have very capable submarines, particularly in the attack area.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, in the past Members of Congress were
oftentimes reluctant to propose decreases in defense spending. Those
who had the temerity to suggest that we cut the spending that we do for
the military or in areas of weaponry could pretty much expect to see a
30-second ad attacking their courage, their character, and their
patriotism.
[[Page H4106]]
Things are changing here in Washington. This is a new Congress and it
is a new era. No longer do we have programs that are immune from
scrutiny. No longer do we not look at how we spend taxpayers' dollars.
Every dollar spent must be justified.
I join the gentleman from Minnesota in supporting their proposal to
strip the unnecessary and ultimately wasteful proposal within this
Department of Defense budget to continue production of Trident D-5
missiles, and in doing so, to save the American taxpayer $5.7 billion.
Thomas Jefferson said many, many, many years ago:
Sound principles will not justify our taxing the industry
of our fellow citizen to accumulate treasure for wars to
happen we know not when and which might not ever happen but
from the temptation offered by that treasure.
I think that is still true today. With this amendment, we are not
hurting our capability to wage war in the future should that become
necessary. Even if we choose to retire our aging vessels, we are left
with 10 modern submarines equipped with 240 D-5 missiles. More
appropriately we have the appropriate number left behind for testing
and replacement and we will save the public $5.7 billion.
This DOD proposal is a poor use of resources. By eliminating the
backfitting of the C-4 subs, we will stop what is essentially a plan to
put old wine in new bottles. The C-4 subs are too old to have a lot of
service life left in them and they are likely to be eliminated as has
been suggested by START II. But even if we keep the C-4's, a 1992 DOD
study said that the current C-4 missiles would last until 2015. This
proposal in no way will do what others have suggested, that we are
stripping some of our submarines of arms. The internal documents of the
Department of Defense suggest that that is just not true.
I support this cut. I hope others will as well. I think they should
stand up for the principle here and feel secure in their patriotism
because Calvin Coolidge once said, ``Patriotism is easy to understand
in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your
country.''
This amendment is good for our country.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks], and others, in opposing the amendment. I know
the amendment is genuinely offered. I was an opponent of the D-5
missile at the beginning of the program because frankly I felt the
original missile was adequate. The reality, however, is that the
argument that the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] makes about a
unified system without the complexities and costs of supporting two
missiles in the same operation really has to win the day here. There
was a time when I thought we could have done without the D-5 missile.
But now as we have moved to a point where it is the dominant system out
there and we need to make sure we complete that work here today because
of the effect overall on the cost of maintenance, supply, of training,
it adds a complication to a smaller Navy that frankly is bothersome and
frankly is something that we cannot afford to do.
I would join my colleagues in opposing the amendment.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased to speak on behalf
of this amendment because it represents a cause that I have taken up in
the past. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] for bringing it back to the
floor yet again.
Mr. Chairman, the issue here is simple. We no longer need the Trident
D-5 missile to defend our country. This missile was designed
specifically to counter the threat of the Soviet Union, a threat which
no longer exists. Under this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the United States
will retain its current inventory of Trident D-5 missiles and
submarines. All this amendment will do is stop further production of
this costly missile, saving Americans $342 million next year and saving
over 10 years $5.7 billion.
Mr. Chairman, we should be reducing our nuclear stockpile, not
building it up. Stopping production of the Trident will send a clear
message that the United States is truly committed to a nuclear
nonproliferation policy.
Mr. Chairman, let us not fool ourselves. Production of the Trident
missile is the equivalent of flushing $5.7 billion down the toilet over
the next 10 years when we should actually be funding programs that we
truly need, such as education, job training, health care, and
environmental protection.
The cold war is history, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to join
me in closing this chapter of the history book by supporting the
Luther-Ramstad amendment.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Luther-Ramstad
amendment. We can safely reduce our fleet of Trident submarines to 10
and that will make us save $344 million. I would say that nuclear
weapons are becoming obsolete, but that is not important. What is
important is what the experts say. This last December, 60 generals and
admirals, including Gen. Lee Butler, who was the former Commander of
the U.S. Strategic Air Command, called for the eventual elimination of
nuclear weapons.
General Butler's statement reads in part: ``With the end of the cold
war, these weapons are of sharply reduced utility, and there is much to
be gained by substantially reducing their numbers.'' He went on to say,
``We should explore the feasibility of their ultimate complete
elimination.''
Obviously, we should not be putting in new nuclear weapons. What do
the American people say? In an April poll, 77 percent of those
questioned favored the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 3\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all express my thanks to
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman of the
committee; the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking
member; and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their
consideration. Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Ramstad] and all of the other speakers who spoke so eloquently on
behalf of this amendment.
Before we move to a vote on this issue, I would like to leave just a
couple of thoughts with the Members of the House. First of all, please
keep in mind that unlike the B-2 bomber, the D-5 missile is not a dual-
use weapons system. There is no conventional warfare role for the D-5.
Its sole utility is as a strategic nuclear weapon. If my colleagues are
interested in voting to cut a weapons system that will not affect our
ability to wage the conventional or regional wars that we must be
prepared for, this is the system.
Second, keep in mind our experience with the Minuteman III land-based
ICBM. Many of my colleagues will remember the plans in the 1980's to
replace the Minuteman with the MX. We decided to scrap those plans.
Today the Minuteman III serves as the backbone of our land-based leg of
the triad. The C-4 missiles we are retiring are much more modern
weapons than the Minuteman III's.
Under this amendment we will continue to have 18 Trident subs through
the year 2001 and we will not be down to 10 subs until 2005. Until that
date, the C-4 missile will continue to serve its important role in our
strategic defense just like the Minuteman III.
The opponents of this amendment have made the same arguments here on
the floor that have been made over the years, to run our defense budget
up to the level that it is at today and to run the debt of this country
up to the $5.3 trillion of debt that we have today.
I urge Members of the House to reject that approach today. A vote for
this amendment will save $5.7 billion of unnecessary spending. My
colleagues have made that commitment to their constituents to do away
with unnecessary spending.
[[Page H4107]]
{time} 1215
And we can use that money for other more important purposes or to
help balance the budget.
I thank my colleagues for their consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. The remaining time is 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Hunter] who has the right to close.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an example of snatching defeat from the
jaws of victory. We have an arms control process that is walking down
the line that has taken us to the point where we are waiting for the
Soviet Union to ratify the second arms agreement. We have got a
situation where we can get a quid pro quo; that means when we take down
a weapons system, the Soviet Union, now Russia, will take down a
weapons system, and I want to answer just a couple of things that the
proponents of this amendment made that are just not the case, a couple
of their arguments.
First, this does not save any money. According to the Navy it is $2.3
billion to upgrade the C-4 missile. If we are not going to have the D-
5, we are going to have to upgraded the C-4. That is $2.3 billion.
According to the Navy, if we add all the termination costs, we are
actually going to pay, the taxpayers will pay, 60 million more dollars
to maintain the old C-4 missile then to complete the project on the D-5
missile. So we do not save money for the taxpayers according to the
Navy. We spend an extra $60 million.
But second and most importantly, there have been no experts here that
have said that we should unilaterally eliminate this program without
getting anything from the Soviet Union. The assembled admirals and
generals who were quoted here simply said we should eventually do away
with nuclear weapons. Well, the best way to eventually do away with
nuclear weapons is to have something to negotiate with to get the
Soviets to and the Russians to walk down on their inventory.
This is giving up something unilaterally that means we will not get a
concession from Russia for it, we will not get an SS-18 removed, we
will not get one of their strategic boats removed, we will simply make
a unilateral concession.
So we get nothing for it economically, we get nothing for it in terms
of arms control; it is not an amendment of value, it is a dangerous
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman. He
has got this exactly right. This is one of those ironies. If we kill
the D-5, we are going to spend more on the existing missile which is
less capable. It is less capable. And then we got 2 systems, we are
going to have the duplication in repair, spare parts and everything
else.
So let us stay with the program. At some point in the future, as my
colleagues know, we may get down to 14, but that is going to be when we
have agreed to it, when there is a negotiated agreement between the 2
sides.
To do it unilaterally I think would be a very serious mistake, and I
urge a no vote on the Luther Ramstad amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for his
very articulate statement.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a no vote
on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Under section 2(c) of the rule, the gentleman does have
that right and is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to both
sides of this debate, and I would like to indicate to my colleagues
that I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
distinguished colleague.
Now let us have the discussion.
I would ask my colleagues:
``Would you authorize new construction on a base you're going to
close?''
The point I make here is that if we know where we are headed, we know
where we are going, the only issue is how do we get there most
efficiently, most effectively, and, in this limited dollar environment,
most economically.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we think boldly, not this
incremental cautious step that ends up costing the American taxpayers
billions and billions of dollars at a time when we do not need to spend
them.
Now, when my colleagues on this side of the aisle in support of the
amendment have indicated that it would save them $5.67 billion, Mr.
Chairman, that is only part of the savings.
My colleagues who oppose this amendment said: But we will have to
upgrade C-4 missiles.
Think boldly. I am going to give my colleagues a proposal that does
not require them to improve C-4 missiles.
Think boldly. I am going to give my colleagues a proposal that does
not require them to retrofit.
Think boldly. I am going to give my colleagues a proposal that does
not allow them to have to worry about two missiles.
We are sitting here debating about whether it is boats or missiles.
It is about warheads. The boats and the missiles are only the delivery
system. What we are looking at, at this point, are a large number of
boats with few warheads.
Think boldly. Few boats, greater number of warheads, saving the
American taxpayers not just $5.7 billion, but two to three times more
money at a time that we live in a limited dollar environment.
What is the proposal? Go now to 10 boats. The Navy could then with 10
boats meet essential requirements under START II today and the
anticipated requirements under START III framework tomorrow. We can do
both simultaneously.
Think boldly. Not from 16, 14, 13, 12; go to 10. My colleagues know
where they are headed. Save the money.
We have been talking about a 5-year budget agreement where we have to
scrutinize every dollar. Well, get out of this little cautious approach
that we have and save people money. By varying the number of missiles
outloaded per boat and the number of warheads uploaded per missile this
can be accomplished within the current 350-missile inventory.
This approach would save us, as I said, from expensive C-5 retrofit
for four to eight boats. That is not necessary, the multibillion-dollar
cost to buy 84 D-5 missiles planned through the year 2005, and the
operation and support costs associated with the above.
Do the math on that, Mr. Chairman; we have saved the American
taxpayer $10, $15 billion.
But move beyond the point that they are trying to make. We all know
that we are trying to go to a new world. We all know that we are moving
toward fewer and fewer nuclear weapons and greater capability.
My colleague from California says this is unilateral disarmament.
That is bizarre. What we are looking at, at this point, is the Navy
buying a fixed amount of missiles and then varying the boats.
Now, one does not have to be too smart to recognize that a boat costs
a hell of a lot of money, a lot more money than the missile. I say turn
it around, think rationally, vary the number of missiles, fix the
number of boats. Go quickly to 10. I know it is bold, but I want to
shake my colleagues up some. We have been talking about saving American
people money. This is not about unilateralism. Those are euphemisms and
hot-button words, but rational intelligent, thought says that we ought
to go someplace, save money.
With those thoughts I am in enthusiastic and overwhelming support to
the gentleman's amendment.
One last point. If there is any problem with the gentleman's
amendment, it is that he has thought further out than most people have
thought. He got here faster than anybody got here. This debate is a
preview of a debate that we are going to have next year and the year
after next. I compliment the gentleman for his over-the-horizon forward
thinking. He got there before everybody did. He put before this body
what needs to be discussed, and it needs to be discussed now, and the
earlier we start to think about it, the better off we will be.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to exercise the
authority to strike the last word.
[[Page H4108]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California for
5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this time to engage
with my colleague and with the other side, and I just want to go over
the points that have been made earlier and the points that he spoke to.
First, according to the Navy, and if we are going to save money, we
have got to put a pencil to the balance sheet and we have to try to
figure out whether extending the life of the C-4 is going to be cheaper
or more expensive than buying the rest of the D-5. If money, and I
would submit there is a lot more to this debate than just money, but if
money is the object, we have got to put a pencil to it and see if it
works. According to the Navy it does not work, and we end up spending
$60 million more extending the life of the C-4 missile then completing
the program on D-5. Now that is the fact.
Second, let me just say to my friend, as my colleagues know, this is
a long debate that we have been in; he and I have debated arms control
for 16 years now, and I can recall the early days of the 1980's when
Ronald Reagan was building a stronger strategic deterrent. My friend
answered ``No, that is not the way to go, and you are driving the
Russians away from the bargaining table,'' and when the Russians were
lining our European allies' borders with SS-20 missiles and Ronald
Reagan said we are going to put in ground-launched cruise missiles and
Pershings to meet them, and there was enormous debate in Europe in the
mid 1980's, there were many people on this side of the ocean, many
pundits, many journalists, many Members of Congress who said, ``You are
driving the Russians away from the negotiating table,'' but by being
strong and by establishing a reinforced strategic triad, and that
included our land based systems, going with the B-1 bomber on our air
breathing systems and putting more capability into our undersea systems
we brought the Russians to the negotiating table, and one day the phone
rang and all of a sudden the Russians wanted to talk, and we started
down this trail of arms negotiations.
But the genius of our side in the arms negotiations and reductions
has been that we have gotten a quid pro quo for everything we have
given up, we have gotten something in return. The President of the
United States said ``Trust but verify.'' We do not unilaterally make
concessions. That has worked, Mr. Chairman. We are now walking the
Russians down on arms control.
So the gentleman's ascertation that this is a brilliant thing for
Congress to unilaterally start giving up pieces of the strategic triad
in anticipation of a third arms control agreement when the second arms
control agreement has not even been ratified by the Russian Duma does
not make any sense in that it is totally inconsistent with our history.
And I think my friend wants to talk, and I am going to yield to him.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. DELLUMS. One very quick response to the gentleman is: The logic.
Do we build up to build down. To build up we are going to spend
billions of dollars and we know we are ultimately going to build down.
That is the answer to the gentleman's point, that is the central part
of this debate, and that is what needs to be developed. If we accept
the logic of spending money going up so we negotiate to go down, the
gentleman may have a point.
I do not see the point in that, I do not see the wisdom, and I
certainly do not see the economics.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I will explain what I think is the wisdom
there.
We are going to a smaller and smaller strategic triad. Both sides
have agreed that part of the triad that remains is going to be as
modern and effective and as reliable as possible.
Now our experts have determined that the most reliable part of the
strategic triad is the undersea part; it is certainly the most
invulnerable part, and that the D-5 missile is an important component
of that part of the strategic triad. It is the most modern, the most
accurate, the most effective, the most reliable.
So when we are going to build down and we are going to get down to a
smaller number of units, carrying that very important American
deterrent, we want to have the best.
Now the Russians, I would offer to my friend, have done exactly the
same thing. They have not thrown away their modern stuff and left their
old stuff. They have kept the most modern part of their own strategic
triad in place.
It is our right under the arms control agreement to stay strong in
that respect. I think we owe it to the American people to stay strong
in that respect.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. DELLUMS. To establish some reality to people who are listening to
this debate, we already have 350 of these missiles. The debate is
whether we buy 84 additional ones. I am saying that is the build up to
build down.
In my proposal we can stay within the anticipated requirements of
START II, of the START II negotiation, and what we anticipate in START
III, we can do that within the current inventory of 350. Why buy 84
more because we know we are going to come down again?
That logic escapes me; the gentleman cannot make me understand that.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
{time} 1230
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 169, it is
now in order to consider amendment No. 22 in part 2 of House Report
105-137.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of title XXXIV (page 504, after line 3), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 3404. TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES
NUMBERED 1 AND 3.
(a) Transfer Required.--Chapter 641 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 7439. CERTAIN OIL SHALE RESERVES: TRANSFER OF
JURISDICTION AND PETROLEUM EXPLORATION,
DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION
``(a) Transfer Required.--(1) Upon the enactment of this
section, the Secretary of Energy shall transfer to the
Secretary of the Interior administrative jurisdiction over
all public domain lands included within Oil Shale Reserve
Numbered 1 and those public domain lands included within the
undeveloped tract of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3.
``(2) Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary of Energy shall
transfer to the Secretary of the Interior administrative
jurisdiction over those public domain lands included within
the developed tract of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3, which
consists of approximately 6,000 acres and 24 natural gas
wells, together with pipelines and associated facilities.
``(3) Notwithstanding the transfer of jurisdiction, the
Secretary of Energy shall continue to be responsible for all
environmental restoration, waste management, and
environmental compliance activities that are required under
Federal and State laws with respect to conditions existing on
the lands at the time of the transfer.
``(4) Upon the transfer to the Secretary of the Interior of
jurisdiction over public domain lands under this subsection,
the other provisions of this chapter shall cease to apply
with respect to the transferred lands.
``(b) Authority to Lease.--(1) Beginning on the date of the
enactment of this section, or as soon thereafter as
practicable, the Secretary of the Interior shall enter into
leases with one or more private entities for the purpose of
exploration for, and development and production of, petroleum
(other than in the form of oil shale) located on or in public
domain lands in Oil Shale Reserves Numbered 1 and 3
(including the developed tract of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered
3). Any such lease shall be made in accordance with the
requirements of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C 181 et
seq.) regarding the lease of oil
[[Page H4109]]
and gas lands and shall be subject to valid existing rights.
``(2) Notwithstanding the delayed transfer of the developed
tract of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3 under subsection
(a)(2), the Secretary of the Interior shall enter into a
lease under paragraph (1) with respect to the developed tract
before the end of the one-year period beginning on the date
of the enactment of this section.
``(c) Management.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall
manage the lands transferred under subsection (a) in
accordance with the Federal and Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and other laws
applicable to the public lands.
``(d) Transfer of Existing Equipment.--The lease of lands
by the Secretary of the Interior under this section may
include the transfer, at fair market value, of any well,
gathering line, or related equipment owned by the United
States on the lands transferred under subsection (a) and
suitable for use in the exploration, development, or
production of petroleum on the lands.
``(e) Cost Minimization.--The cost of any environmental
assessment required pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection
with a proposed lease under this section shall be paid out of
unobligated amounts available for administrative expenses of
the Bureau of Land Management.
``(f) Distribution of Receipts.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, all moneys received from a lease under this
section (including sales, bonuses, royalties (including
interest charges collected under the Federal Oil and Gas
Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), and
rentals) shall be paid and distributed under section 35 of
the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191) in the same manner as
moneys derived from other oil and gas leases involving public
domain lands other than naval petroleum reserves.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The tale of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``7439. Certain oil shale reserves: transfer of jurisdiction and
petroleum exploration, development, and production.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Hefley] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have an amendment that would transfer the administrative
jurisdiction over oil shale reserves 1 and 3 from the Department of
Energy to the Bureau of Land Management at the Department of the
Interior. It would direct the leasing of oil and gas, natural gas
rights on two reserves and the outright sale of some existing
equipment.
The bill is based upon discussions between the two departments. It
embodies four points of agreement between the two agencies. It reflects
recommendations of an Energy Department report entitled ``Report and
Recommendations on Management and Disposition of Naval Petroleum Oil
Shale Reserves.'' This report was a request from the Subcommittee on
Military Readiness of the Committee on National Security last year.
The Department of Energy would be responsible for 50 acres of cleanup
at the NOSR site 3. The amendment specifies that any environmental
assessment costs for the leasing program will be funded out of
unobligated administrative funds at the Bureau of Land Management. The
amendment will allow a continuing revenue stream to the United States
Transfer and leasing would, at worst, result in no loss to the Treasury
and has the potential to rake in as much as $126 million in Federal
revenues over the next 10 years. Even the CBO's conservative estimates
give this amendment a positive score of $10 million.
The State of Colorado has done a study which appears to show that the
Federal share of royalty revenues through the first 5 years of the
leasing program could total up to $53.1 million. Later revenues could
run that total to $126.6 million.
Leasing under my amendment would be conducted under the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920. Precedent has been set for a 50-50 royalty split
under that act. This split was developed through negotiations on
leasing of oil on National Petroleum Reserve No. 4 in Alaska in the
1970's, and it took 40 years to develop this agreement. The split is
also endorsed by the Energy Department.
The Committee on Resources apparently has no problem with inclusion
in the defense authorization, as long as the 50-50 split is maintained.
In conclusion, this is an issue that has been around for at least 8
years that I have been involved in it. Senator Campbell first
introduced it over here, and I got a bill in the past two Congresses.
Two years ago I asked that it be included in the defense mark. It was
believed more study was needed and ordered the Energy Department to
study the issue. This spring the Energy Department delivered this
report which I showed earlier, and its findings mirrored this
amendment. I am trying to do in this amendment what the Energy
Department in their study and the Department of the Interior have
suggested that we do.
Despite these findings, this proposal has not been seriously
considered, and despite the fact its central premise is endorsed by the
very report the subcommittee commissioned. The amendment offers us the
opportunity to benefit the State, private industry, and the Federal
Treasury, and that is a rare opportunity. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I
ask for the support of the body.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment and wish
that I had more than 5 minutes in order to explain the background and
the reason why.
I am not in disagreement with the gentleman's amendment insofar as it
calls for the leasing of the naval oil shale petroleum reserves. I
agree with him that this is the better disposition of these properties
in terms of the benefit to the taxpayers of the United States, whose
resource or asset this is.
These properties were set aside by the Federal Government after the
turn of the century when the Navy turned from coal-fired to oil-fired
vessels. They are no longer recorded as necessary to national security
purposes, and the property, therefore, can appropriately be disposed
of. But it ought to be disposed of in a way that the profit or the
income derived therefrom redound to the benefit of all of the people
and all of the States of the United States.
The problem that I have with the gentleman's amendment is that, by
transferring the properties from the Department of Energy to the
Department of the Interior and directing their leasing under the
Mineral Leasing Act, it essentially has the practical effect of saying
that 50 percent of all of the revenues generated from the leasing will
redound to the State of Colorado, and only 50 percent, instead of 100
percent, will redound to the benefit of all of the other States of the
Union.
We are dealing here with property which has always been Federal
property. It was Federal when Utah, Colorado, and California entered
the Union; it has been Federal through all of the years since. Now that
it is not necessary for national security purposes and should be
disposed of, it should be disposed of in a way that redounds best to
the interest of all of the States of the Union and its taxpayers.
While I have no disagreement with any equitable claims that Colorado
may mount as to having added value that generates additional revenue
and there being recompense for it, nor would I have any objection,
since we are dealing with a resource that we are using only for
purposes of generating revenue, to Colorado receiving income in lieu of
taxes as they would on private property that was being leased. But I do
not see the reason, nor the equity, of the taxpayers of America, whose
asset this is, receiving only 50 percent of the benefit.
There is a further problem with the amendment in that it deals only
with the Naval Oil Shale Petroleum Reserves 1 and 3 in Colorado. It
does not deal with the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 2 in California, nor
with the naval petroleum reserves in Utah, nor Naval Oil Shale Reserve
No. 2 in, I believe, Wyoming. This is a defect in the bill in the
context of how to work out a total solution of the proper and most
sound disposition of these resources.
It is for those reasons that I would ask for a no vote on the
gentleman's amendment, and hope that we will be able to work with the
Senate, which has a different provision in their bill, in order to see
that an equitable and comprehensive disposition is made of these
properties.
[[Page H4110]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and I agree on most aspects
of this. He is just scared to death that Colorado might get something
that it does not deserve.
I make no argument when the State of Virginia gets help cleaning up
the Chesapeake Bay, which we did not pollute, but I think it is
important that we clean it up. But he seems to be afraid that we are
going to get something in the West that we should not have.
This amendment mirrors the recommendations of a report delivered to
the Subcommittee on Military Readiness in March. That report
recommended the transfer and leasing of all three Navy oil shale
reserves, the two involved in this amendment and one in Utah. The
Energy Department endorsed transfer and leasing because it says in the
report BLM management would yield a wide variety of economic and
noneconomic benefits to the Nation. The amendment also retains the
split, as we have already talked about.
Let me explain why this is a good thing. First, it is the law. The
Mineral Leasing Act provides an exemption for a revenue split on
strategic properties, but the only time the subject has arisen under
the Department of Energy involved NPR No. 4 in Alaska in the 1970's.
After lawsuits and much negotiations, the two sides settled on the 50-
50 split.
Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time I have remaining to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is recognized
for 10 seconds.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, what the good gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Hefley] has said is absolutely correct. This is the recommendation of
the Department of Energy and I urge my colleagues to support it. It
makes budgetary sense, and again, it follows the recommendations of the
Department of Energy.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
No. 1, let me say that these properties were exempted at all times up
to the present time from the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act.
They have always been Federal properties, Federal assets, and I think
the disposition of them should redound to the benefit of all of the
people of the United States. This is not a Virginia issue versus
Colorado; this is 49 States versus Colorado in terms of a fair
disposition of the properties.
Let me conclude by saying that, while, yes, the Department of Energy
recommends for these properties what the gentleman from Colorado is
suggesting, it is with some significance that the Secretary of Energy,
the new Secretary of Energy is the former mayor of the city of Denver,
which the last time I checked, was in Colorado.
What I am suggesting is a more equitable disposition that is in
keeping with the findings of the General Accounting Office, and I would
again ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment. There are
many reasons, but three are particularly important:
First, because it cuts red tape. DOE isn't a land-management agency,
and the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) already
does most of the management of these lands, under an agreement with
DOE. Our amendment would simply make BLM's role permanent, and end
duplication.
Second, because it's good for multiple-use management: Oil shale
isn't a realistic energy source now, but some of these lands also have
potential for natural gas. Under our amendment, BLM would make these
areas available for leasing, under the same laws that govern leasing of
other lands BLM manages. At the same time, other uses (like grazing,
hunting, and fishing) would continue under experienced BLM management.
And, third, because it's good for the environment: Part of these
lands have high environmental values, including many rare plants and
animals. Under our amendment, BLM, through its planning process, will
provide for their continued protection and will consider whether some
of these lands should be set aside as wilderness or given other special
protected designation.
Mr. Chairman, transferring these lands to BLM makes sense, and has
been recommended by the administration. I urge the House to follow that
recommendation and to approve this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 169, it is
now in order to consider amendment No. 41 in part 2 of House Report
105-137.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania:
At the end of title XII (page 379, after line 19), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 1205. PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATIONS CONCERNING DETARGETING
OF RUSSIAN INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES.
(a) Required Certifications.--Not later than January 1,
1998, the President shall submit to Congress a report
containing a certification by the President of each of the
following:
(1) Whether it is possible for the United States to verify
by technical means that a Russian ICBM is or is not targeted
at a site in the United States.
(2) The length of time it would take for a Russian ICBM
formerly, but no longer, targeted at a site in the United
States to be retargeted at a site in the United States.
(3) Whether a Russian ICBM that was formerly, but is no
longer, targeted at a site in the United States would be
automatically retargeted at a site in the United States in
the event of an accidental launch of such missile.
(b) Russian ICBMs Defined.--For purposes of subsection (a),
the term ``Russian ICBM'' means an intercontinental ballistic
missile of the Russian Federation.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Weldon] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this
amendment, which may seem unimportant to some, but which is perhaps in
my opinion one of the most important statements that this body will
make in this bill this year.
Mr. Chairman, as all of us know, the funding level for what our
military needs are is largely determined by the threat that is
perceived by the American people and by Members of Congress. So if the
American people perceive that there is no threat, then in fact they
want us to cut defense spending. If they in fact think there is an
emerging threat, then they respond and say increase defense spending.
Now, our colleagues are going around saying well, the American people
are satisfied; we are spending too much on defense.
Mr. Chairman, my question is, why would they think that? Well, Mr.
Chairman, my amendment gets right to the heart of why they think that,
because this President, over the last 5 years, has used the bully
pulpit to drive home a message that I seriously question, and let me
get at the heart of my amendment.
On 130 occasions, actually it is 130 and counting, this President has
made the statement; so it is not just once, three times in this pulpit,
at universities across the country, in 36 of our States, to women's
groups, to environmental groups, on college campuses, he has said, and
I quote: There are no longer Russian missiles pointed at America's
children.
Now, he has made this statement not one time, 130 times; and his
chief advisers in the security operation and the
[[Page H4111]]
Vice President have made that contention 22 more times in public
speeches. So the President is clearly trying to get the point across to
America, do not worry; as the Commander in Chief, I certify to you that
there are no Russian missiles pointed at America's children.
Mr. Chairman, in testimony before my subcommittee, Bruce Blair, a
former targeting officer, said that one can retarget a Russian missile
in 10 seconds. Ed Bradley on CBS News, ``60 Minutes'' interviewed
General Sergev who in fact headed up strategic command and space for
Russia and who now is the defense minister.
{time} 1245
He has said there is no way to verify whether or not they are
targeting their missiles at our children, just like they cannot verify
ours. But yet the President continues to make this statement, that
there are no missiles pointed at our children, so all of our
constituents back home in our districts think, well, if the Commander
in Chief said they are no longer pointing their missiles at us, that
must be true.
My amendment is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It requires the President
to certify to the Congress that in fact there are no missiles pointed
at America; that in fact we have a way of verifying that, and also what
the time would be to retarget a missile, even if we did know.
Why is this so important? Because when the top leaders of this
country on 152 occasions on every major media network in every major
media outlet tell the stories in our cities and towns that we no longer
have a threat, they respond. They criticize us when we say that we need
to deal with that threat.
This amendment is very simple. It says, Mr. President, certify what
you are saying. You said from this pulpit on three occasions that you
are confident there are no missiles pointed at America's kids. This
amendment says, certify that, put that in writing, and verify that for
this Congress. If you cannot do that, Mr. President, you had better
stop misinforming the American people.
Nothing is more fundamental to this debate, because that speech,
given 130 times by the President, 22 times by the Vice President, by
the heads of security for this administration, has misled the American
people. The President has a chance to rectify it. All he has to do is
give us an official certification that in fact he can certify that
there are no Russian missiles pointed at our children.
General Sergeyev from Russia says you cannot do that. Bruce Blair
says you cannot do that. General Shalikashvili says you cannot do that.
Secretary Perry told us you cannot do that. But yet the President has
said it 130 times.
What we are saying in effect, Mr. Chairman, is, put up or shut up. If
you cannot verify the statement that you are making to the American
people about one of the most severe threats facing this country, then
do not mislead the American people, because from the bully pulpit that
drives the debate in this country, to have the American people believe
that they no longer have to worry, that drives the debate on missile
defense, it drives the debate on the threat, and it drives the debate
on the systems that we want to fund.
I ask my colleagues to vote for this very simple amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], I appreciate
the gentleman's effort to offer this amendment. I share the gentleman's
concern about the issue of targeting. I rise in opposition not to the
substance of what my colleague is trying to do, but rather, on
technical grounds.
My staff and I have attempted to work with the gentleman's staff in
trying to achieve some accommodation on this matter on technical
grounds. We would believe that a report, rather than certification, is
much more in the realm of reality. Let me tell the gentleman what I am
thinking and then he can respond.
I heard the gentleman's speech, but at some point this gets drafted
into legislative language. Legislative language is very important. The
gentleman mentioned, required certification. The President must
certify. Now, what is the President's first certification, whether it
is possible for the United States to verify by technical means that a
Russian ICBM is or is not targeted at a site in the United States?
We can try to verify that it is possible or that it is not possible,
but trying to verify whether it is possible, I would suggest that that
is language and a technical change, that it is impossible to verify
whether. You either certify that something is or it is not, but whether
it is, I think is inappropriate language. I think that is technically
flawed.
Second, how do we verify the length of time it would take for an
ICBM, a Russian ICBM, formerly but no longer targeted at a site in the
United States, to be retargeted at a site in the United States? How in
the real world do you really certify that?
What I am saying is, I agree with the gentleman with respect to the
substance of what he is trying to do. I have a technical concern that
he raises a hurdle beyond which no one, that no one can jump.
In the real world, I respect the gentleman's sense of fairness and
fair play. We do not want to set a hurdle that no one can cross and
then say, gee, you cannot jump the hurdle. There is something
inappropriate about that. We want to establish a hurdle that makes
sense with the Government. We are trying to do something reasonable. I
would think if we could move away from certification to report, that
makes sense.
I would like to work with the gentleman, if this amendment goes
forward, in the context of the conference with the other body to try to
resolve these matters.
There is one other thing that I would like to see in the legislation.
Additional efforts to achieve verifiability, efforts to achieve
confidence in these matters, if we could put that in, it seems to me
that would make sense. I am just raising a technical question, not a
substantive issue.
I think we are talking about trying to verify some things we cannot
verify. We ought to, in the legislative process, try to achieve things
that are achievable, rather than to assert matters that we want to try
to achieve that in the real world we know we cannot. I know the
gentleman is not trying to play games in that regard. That is why I am
prepared to give and take on that. How does he think about those things
and what is his response?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
and my friend for raising these issues. I pledge to work with him
through the conference process.
I would not raise this issue if the President had made this statement
only one or two times, and I have the actual citation for every time he
has made the statement. Mr. Chairman, the President has raised this
issue specifically 130 times. The Vice President and his staff have
raised it 22 times.
There is a very deliberate effort on the part of the administration
to make this same statement, which the gentleman, I think, agrees with
me on, we cannot verify it, but yet the President continues to make
this statement. And that drives the mood and the feeling of my
constituents, because they think, well, if the Commander in Chief says
this, it must be true.
I understand the gentleman's concern with the wording, and I would
say he is probably correct, no wording will probably satisfy this,
because in the end he knows what the President is going to come back
and say. We asked DOD to do a report last year on this same issue. They
came back and said to us in a report, you cannot verify it.
My point is, even though DOD in a report certified that to us, the
President, between last year's bill and this year, has made that
statement time and time again across the country. I
[[Page H4112]]
have no other recourse. I would like to go to the President and say,
Mr. President, please stop saying this, not just because it is not
true, but you send the wrong message.
As the gentleman knows, I am not an alarmist. I have spent a lot of
time working with Russia. But I would like to be frank and candid and
open and honest with them. I will confront them on this issue, but I
think when the President makes this statement, in the context of the
number of times he has made it since, it is wrong, but I will pledge to
work with the gentleman through the conference process.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's candor.
Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:
One Hundred Thirty And Counting: President Clinton Assures Us No
Nuclear Missile Threat Exists
President Clinton has assured the American people on at
least 130 separate occasions that Russian nuclear missiles no
longer threaten the United States. On dozens of those
occasions--including his October 6, 1996 debate with Senator
Bob Dole--he said that no nuclear missiles of any kind
threaten America. The following quotes are excerpted from his
speeches, interviews, and radio addresses, as downloaded from
the ``White House Virtual Library'' on the World Wide Web and
other electronic databases.
1. ``I was proud to go to Russia and sign an agreement
where we agreed that for the first time in decades we would
no longer even point our missiles at each other.''--President
Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of Atlanta, May 3, 1994.
2. ``* * * there are no nuclear missiles pointed at us from
the Soviet Union [sic], but there are other countries trying
to develop nuclear programs.''--President Clinton, Remarks at
the Small Business Person of the Year Announcement, Old
Executive Office Building, May 4, 1994.
3. ``And now, for the first time, our nuclear missiles are
no longer targeted at Russia, nor theirs ours [sic].''--
President Clinton, Remarks on CNN Telecast, ``A Global Forum
with President Clinton,'' May 4, 1994.
4. ``* * * the nuclear arsenal in Russia is no longer
pointed at the United States, nor are our missiles pointed at
them.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the People of Warwick,
Rhode Island, May 9, 1994.
5. ``* * * the United States and Russia at last no longer
aim their nuclear weapons at each other.''--President
Clinton, Speech at the U.S. Naval Academy Graduation
Ceremony, May 25, 1994.
6. ``* * * for the first time since the dawn of the atomic
age, the United States and Russia no longer have nuclear
missiles pointed at each other.''--President Clinton, Remarks
at Swearing-In Ceremony for the President's Council on
Physical Fitness and Sports, Rose Garden, May 31, 1994.
7. ``We are reducing nuclear stockpiles, and America and
Russia no longer aim their nuclear missiles at each
other.''--President Clinton, Address to the National
Assembly, Paris, France, June 7, 1994.
8. ``For the first time since World War II * * * Russian
and American missiles no longer target each other's people.
Three of the four nuclear members of the former Soviet Union
have agreed to remove all nuclear weapons from their
soil.''--President Clinton, Address to the 49th Session of
the United Nations General Assembly, September 26, 1994.
9. ``Our missiles no longer target each other's people for
destruction; instead they are being dismantled.''--President
Clinton, Remarks at arrival ceremony for Russian President
Boris Yeltsin, South Lawn, the White House, September 27,
1994.
10. ``We've got Russian missiles that are no longer pointed
at the United States for the first time since World War
II.''--President Clinton, Radio interview with Eileen Ratner,
October 7, 1994.
11. ``* * * Russian President Boris Yeltsin came to further
the partnership between our two nations so well expressed by
the fact that now Russian and U.S. missiles are no longer
pointed at each other's people, and we are working to
reduce the nuclear threat even more.''--President Clinton,
Address to the Nation, The Oval Office, October 10, 1994.
12. ``. . . for the first time the missiles of Russia are
no longer pointed at the American people. . . .''--President
Clinton, Speech to the Citizens of the Bridgeport Area,
Stratford, Connecticut, October 15, 1994.
13. ``The United States and Russian missiles missiles are
no longer targeted at each other.''--President Clinton,
Saturday Radio Address, October 15, 1994.
14. ``Russian missiles are no longer pointed at the United
States.''--President Clinton, Speech to the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
October 17, 1994.
15. ``I know that this country is a safer and more secure
place because Russian missiles aren't pointing at us and
we're making peace in Haiti, the Middle East, Northern
Ireland.''--President Clinton, Interview with WLIB radio, New
York, October 18, 1994.
16. ``We also clearly are working to make the world a safer
and a more democratic and a freer place. For the first time
since the dawn of the nuclear age, Russian missiles are no
longer pointed at the United States.''--President Clinton,
Remarks to the Governors Leadership Conference on the Future
of the Economy, New York, October 19, 1994.
17. ``Is the fact that Russian missiles are not pointed at
your children for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age an abnormal thing? I think that's pretty
good.''--President Clinton, Remarks at dinner honoring
Kathleen Brown, San Francisco, October 22, 1994.
18. ``I wanted you to be safer. And that's why I'm so proud
of the fact that these little children are the first
generation of Americans since the dawn of nuclear power that
do not have Russian missiles pointing at them. I'm proud of
that.''--President Clinton, Remarks at the Washington State
Coordinated Campaign Rally, Seattle, October 23, 1994.
19. ``...we've had the success in no Russian missiles are
pointed at American children for the first time.''--President
Clinton, Interview, Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 24, 1994.
20. ``For the first time since nuclear weapons were
developed, no Russian missiles are pointed at the children of
Ohio and the United States this year.''--President Clinton,
Reception honoring Congressman Thomas Sawyer, Akron, Ohio,
October 24, 1994.
21. ``Russian missiles aren't pointed at Americans for the
first time since the beginning of the nuclear age.''--
President Clinton, Interview, KYW radio, Philadelphia, from
Pittsburgh, October 31, 1994.
22. ``For the first time since nuclear weapons came about,
there are no Russian missiles pointed at our people.''--
President Clinton, Interview, WDIV-TV, Detroit, October 31,
1994.
23. ``The Russian missiles aren't pointing at us for the
first time since we've had nuclear weapons.''--President
Clinton, Interview, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 31,
1994.
24. ``. . . we've increased trade and reduced the nuclear
threat-for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
no Russian missiles are pointing at your children or
grandchildren.''--President Clinton, speech to Senior
Citizens, Portuguese Social Club, Pawtucket, Rhode
Island, November 2, 1994.
25. ``Here's what the Contract [With America] says--now,
pay attention. The contract says, vote for the Republicans,
put us in charge in Washington, and here is what we will do.
We'll give everybody a tax cut, but mostly people in the
upper-income groups--they'll get 70 percent of it. We will
increase defense; we will bring back Star Wars; and we will
balance the budget. Well, how much does that cost? A trillion
dollars. How are we going to pay for it? We'll tell you after
the elections. (Laughter.) . . . We [in the administration]
have reduced the nuclear threat. For the first time since
nuclear weapons were developed, there are no missiles pointed
at the children of Iowa and the United States.''--President
Clinton, Remarks to the People of Des Moines, Iowa, November
3, 1994.
26. ``And for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear
age there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of
Iowa. This is a great country.''--President Clinton, Remarks
at Reception for Democratic Candidates, Des Moines, November
3, 1994.
27. ``Here's what they [the Republicans] promise . . .
we're going to increase defense and we're going to bring back
Star Wars. And then we're going to balance the budget.
(Laughter). And how much does that cost? . . . I want you to
think about this--we're also moving forward overseas. No
Russian missiles are pointed at the children of Minnesota and
the United States for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Duluth Campaign rally,
Duluth, Minnesota, November 4, 1994.
28. ``I think it makes a difference that for the first time
since the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian
nuclear missiles pointed at these children here.''--President
Clinton, ``Rally for Victory,'' Oakland, California, November
5, 1994.
29. ``And we're a lot closer toward having a safer, more
democratic, more free world. Russian missiles aren't pointing
at us . . .''--President Clinton, Interview with Larry King,
CNN, November 6, 1994.
30. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles pointed at these
children for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age
. . .''--President Clinton, Speech at the Delaware Democrat
Rally, Wilmington, Delaware, November 7, 1994.
31. ``So I think it matters that for the first time since
the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles
pointed at these children here.''--President Clinton, Speech
at ``Get Out the Vote'' rally, Flint, Michigan, November 7,
1994.
32. ``. . . for the first time since the drawn of the
nuclear age there are no Russian missiles pointed at the
people of the United States.''--President Clinton, Speech on
the 75th anniversary of the Edmund J. Walsh School of Foreign
Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. November 10,
1994.
33. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
not Russian missiles are pointed at Americans.''--President
Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, Elmendorf AFB,
Anchorage, Alaska, November 12, 1994.
34. ``. . . getting the nuclear agreement between Russia
and Ukraine which led to no Russian missiles pointed at the
United States for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks at Press
Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, November 15, 1994.
35. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
no Russian missiles are pointed at the children of the United
States.''--President Clinton, Remarks to
[[Page H4113]]
U.S.--Pacific Business Community Members and
Leaders. November 16, 1994.
36. ``. . . if you look at the fact that in Russia for the
first time since nuclear weapons came on the face of the
earth, there are no Russian missiles pointed at American
children, you'd have to say we're on the move.''--President
Clinton, Remarks to Military Personnel and Families at Hickam
Air Force Base, Honolulu, Hawaii, November 16, 1994.
37. ``This is the first Thanksgiving since the dawn of the
nuclear age when parents can tuck their children into bed at
night knowing that no Russian missiles are pointed at the
children of the United States.''--President Clinton, Radio
Address from Camp David, November 26, 1994.
38. ``This is the first State of the Union address ever
delivered since the beginning of the Cold War when not a
single Russian missile is pointed at the children of
America.''--President Clinton, State of the Union address,
January 24, 1995.
39. ``There are no Russian missiles pointed at America now
for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--
President Clinton, Interview with Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly
News, January 26, 1995.
40. ``As a result of an agreement President Yeltsin and I
reached, for the first time in a generation Russian missiles
are not pointed at our cities or our citizens. . . . [Per the
terms of START I] Both our countries are dismantling the
weapons as fast as we can. And thanks to a far-reaching
verification system, including on-site inspections which
began in Russia and the United States today, each of us knows
exactly what the other is doing.''--President Clinton,
Remarks to the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom Policy
Conference, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1995.
41. ``And for the first time since the dawn of the Nuclear
Age, there are no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of
the United States of America.''--President Clinton, Address
to the Faculty and Students of Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida, March 30, 1995.
42. ``And for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear
age, there are no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of
the United States today.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the
Florida State Legislature, Tallahassee, Florida, March 30,
1995.
43. ``I am proud of the fact that since I've been President
there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of the
United States for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks at the Dean B.
Ellis Library Dedication, Arkansas State University,
Jonesboro, Arkansas, April 3, 1995.
44. ``The second thing that we have to pay attention to is
the security of our people--our security from attack from
abroad, and our security from within. I'm proud of the fact
that since I have been president, for the first time since
the dawn of the nuclear age there are no Russian missiles
pointed at the children of the United States of America.''--
President Clinton, Remarks to the National Building and
Construction Trades Department Conference, Washington, D.C.,
April 5, 1995.
45. ``The American people are marching toward more security
because there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children
of our country for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the American
Society of Newspaper Editors, Dallas, Texas, April 7, 1995.
46.``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of the
United States of America.''--President Clinton, Remarks to
California Democratic Party, Sacramento, California, April
8, 1995.
47. ``. . . this is the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age when no Russian missiles are pointed at the
children of America. . . .''--President Clinton, Remarks at
Luncheon with the Jewish Federation, Beverly Hills,
California, April 9, 1995.
48. ``There are nuclear weapons--large numbers of them
now--being destroyed in Russia, weapons from Russian and the
states of the former Soviet Union that had them before. And
we are destroying weapons. For the first time, there are no
Russian nuclear missiles pointed at the United States.''--
President Clinton, Press Conference, East Room, The White
House, April 18, 1995.
49. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
there are no Russian missiles pointed at America's children.
And those nuclear weapons are being destroyed every day.''--
President Clinton, Address to the Iowa State Legislature,
State Capitol, Des Moines, April 25, 1995.
50. ``. . . no Russian missiles pointed at the people of
the United States for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks to Students at
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, April 25, 1995.
51. ``Oh, we knew so clearly when we had the Soviet Union,
the Cold War, and the massive nuclear threat. Today, no
Soviet Union, no Cold War, and for the first time since the
dawn of the Nuclear Age, no Russian missiles are pointed at
the children of the United States.''--President Clinton,
Remarks at World Jewish Congress Dinner, New York, April 30,
1995.
52. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age there are no Russian missiles pointing at the
American people.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the White
House Conference on Aging, Washington, D.C., May 3, 1995.
53. ``Some of you may not know this, but because of the
agreement we made last year between the United States and
Russia, for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
there are no Russian missiles pointed at the citizens of the
United States.''--President Clinton, Speech to AIPAC Policy
Conference, Washington, D.C., May 7, 1995.
54. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
no Russian missiles are pointed at our children.''--President
Clinton, Remarks at V-E Day Celebration, Fort Myer, Virginia,
May 8, 1995.
55. ``I am very proud to say that for the first time since
the dawn of the nuclear age, no Russian missiles are pointed
at the people of the United States.''--President Clinton,
Remarks at Commencement Ceremony at Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, May 8, 1995.
56. ``I am proud that for the first time since the dawn of
the nuclear age, no Russian missiles are pointed at the
children of America. And now that I am here, I might
paraphrase what your Foreign Minister told me in Washington
last month--I am also proud that no American missiles are
pointed at you or me for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the Students of
Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation, May 10,
1995.
57. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age, no Russian missiles are pointed at the people of
the United States of America.''--President Clinton, Remarks
at a Memorial Day ceremony, Arlington, Virginia, May 29,
1995.
58. ``. . . at the end of the Cold War, the first thing we
have to do is to finish the work of removing the nuclear
threat. In the last two years we can say for the first
time that there are no nuclear missiles pointed at the
United States. We are destroying parts of our nuclear
arsenal and so are the Russians.''--President Clinton,
Telephone interview with Colorado Springs Gazette, May 30,
1995.
59. ``We are dramatically reducing the nuclear threat. for
the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there are
no Russian missiles pointed at the people of the United
States.''--President Clinton, Remarks at U.S. Air Force
Academy Graduation Ceremony, Colorado Springs, May 31, 1995.
60. ``I am very proud of the fact that in the last two
years, for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
there are no Russian missiles pointed at the people of the
United States of America.''--President Clinton, Remarks at
the Dartmouth College Commencement, Hanover, New Hampshire,
June 11, 1995.
61. ``One of the things that I am proudest of is that
during our administration, for the first time since the dawn
of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at
the people of the United States. So we're celebrating.''--
President Clinton, Remarks at Chicago Presidential Gala,
Chicago, June 29, 1995.
62. ``The Cold War is over. That means we don't have to
worry about nuclear annihilation. For the first time since
the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles
pointed at Americans, no American missiles pointed at
Russians.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the 1995 Annual
Convention of the American Association of Physicians From
India, Chicago, June 30, 1995.
63. ``. . . agreement with Russia that now mean that both
our nations no longer target our missiles at each other.''--
President Clinton, Announcement of Comprehensive Nuclear
Weapons Test Ban, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1995.
64. ``I'm proud of the fact that there are no Russian
missiles pointed at this country for the first time since the
dawn of the Nuclear Age, since our administration came
in.''--President Clinton, Remarks at Clinton-Gore Fundraiser,
Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 7, 1995.
65. ``We don't now fear a bomb dropping on us from the
Soviet Union. I am proud to say that since I've been
president, for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear
age there are no Russian missiles pointed at the people of
the United States.''--President Clinton, Remarks at the
Pennsylvania Presidential Gala, Philadelphia, September 18,
1995.
66. ``I'm proud of the fact that there are no Russian
missiles pointed at our kids for the first time since the
dawn of the nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Speech at
Southern California Presidential Gala, Los Angeles,
California, September 21, 1995.
67. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles pointed at our
people . . .''--President Clinton, Interview with the San
Diego Union-Tribune, en route to San Diego, California,
September 22, 1995.
68. ``. . . there are no missiles pointed at the people of
the United States since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--
President Clinton, Remarks at 25th Anniversary Dinner of the
Congressional Black Caucus, Washington, D.C., September 23,
1995.
69. ``. . . ``for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age there are now no foreign missiles pointed at the
people of the United States of America.''--President
Clinton, Remarks to the Hispanic Caucus Institute Board
and Members, Washington, D.C., September 27, 1995.
70. ``Russian nuclear missiles are no longer pointed at our
citizens and there are no longer American missiles pointed at
their citizens.''--President Clinton, Speech to Freedom
House, Washington, D.C., October 6, 1995.
71. ``And America has been gratified to be a part of making
peace in the Middle East, progress in Northern Ireland, the
cease-fire in Bosnia, making sure that for the first
[[Page H4114]]
time since the dawn of the nuclear age there aren't any
missiles pointed at Americans or their children tonight.''--
President Clinton, Speech to the Business Council,
Williamsburg Inn, Williamsburg, Virginia, October 13, 1995.
72. ``. . . and I tell you there are no Russian missiles
pointed at the people of the United States for the first time
since the dawn of the nuclear age because of the things that
we've been doing. . . .''--President Clinton, Remarks at
Presidential Gala Luncheon, Meridien Hotel, Dallas, Texas,
October 16, 1995.
73. ``There are no Russian missiles pointed at anyone in
America for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear
age.''--President Clinton, Remarks at Presidential Gala
Dinner, Westin Galleria Hotel, Houston, Texas, October 17,
1995.
74. ``. . . America is safer tonight because we didn't give
up our leadership, because we are in a situation where we're
destroying nuclear missiles more rapidly. And for the first
time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a
single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child
tonight. Not one. Not one. Not a single one.''--President
Clinton, Remarks at Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Des
Moines, October 20, 1995.
75. ``The United States has made a real contribution to the
march of freedom, democracy and peace, in accelerating the
dismantling of our nuclear weapons so that now, for the first
time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there's not a single
nuclear missile pointed at a single American citizen.''--
President Clinton, Remarks at Dedication of the National
Czech and Slovak Museum, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, October 21,
1995.
76. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
there's not a single solitary nuclear missile pointed at the
people of the United States of America. And I'm proud of
that.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the AFL-CIO
Convention, New York, October 23, 1995.
77. ``We can be very thankful that on this Veterans Day,
for their first time since the dawn of the nuclear era, there
are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of
America.''--President Clinton, Remarks at Wreath-Laying
Ceremony, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, November 11, 1995.
78. ``For the first time since the dawn of the Nuclear Age,
there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at an American
child.''--Remarks to the Democratic Leadership Council,
Washington, D.C., November 13, 1995.
79. ``For the very first time since the dawn of the Nuclear
Age, there is not a single Russian missile pointed at an
American child.''--President Clinton, Remarks in satellite
feed to Florida Democratic Party Convention, Little Rock,
Arkansas, December 10, 1995.
80. ``I am proud of the fact there are no Russian missiles
pointed at any Americans during this administration for the
first time since the end of the Cold War.''--
President Clinton, Dinner for the National Democratic
Club, Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, January 9, 1996.
81. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,
there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an
American child, and I am proud of that.''--President Clinton,
Remarks at Clinton-Gore Luncheon, Opryland Hotel, Nashville,
Tennessee, January 12, 1996.
82. ``I am proud of the fact that, with the leadership of
the Vice President, for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age, there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at
an American child today.''--President Clinton, To Workers of
the Peterbilt Truck Plant, Nashville, January 12, 1996.
83. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear
age--for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age--
there is not a single Russian missile pointed at America's
children.''--President Clinton, State of the Union address,
January 23, 1996.
84. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at our
people.''--President Clinton, Statement on Senate
Ratification of the START II Treaty, January 26, 1996.
85. ``You look at the fact that we now have almost 180
nations committed not to get involved in the nuclear arms
race, and the fact that the Russians and others have
detargeted their nuclear missiles so that now there are no
more nuclear missiles pointed at any American homes for the
first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--President
Clinton, Remarks to the People of the Salem Area, Salem, New
Hampshire, February 2, 1996.
86. ``. . . for the first time in the last two-and-a-half
years, for the first time since the dawn of the Nuclear Age,
there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at an American
city, an American family, an American child. That is not
being done any more.''--President Clinton, Remarks to
Students, Parents and Teachers of the Concord Schools
Community, Concord, New Hampshire, February 2, 1996.
87. ``. . . people see that there are no Russian missiles
pointed at our children for the first time since the dawn of
the nuclear age. . . .''--President Clinton, Remarks at
Louisiana Economic Development Brunch, Washington, D.C.,
February 9, 1996.
88. ``I'm grateful that there are no nuclear missiles
pointed at the United States any more.''--President Clinton,
Remarks to the Iowa City Community, Iowa, February 10, 1996.
89. ``. . . let's look at the march of the world toward
peace after the Cold War. There are no nuclear missiles
pointed at the people of the United States.''--President
Clinton, Remarks to the People of Des Moines, February 11,
1996.
90. ``There are no more nuclear missiles pointed at any
children in the United States. I'm proud of that.''--
President Clinton, Remarks at Presidential Gala, Sheraton New
York, New York City, February 15, 1996.
91. ``I asked you to give me a chance to try to give
America a more secure future and a more peaceful, more
democratic world. And the fact that there are not nuclear
missiles pointed at any American children for the first time
since the dawn of the nuclear age is evidence of that
commitment.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the People of
Southeast New Hampshire, Rochester, New Hampshire, February
17, 1996.
92. ``We won the Cold War, and there are no missiles
pointed at the United States or any of its
people tonight.''--President Clinton, Speech to the people
of Manchester, New Hampshire, February 17, 1996.
93. ``More than anything else I am grateful that now there
is not a single nuclear weapon pointed at any American
citizen.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the Community in
Keene, New Hampshire, February 17, 1996.
94. ``We won the Cold War. There are no missiles pointed at
America's children.''--President Clinton, Telephone speech to
the National Emergency Management Association, February 26,
1996.
95. ``. . . I am proud of the fact that there are no
Russian missiles pointed at the United States.''--President
Clinton, Speech at Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee Dinner, St. Regis Hotel, New York City, March 11,
1996.
96. ``There's not a single nuclear warhead pointed at an
American citizen today, for the first time since the dawn of
the nuclear age, and I am proud of that.''--President
Clinton, Remarks at Dedication Ceremony of the New Nashville
Wharf, Port of New Orleans, March 18, 1996.
97. ``Today, there are no Russian missiles pointed at our
cities and citizens.''--President Clinton, Address to Members
of the University of Central Oklahoma Community, April 5,
1996.
98. ``Because of my agreement with President Yeltsin, for
the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, no Russian
missiles are targeted at United States cities.''--President
Clinton, News Conference in Moscow, Russia, April 20, 1996.
99. ``. . . Russian and American missiles are not pointed
at each other's cities or citizens.''--President Clinton,
News Conference with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Moscow,
Russia, April 21, 1996.
100. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile
pointed at an American child tonight. And I am proud of that
and you should be proud of that.''--President Clinton,
Remarks to a Democratic Reception at the Franklin Institute,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 26, 1996.
101. ``There are no nuclear missiles pointed at America's
children for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear
age.''--President Clinton, Speech to the Democratic National
Dinner, Coral Gables, Florida, April 29, 1996.
102. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles pointed at our
cities or our citizens.''--President Clinton, Commencement
address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, May 22, 1996.
103. ``I have made reducing the nuclear threat one of my
highest priorities. As a result, for the first time since the
dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles
pointed at our people.''--President Clinton, Statement on the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, June 28, 1996.
104. ``I'm proud of the fact that there are no nuclear
missiles pointed at the United States for the first time
since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--President Clinton,
Speech to the Northern California Democratic National
Committee Gala, San Francisco, July 23, 1996.
105. ``Today not a single Russian missile is pointed at our
citizens or cities.''--President Clinton, Speech at the
George Washington University, Washington, D.C., August
5, 1996.
106. ``If the test is, no nuclear missiles pointed at the
American people for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age, we're better off.''--President Clinton, Speech
to the Saxophone Club, Armand Hammer Museum of Art, Santa
Monica, California, August 9, 1996.
107. ``We've got a more peaceful world where there are no
nuclear missiles pointed at the people of the United States
since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--President Clinton,
Remarks to the Citizens of Ashland, Kentucky, August 25,
1996.
108. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age, on this night, this beautiful night, there is
not a single nuclear missile pointed at a child in the United
States of America.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the
Citizens of Toledo, Ohio, August 26, 1996.
109. ``I am proud to say that tonight there is not a single
Russian nuclear missile pointed at an American child.''--
President Clinton, Speech accepting his nomination to run for
a second term, Democratic National Committee Convention,
Chicago, August 29, 1996.
110. ``We finally succeed in removing most of the nuclear
weapons from any place within the old Soviet Union. There are
no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of the United
States tonight for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of
St. Louis, Missouri, September 10, 1996.
[[Page H4115]]
111. ``. . . today no Russian missiles are pointed at our
cities or our citizens.''--President Clinton, Remarks to
reporters upon departure from Kansas City International
Airport, September 10, 1996.
112. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age in the last four years, there's not a single
nuclear missile pointed at the children of America.''--
President Clinton, Speech to the Community of the Sun City
Area, Sun City, Arizona, September 11, 1996.
113. ``I'm proud of the fact that there are no nuclear
missiles pointed at America's children since the dawn of the
nuclear age. . . .''--President Clinton, Speech to the Rancho
Cucamonga Community, Rancho Cucamonga, California, September
12, 1996.
114. ``Today, there are no Russian missiles pointed at
America, and no American missiles pointed at Russia.''--
President Clinton, Speech to the 51st General Assembly of the
United Nations, New York, September 24, 1996.
115. ``There are no Russian missiles pointed at the
children of the United States.''--President Clinton, Remarks
to the Citizens of Freehold, New Jersey, September 24, 1996.
116. ``There are no Russian missiles pointed at America for
the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--
President Clinton, Speech to the Citizens of Fort Worth,
Texas, September 27, 1996.
117. ``There are no nuclear missiles pointed at the
children of the United States tonight and have not been in
our administration for the first time since the dawn of the
nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Debate with Senator Bob
Dole, Hartford Connecticut, October 6, 1996.
118. ``. . . we have reduced the nuclear danger to
Americans, and today there are no Russian nuclear missiles
targeted at our children.''--President Clinton, Response to
Readers' Questions, USA Today, October 8, 1996.
119. ``Today, no Russian missiles are pointed at America's
children.''--President Clinton, Remarks on Fox Network's Free
Campaign Air Time, October 12, 1996.
120. ``. . . today not a single Russian missile targets
America. We are cutting our nuclear arsenals by two-
thirds.''--President Clinton, Speech to the People of the
Detroit Area, Detroit, Michigan, October 22, 1996.
121. ``. . . today, as we stand here in Macon, Georgia,
there are no Russian missiles targeted at the United States
of America.''--President Clinton, Speech to the People of the
Macon Area, Macon, Georgia, October 25, 1996.
122. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles targeted at the
young people of the United States of America.''--President
Clinton, Speech to the People of the Atlanta Area, Atlanta,
Georgia, October 25, 1996.
123. ``You just think--just think about this world we're
moving into--the Cold War in the background, no Russian
missiles pointed at the children of the United States for the
first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--President
Clinton, Speech to the People of the Chicago Area, Chicago,
Illinois, October 28, 1996.
124. ``But we are standing up for peace and freedom and
there's not a single Russian missile pointed at an American
child tonight in part because of what we're doing.''--
President Clinton, Speech to the People of the Denver Area,
Denver, Colorado, October 30, 1996.
125. ``America is stronger today than it was four years
ago. No Russian missiles are pointed at our children today,
for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, and
we're moving in the right direction there.''--President
Clinton, Speech to the People of the Las Vegas Area, Las
Vegas, Nevada, October 31, 1996.
126. ``I know that I've been criticized for some of the
things that I've tried to do, but I know that there are no
Russian missiles pointed at the children of America for the
first time since the dawn of the cold war.''--President
Clinton, Remarks at Santa Barbara City College, Santa
Barbara, California, November 1, 1996.
127. ``Today there's not a single Russian nuclear missile
pointed at an American child.''--President Clinton, Remarks
on Dateline NBC's ``Presidential Face-Off,'' November 1,
1996.
128. ``If I were a Republican president--after all the
rhetoric they've used--with . . . no Russian missiles pointed
at our kids, by the way; and a stronger America with a
stronger military, they'd be saying it's morning in
America.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of San
Antonio, Texas, November 2, 1996.
129. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles pointed at any
American children tonight for the first time since the dawn
of the nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Speech to the
People of the Springfield Area, Springfield, Massachusetts,
November 3, 1996.
130. ``. . . we must move strongly against new threats to
our security. . . . With Russia, we dramatically cut nuclear
arsenals and we stopped targeting each other's citizens.''--
President Clinton, State of the Union Address, February 4,
1997.
Compiled by the American Foreign Policy Council, 1521 16th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA.
____
``Today there's not a single Russian nuclear missile
pointed at an American child.''--President Clinton, Remarks
by President Clinton on Dateline NBC's ``Presidential Face-
Off'', November 1, 1996
``If I were a Republican President--after all the rhetoric
they've used--with . . . no Russian missiles pointed at our
kids, by the way; and a stronger America with a stronger
military, they'd be saying it's morning in America.''--
President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of San Antonio,
Texas, November 2, 1996
vice president al gore
``Less than three weeks ago, for the first time in almost
fifty years, nuclear missiles were no longer targeted on
American cities.''--Vice President Gore, Commencement Speech
at Harvard University, June 9, 1994
``We've seen . . . the taking of Russian missiles off alert
so that for the first time in my lifetime no Russian missiles
are targeted on American soil.''--Vice President Gore,
Interview with Tim Russert on ``Meet the Press'', September
4, 1994
``Today, Russian missiles are no longer targeted at
America's cities or homes.''--Vice President Gore, Remarks at
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, October 17, 1995
``And our strength at home has led to renewed respect
abroad: nuclear missiles no longer pointed at our cities . .
.''--Vice President Gore, Speech to the Democratic National
Convention, Chicago, Illinois, August 28, 1996
(former) national security advisor anthony lake
``Our rhetoric must not outpace reality. When it does, we
risk creating a climate of disillusion like the one that
descended upon us in the 1920s . . . As a result of our
engagement Russian missiles no longer target American cities
or citizens.''--Anthony Lake, Remarks in ``Woodrow Wilson
Speech'', as quoted in Department of State Dispatch, December
5, 1994
``. . . without that relationship, the Presidents, Clinton
and Yeltsin, would not have been able to negotiate the
agreement which now results in there not being American
and Russian missiles targeted at each other.''--Anthony
Lake, Statements at White House Press Briefing, May 11,
1995
``Today, American cities and American citizens no longer
live under direct targeting of Russian missiles.''--Anthony
Lake, Speech at George Washington University, March 8, 1996
``Today, because of our steady engagement America's cities
and America's families are no longer targeted by Russian
missiles.''--Anthony Lake, Speech to the U.S./Russia Business
Council, Washington, DC, April 1, 1996
``Today, because of our engagement with Russia and the new
independent states, America's cities and families are no
longer targeted by Russia's missiles.''--Anthony Lake,
Remarks at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, April 25,
1996
``Because of our steady engagement with Russia and the new
independent states, no Russian missiles are targeted at
America's cities or citizens.''--Anthony Lake, Speech to the
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, May 24, 1996
``Then: Russia's missiles were targeted at American cities
and citizens; now: their detargeting has eliminated the risk
to us of an accidental launch.''--Anthony Lake, Speech at the
Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University,
Washington, DC, October 7, 1996
(former) secretary of state warren christopher
``Russian missiles are no longer targeted on us.''--Warren
Christopher, Speech on Year End Review of U.S. Foreign Policy
as quoted in Department of State Dispatch, January 2, 1995
``. . . we need to remember the tremendous advantage there
is in no longer having Russian or Soviet missiles targeted on
the United States.''--Warren Christopher, Interview with
Associated Press, May 5, 1995
``Our cooperation has produced a number of things for the
american people--most dramatically, the reduction in our
nuclear arsenals and the absence of any nuclear
missiles being targeted at the United States.''--Warren
Christopher, Remarks with Russian Foreign Minister
Primakov, Helsinki, Finland, February 10, 1996
``Today, Russian missiles are no longer targeted on our
cities.''--Warren Christopher, Statement to the House
International Relations Committee, July 31, 1996
(Former) Secretary of Defense William Perry
``Russia's nuclear missiles are no longer aimed at us, nor
are our missiles targeted on them''--William Perry,
Commentary Piece in Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1995
Deputy National Security Advisor Samuel Berger
``Because of President Clinton's agreement with President
Yeltsin, Russian missiles no longer target American
cities.''--Samuel Berger, Remarks at the Wilson Center, June
18, 1996
Press Secretary Michael McCurry
``. . . we don't have Russian strategic intercontinental
missiles aimed at the United States any more.''--Michael
McCurry, Remarks at Press Briefing, March 10, 1995
Secretary of State Madeline Albright--Madeline Albright,
Statements Before House International Relations Committee,
??? February 12, 1996
____
Ed Bradley: Is there verification on both sides?
General Sergeyev: No, we don't have these kind of systems
of verification or control. For the first time, we do it on
total confidence to one another.
[[Page H4116]]
Ed Bradley: So, we take your word, you take our word?
General Sergeyev: Yes.
Ed Bradley: This is a Russian topal being test fired, able
to reach its old U.S. targets in just 30 minutes. We're told
that they're no longer aimed at America, but how much comfort
can we take from that?
How long will it take to re-target?
General Sergeyev: The same period of time it will take the
Americans to do it. Same time.
Ed Bradley: Minutes? Hours?
``It depends on the missile,'' he told us, but for most,
only a matter of minutes.
General Sergeyev: Yes, we can return it all back to the way
it was.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 169, it is now in order to
consider the amendment printed in section 8(e) of House Resolution 169.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant:
At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 326, after line
6), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1032. ASSIGNMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL TO
ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.
(a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter
18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 374 the following new section:
Sec. 374a. Assignment of personnel to assist border patrol
and control
``(a) Assignment Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
assign up to 10,000 Department of Defense personnel at any
one time to assist--
``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and
illegal aliens into the United States; and
``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection
of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the
United States.
``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of Department
of Defense personnel under subsection (a) may only occur--
``(1) at the request of the Attorney General, in the case
of an assignment to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service; and
``(2) at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury, in
the case of an assignment to the United States Customs
Service.''.
``(c) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title
shall apply in the case of Department of Defense personnel
assigned under subsection (a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 374 the following new item:
``374a. Assignment of personnel to assist border patrol and control.''.
Sec. 9. Notwithstanding section 2(e) of this resolution,
the additional period of general debate on the subject of
United States forces in Bosnia shall precede the offering of
amendments numbered 8 and 9 in part 1 of the report of the
Committee on Rules rather than the amendments numbered 1 and
2 in part 1 of the report.
The Chairman. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] seek the 5 minutes
in opposition?
Mr. DELLUMS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California, [Mr. Duncan Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. We have had more shootings on the southwest
border in the last several weeks. In fact, we had two attempted
shootings yesterday from across the border. One border patrolman has
been hit so far. We have had more violence there and more gunfire
exchanged than we have had in Bosnia in the same period of time.
What this allows us to do is, on request of the Attorney General, in
the case where you have a national security problem for the Attorney
General to request up to 10,000 military personnel at the southwest
border. I think it is prudent. It requires a request of the Attorney
General. Obviously, it is at the discretion of the Commander in Chief.
I strongly support the Traficant amendment.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] is recognized for
5 minutes.
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my esteemed colleague, the gentleman
from California, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Traficant amendment
this morning. Mr. Chairman, if the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio
is adopted, the Department of Defense will be allowed to send 10,000
troops to our southern border. With more than 26 years of experience in
the U.S. Border Patrol, I can tell the Members that this is a very,
very bad idea.
Exactly 1 month ago today a young 18-year-old boy was shot and killed
by a Marine assisting the Border Patrol in Redford, TX. Ezequiel
Hernandez is the first American killed by troops on U.S. soil since
1970, in the Kent State incident. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything
to bring him back, but we can and we should do everything we can to
keep this from happening again.
We already have almost 7,000 Border Patrol agents patrolling our
Nation's border. Congress, this Congress, has authorized an additional
1,000 agents every year until the year 2001. What we need to do is make
sure that these men and women are professional, bilingual, well-trained
law enforcement officers, properly trained to deal with situations and
problems along our border.
Their mission is dramatically different from the mission of the U.S.
military. It does not make any sense to me or any of my former
colleagues in the U.S. Border Patrol to put 10,000 troops on the
southern border. By putting armed troops on our border, we will be
forced to deal with a new set of problems: Problems of jurisdiction,
problems of authority, and problems of responsibility and personal
liability for those troops.
Mr. Chairman, this body should focus its time and energy on giving
the Border Patrol the resources they need, instead of jeopardizing our
troops and civilians alike. The cost of doing this is, furthermore,
outrageous. According to our own Department of Defense, if this
amendment is adopted, it will cost the U.S. taxpayers $650 million a
year to deploy 10,000 troops to our southern border. The military
already spends more than $800 million per year assisting law
enforcement with drug interdiction and border security, mostly through
support and high-tech equipment.
For example, the U.S. Air Force provides AWACs aircraft to monitor
the southwest border. Some of these missions are dedicated solely to
detecting drug traffickers. Last year, the AWACs provided information
that led up to a seizure of 945 million dollars worth of cocaine. That
is about 35 percent of the cocaine intercepted into the United States.
This issue that we are talking about here with the Traficant
amendment is dramatically different. We are talking about putting
troops to patrol our border, and jeopardizing citizens in the districts
such as mine that I represent along the border with Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, I think, finally, that since the end of the cold war
the military's mission deployments have increased by about 300 percent.
We are doing this with a substantially reduced number of soldiers. We
cannot and should not be able to afford to pull 10,000 men and women
away from other
[[Page H4117]]
missions, and further adding to the aggravation and pain of family
separation, to help the efforts of the U.S. Border Patrol that is
already provided for by this Congress.
{time} 1300
I strongly urge my colleagues to remember that I have 26\1/2\ years
of experience along our border fighting drug trafficking and illegal
immigration. I think this is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time.
The Attorney General does not support this amendment. The Secretary
of the Treasury does not support this amendment. The Commissioner of
INS does not support this amendment, and neither do the colleagues that
I worked with for 26\1/2\ years.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if you have any influence, please beam
this gentleman up.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak directly to the
gentleman from Texas, because I support 99.9 percent of his position.
I have fought against military on the border. If they get to anywhere
close to what your fears are, the perception, which I do not think is a
reality, of this amendment, I will stand there toe to toe with you in
my word to fight against exactly your fears.
This amendment does not do that, in my opinion. The gentleman is one
of, if not one of, I think the most respected expert on border patrol
issues. I would say that up front. But we do have a lot of different
agencies working with us. I would oppose a marine with a rifle that
does not know the difference between alto and stop. My whole opinion
is, we need more border patrol that are trained to help civil rights
and do those kinds of things. But I do believe in the secondary
missions and in the cases where not that we are saying put 10,000, I
would oppose that now today, but where we need to protect our people
from being fired at, at the Government, the people that are opposing,
they have the right to say that, that to protect our border patrol, I
would support it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Let me point out again, Mr. Chairman, this does not mandate that
these resources be put at the border. It only allows them to be put at
the border if the administration determines it needs to be done.
Let me tell my colleagues, as someone who lives within a quarter mile
of the border, my children and my wife are in that neighborhood today.
It is quite unfair and quite inappropriate for us to say that our U.S.
capabilities will defend the neighborhoods of every nation in the
world, but we will not defend the neighborhoods of south San Diego.
Mr. Chairman, I have here the record of 251 Members of Congress who
voted that Mexico is not doing enough on drug interdiction; 250 Members
of Congress who pointed fingers at Mexico and said they need to do
more.
Mr. Chairman, Mexico has put troops at the border because that is
what it takes to stop the drug traffic. All this amendment says, if the
President feels that it needs to be done, he is authorized to do that.
As somebody who is at the border every weekend, let me point out it is
getting more violent. American agents are being shot from a foreign
country. We are getting people killed along the border today. All this
does is prepare the way that, if the administration sees a crisis, that
crisis can be addressed with American resources.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is recognized
for 2 minutes.
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not mandate troops on
the border. It is only an option. Those troops, if they go to the
border, cannot make an arrest. They must only detain.
I appreciate the fine gentleman who was in the border patrol. But
poor illegal immigrants coming from Central America are not bribing
Customs, and they are not bribing the border patrol. I am talking about
narcoterrorists, Congress. You talk about a drug war. We have got kids
overdosing on the nod in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Youngstown.
When are we going to fight? Enough is enough. They do not go to the
border unless there is an emergency. And our President said, we need
25,000 more border patrol agents to secure our border. We are paying
money to secure the borders in Bosnia. We are paying money to secure
the borders all around the world, and we are going to hell literally.
I am tired of all the ethnic comments being made here. I want to help
every one of those people in Central America. Those who can come here
legally, come in. But do not come in illegally. But that is not my
focus.
We are not going to stop these big narcotic kingpins with the program
we have been operating. My colleagues know it and I know it. Now we
have a chance for the debate. This amendment came up rather quickly,
before Members could have a chance to really study this baby. I want
their vote.
If they stand for stomping out narcotics, cocaine, heroin in this
country, then stand up today. I hear all this big mouth rhetoric. Stand
up today. This is not about the border patrol; it is not about Central
Americans. This is about our national security. And dammit, if we are
not going to act here today, there will be no opportunity to act.
I would say one last thing about cost: What do Members think 25,000
border patrol are going to cost? We have got our troops cashing checks
in Tokyo, going to dinner in Frankfurt. We are overrun with narcotics
here. Enough is enough.
I am asking for an aye vote, and I am asking for those leaders who
may feel disposed, because of the White House's position, to stand tall
today. If it was up to the White House, who the hell knows what would
be going on.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in the brief time
that I have got left, that this is not an emotional argument. This is
an argument that needs rationality.
This is an argument where we need to vote against this amendment
because those very people that are enforcing our laws on our southern
border are not in favor of this amendment. We do not need it. We do not
want it. We should not tolerate this kind of rhetoric on the floor of
Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]
will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
Part 1 amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Luther]; part 2 amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Hefley]; part 2 amendment No. 41 offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]; and the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Luther.
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 253, not voting 36, as follows:
[[Page H4118]]
[Roll No. 221]
AYES--145
Abercrombie
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Coble
Collins
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dellums
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Goodlatte
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stabenow
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Tierney
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--253
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Flake
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Ney
Northup
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--36
Ackerman
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bliley
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Coburn
Cooksey
DeGette
Deutsch
Doolittle
Ehlers
Furse
Gephardt
Goss
Johnson, Sam
Largent
Lipinski
McCrery
McIntosh
Miller (CA)
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Pombo
Pomeroy
Rahall
Schiff
Stark
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Wise
Yates
{time} 1327
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Rahall for, with Mr. Deutsch against.
Mr. Stark for, with Mr. McIntosh against.
Messrs. CRANE, METCALF, MILLER of Florida, and NEAL of Massachusetts
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. CARSON, Messrs. PAYNE, RUSH and HILLIARD, and Mrs. KELLY, changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces that he will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair
has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248,
noes 146, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 222]
AYES--248
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Flake
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Neumann
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--146
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
[[Page H4119]]
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Bunning
Callahan
Collins
Conyers
Coyne
Crapo
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Filner
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lantos
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Strickland
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--40
Ackerman
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bliley
Boehner
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Coburn
Cooksey
DeGette
Deutsch
Doolittle
Ehlers
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goss
Johnson, Sam
Largent
Lipinski
McCrery
McIntosh
Miller (CA)
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Pombo
Pomeroy
Rahall
Schiff
Stark
Stokes
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wise
Yates
{time} 1335
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Stark against.
Ms. DeGette for, Mr. Deutsch against.
Mr. PALLONE and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SHAYS and Ms. HARMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 290,
noes 100, not voting 44, as follows:
[Roll No. 223]
AYES--290
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--100
Allen
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Capps
Cardin
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gonzalez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Lampson
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rodriguez
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Serrano
Skaggs
Snyder
Stupak
Thompson
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--44
Ackerman
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bliley
Boehner
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Callahan
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Coburn
Cooksey
DeGette
Deutsch
Doolittle
Ehlers
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goss
Johnson, Sam
Largent
Lipinski
McCrery
McIntosh
Miller (CA)
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Pombo
Pomeroy
Rahall
Sandlin
Schiff
Stark
Stokes
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Torres
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wise
Yates
{time} 1342
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Stark against.
Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Personal Explanation
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 223, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 223, the Weldon
amendment, I would like for the Record to reflect that I was in the
House, in the Chamber available to vote; I signaled the Chair to vote.
As I approached, the vote was closed despite my signaling.
[[Page H4120]]
I want the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye.'' I was
available to vote, in the Chamber.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269,
noes 119, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 45, as follows:
[Roll No. 224]
AYES--269
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Fawell
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--119
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Conyers
Coyne
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehrlich
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lofgren
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stump
Stupak
Thompson
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--45
Ackerman
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bliley
Boehner
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Callahan
Canady
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Coburn
Cooksey
DeGette
Deutsch
Doolittle
Ehlers
Ewing
Ganske
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goss
Johnson, Sam
Largent
Lipinski
McCrery
McIntosh
Miller (CA)
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Pombo
Pomeroy
Rahall
Schiff
Stark
Stokes
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wise
Yates
{time} 1351
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Stark against.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I was not present to record
votes on rollcalls No. 222, 223, and 224. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 222, the Hefley amendment, ``aye'' on
rollcall 223, the Weldon amendment, and ``aye'' on rollcall 224, the
Traficant amendment.
personal explanation
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained today during
rollcall vote Nos. 220, 223, and 224. Had I been present I would have
voted ``nay'' on each of these votes.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to speak out of order.)
Legislative Program
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me just announce on behalf of the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] what his intent is for the
schedule for debate of amendments next week with respect to the rest of
the National Security bill.
On Monday afternoon, after doing suspensions and any other necessary
business, it is his desire to continue with the consideration of
amendments to H.R. 1119; and it is further his intent to have the
following amendments debated during Monday afternoon with the votes
rolled until after 5 p.m. Monday afternoon.
That is the Frank amendment on NATO expansion, amendment No. 10
offered by Mr. Gilman on POW-MIA issues, amendment No. 11 offered by
Mr. Buyer and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island on Persian Gulf illness, and
possibly an en bloc package of amendments from part 2 of the rule that
have been worked out and are acceptable to the committee.
Then, after voting, around the 5 p.m. time frame, it is further his
intent to resume the consideration of amendments from part 1 of the
rule as late into Monday evening as the schedule will permit; and it is
his hope to finish consideration of amendments on Monday evening, and
that would mean considering the following amendments on Monday evening
after the 5 p.m. votes. That is amendment No. 7, offered by the
gentleman from California, the ranking member, Mr. Dellums, on the B-2
bomber; amendment No. 8, offered by Mr. Buyer; and No. 9, offered by
Mr. Hilleary, on Bosnia. And under the rule these 20-minute amendments
would be preceded by 1 hour of general debate, and the amendment made
in order yesterday in the amended rule offered by Mr. Everett on depot
policy and any remaining part 2 amendments, either in an en bloc
package or consideration individually, as 10-minute amendments under
the rule.
So it is his desire to dispose of all amendments on Monday evening so
that we can finish consideration of the bill sometime in the Tuesday
morning timeframe.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I am very sorry that most of our colleagues have probably left for
[[Page H4121]]
their weekend schedules in their various districts, but I must make
this observation, that I cannot remember a Monday night in this session
that we have worked, and if we have, not a bill of this extraordinary
magnitude.
The gentleman has laid out a number of significant and important,
often contentious, difficult issues that we must deal with. This
gentleman will be here prepared to do a job; that is what I have to do.
But I want to say on behalf of myself and other Members that the fact
that we are now suddenly finding ourselves in such a constrained
schedule, that we have to push all of these issues into a Monday night
I think flies in the face of what I think is reasonableness.
Now, I understand that there may be some time left over on Tuesday,
but we now rush to judgment on a whole range of issues. I just want to
make the observation, Mr. Chairman, and to my colleague, that I am not
comfortable with the way this is proceeding. I have said at the outset,
I do not like the rush to judgment on a $263 billion budget, and now we
are constrained into one day. When we went before the Committee on
Rules, they said Thursday, Friday, Monday and Tuesday, try to finish
this bill up on Tuesday. Now maybe there is an hour or two on Tuesday.
We are forced to deal with a myriad of incredible issues.
Now, the reality is that 300 or 400 of our colleagues are already
gone, heading home; many of them are going to fly back in here to be
back on the floor at 5 o'clock. They are not going to know what we are
debating. Many of them will be tired from the weekend and tired from
their flights, and we are going to get into issues like the B-2 bomber,
like Bosnia, like the whole range of critical questions that are very
contentious and important here.
I think we ought to be at our best when we are dealing with these
issues, not when we are tired and not when we are making votes based on
our ignorance by not being here. I just want to make that statement. I
am not running the show here, those folks are, but I just want my
colleagues to know from this side of the aisle that I am very
uncomfortable with the way this process is going. It is the first
Monday that we are dealing with this level of significance, and I would
like for my colleague to at least respond in some manner to that
concern.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums]. Let me just say personally, as the gentleman who has engaged
the gentleman in these major arms control issues and the B-2 bomber
issue for a number of years, I too look forward to a robust debate on
the B-2 bomber, and I think it is our duty to force as many colleagues
as we can to listen to us one more time on that issue, and I think we
will be able to do that.
I understand that the reason that we are trying to keep this thing
out of Tuesday's schedule as much as possible, that the chairman has
that desire; it is because we have got another issue coming up that is
supposed to be engaged on Tuesday. So we may be bumping up against the
schedule.
I want to assure my colleague that it is my desire to have a robust
debate, especially on the B-2 issue, and I know the depot issue is one
that has a lot of claimants and will have a great deal of debate
offered, and the chairman of the full committee is a very gracious
individual, and I am sure if the gentleman talks to him, if we can get
an extra hour or two on Tuesday morning from the leadership and maybe
push that other issue up a little bit, we can have a more robust debate
on B-2, Bosnia and the depot issue.
So the gentleman has got my assurance that I will sit with him and
the chairman, and my desire is to have as big a debate and as full a
debate as possible.
So that is what I would offer to the gentleman, but I understand that
the chairman of the full committee had the problem of bumping up
against the next bill, and that is why he is trying to get our
amendments finished and get the bill finished by Tuesday morning.
Mr. DELLUMS. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate his response.
I understand that this committee is operating within the framework of a
much larger structure. I just felt compelled to make that observation.
I think that disadvantages a number of Members on both sides of the
aisle, but that is just my observation, and leadership going to have to
make the judgment that they choose to make. Unfortunately, we will of
to live with them, but I do not think that they are good judgments.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums].
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
{time} 1400
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Calvert] having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Florida, 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.
1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________