[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9856-H9860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 2786

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

[[Page H9857]]

Weldon] is recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I take out this final 
special order today before we adjourn for the weekend to call attention 
to a piece of legislation that I introduced today along with 104 of our 
colleagues. H.R. 2786, known as Impact '97, is the Iranian Missile 
Protection Act of 1997, a very important piece of legislation not just 
for the security of Americans, but for the security of our American 
allies, for the security of Israel, for the security of 25,000, at 
least 25,000 of our troops who are currently serving around Iran in 
various theaters including the Balkans.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is strongly bipartisan. In fact, it has 85 
Republicans and 20 Democrats. Out of the Committee on National 
Security's membership, the bill has 29 Republicans who have cosponsored 
it and 15 Democrats. The cosponsors include the chairman of the 
Committee on National Security, chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, chairman of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence. It includes members of the leadership. It includes key 
Democrats who are critical on defense issues, like the ranking Democrat 
of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on National Security, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks]. These Members share the same concerns as I and 
that is that we have a threat that is emerging that could cause serious 
problems not just for our troops, but for our allies and friends 
approximately 12 months from now.
  What is that threat, Mr. Speaker? Why do we need this legislation? 
Why must it be put on a fast track? Mr. Speaker, we have been told by 
this administration repeatedly that in the intelligence briefings that 
have been provided to us in the Congress we have no reason to worry 
about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially 
those involving medium and long-range missiles.
  The intelligence community, just a year ago, issued an upgraded 
intelligence estimate that basically told Members of Congress and the 
public that we have no reason to fear a threat for our safety for at 
least 15 years. That intelligence estimate which we soundly criticized 
a year ago has now been recognized to have had political overtones 
placed upon it. We were also told, Mr. Speaker, that we would have no 
regional threats to the security of our troops in the foreseeable 
future and that we would, in fact, be able to put into place systems 
that would be able to respond to those threats that we saw emerging in 
the near term.

                              {time}  1500

  All of that changed, Mr. Speaker, this past summer. It changed 
because the Israeli intelligence community was able to gain information 
that documented that factions in Russia, the Russian space agency and 
several Russian constitutes and scientists had, in fact, been working 
cooperatively with Iranian scientists and technologies to give Iran a 
missile technology that they can now deploy anywhere beyond 12 months 
from this date. Which means that even though the intelligence community 
was telling Members of Congress that we did not expect to see a threat 
emerge for 4 or 5 or perhaps 10 or 15 years, Israel was able to examine 
through their intelligence community actually they have copies of 
contracts that were signed between key Iranian agencies and key Russian 
agencies that now have indicated to us that Iran can deploy a system 
within 1 year.
  Now let us look at what that means in terms of the region, Mr. 
Speaker. Iran is the red area in the center of this map, which covers 
all of Europe and most of Asia and part of Africa. Iran currently does 
not now have a missile system except for the type that was used in 
Desert Storm, the SCUD missile system. This technology is considered 
primitive at best, even though it was the cause of the largest loss of 
life in Desert Storm when that Iraqi SCUD went into that barracks where 
young Americans were sleeping, killing a number of our young military 
personnel. That is the sophistication that Iraq and Iran have had up 
until now in terms of missile technology. And even though it is rather 
crude and does not have sophisticated guidance systems built into it, 
it still kills people.
  The largest loss of life involving American troops was caused by a 
SCUD missile coming into those barracks because we did not have 
technology to shoot that missile down during Desert Storm when our 
backs were against the wall. And when the Israeli people were very 
fearful of the threats and the missiles that were being lobbed into 
their country, we deployed a variation of the Patriot system. The 
Patriot system was not designed to take out the missiles. In fact, it 
was designed to shoot down aircraft. But because we had no system to 
put into place, we had to use a varying of the Patriot, put systems in 
Israel and into countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to try to give 
us some limited protection against the SCUD missiles that Iraq would 
launch.
  We put those systems in place, Mr. Speaker. But as the record shows, 
the Patriot systems were only partially effective. In fact, some 
estimations show that the Patriot was only 40 or 50 percent effective 
in taking out SCUD missiles. So many of those SCUD's got through.
  But we are not talking about the SCUD missile now, Mr. Speaker. We 
are talking about a system that Iran has developed or is developing 
with the cooperation from Russia. Russia has very sophisticated missile 
systems: long-range, medium-range systems with very capable guidance 
mechanisms built in. The intelligence data that we now have, which has 
been declassified because it is being reported in the media in a 
widespread way and which I am going to refer to. I am not referring to 
any classified briefings. I am only referring to what is being reported 
in the media.
  The intelligence community, as reported by the media now, shows that 
within 12 months Iran will have a system that will initially have a 
capability of approximately 800 miles and eventually will have a 
capacity to go as far as 1,200 miles around Iran in terms of hitting 
its target. When we look at these areas that are colored in blue and 
green, we get a sense of the potential impact of these medium-range 
missiles, which we expect Iran will have as early as 1 year from this 
date.
  That means, Mr. Speaker, that parts of Europe now become threatened 
by Iran. That means now that at least 25,000 of our troops who are 
stationed in this area now become potential targets of Iranian 
missiles. That now means that all of our allies in this region in the 
Middle East and beyond now can become threatened by Iranian medium-
range missiles.
  Why is this so significant, Mr. Speaker? Because having Iran have 
this kind of capability could potentially upset the balance of power in 
the Middle East. If Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations 
who are not our friends think that Iran has a capability that we cannot 
shoot down, that could upset the balance.
  Now, how sophisticated are these missiles that Iran is going to be 
developing? Well, the Russian SS-4 system, which is the technology 
being transferred to Iran and has been under transfer for the past 
several years, is a very capable medium-range missile.
  Now the question becomes, is it accurate? Can it hit the spot where 
it is intended to go? The point is, it really does not matter. If you 
are shooting off missiles, it does not matter if you hit this part of 
the city or that part of the city, you are still going to kill people. 
But let us look at whether or not the Iranians also have sophistication 
in terms of guidance.
  Mr. Speaker, in front of the American people today I hold up two 
devices. These were manufactured in Russia. These were not manufactured 
in the United States. This is a gyroscope, Mr. Speaker. And this is an 
accelerometer. These two devices, which look to be brand new, were 
taken off of an SS-N-18, which is a very capable missile, medium- to 
long-range missile, that Russia has thousands of that had been aimed 
for years at American cities and carried on board their submarines.
  Where did I get these two devices with the Russian markings on them 
indicating where they were built and what missile they were taken from? 
Mr. Speaker, these devices were intercepted by intelligence officials 
from Israel and Jordan as they were being transferred from Russia to 
Iraq. These devices were intercepted 2 years ago.

[[Page H9858]]

  I was there January the month after the Washington Post ran the story 
about the transfer of these guidance systems. Because together they are 
the guidance system for missiles. They make missiles extremely accurate 
so they can pinpoint the most populated areas of cities and can do the 
most destruction when they are launched. When I was in Moscow, I met 
with our Ambassador, Ambassador Pickering. I said to him a month after 
the Washington Post story ran, ``Mr. Ambassador, what was the response 
of Russia when you asked them about the accelerometers and the 
gyroscopes?'' He said, ``Congressman Weldon, I have not asked them 
yet.'' I said, ``Why? This happened 6 months ago.'' He said, ``That has 
to come from Washington.''
  I came back to Washington, Mr. Speaker. And at the end of January, I 
wrote President Clinton and I said, ``Mr. President, why have you not 
personally asked the Russians about the transfer of these devices? 
Because that is illegal. It is a violation of an arms control 
agreement, an agreement called the Missile Technology Control Regime.'' 
The President wrote back to me in April, Mr. Speaker. And guess what he 
said. He said, ``Congressman Weldon, we don't have enough evidence that 
this transfer of technology took place.''
  Mr. Speaker, these are the devices. We knew about their existence. We 
saw their existence. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there were 120 sets of these 
devices, each of them manufactured in Russia, and all of them 
transferred into this particular place, to Iraq.

  Now, the question is not whether they were transferred legally or 
whether they were transferred illegally. Arms control agreements do not 
make a difference. A country that is a signatory to an arms control 
agreement certifies to the other nations in that agreement that they 
will prevent the transfer of technology.
  So, in this case, the transfer of these devices was clearly and 
blatantly a violation of an international arms control agreement. In 
fact, Mr. Speaker, this was the seventh time Russia violated the 
missile technology control regime. In each of the seven instances, 
similar to the transfer of these devices to Iraq, this administration 
imposed no sanctions on Russia. They either said, we did not have 
enough information, we could not fully verify it, or we chose not to 
impose sanctions.
  Now, we wonder why Iran and Iraq are getting the capability to kill 
our troops and to kill and injure our friends. It is because of the 
policy direction of this administration and not being tough enough in 
enforcing arms control agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, besides these devices, there were two other transfers of 
accelerometers and gyroscopes from Russia to Iraq. Iraq tried to hide 
them in the Tigris River Basin. They were found. And they are a part of 
the 120 sets that we know now were attempted to be transferred that we, 
in fact, have physically in the hands of people who are our allies and 
friends.
  The point is, Mr. Speaker, if Iraq was able to get these kinds of 
very sophisticated guidance devices, we can bet our bottom dollar Iran 
has the same capability. Because, unlike Iraq, we have evidence that 
Russia and Iran have been cooperating on this new medium-range missile 
that they are going to deploy 12 to 18 months from now.
  So that means, Mr. Speaker, that these missiles which will now be 
able to hit any city in any part of Israel, which now will be able to 
take out any of the installations where our 25,000 troops are stationed 
that any of our allies in this region are currently located, that this 
missile will be able to cause severe destruction.
  The problem, Mr. Speaker, is a simple one. We will not have a system 
in place to take out this missile. I repeat, Mr. Speaker. As the 
chairman of the House National Security Research Committee, which 
oversees all the funding for defensive systems to protect against this 
threat, we will have no system to take out these missiles, not 12 
months from now and probably not 18 or even 24 months from now.
  The American people are justified in asking the question: Why, if we 
are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on offensive and 
defensive military programs, why then 12 months from now will we not 
have a system that can shoot down these Iranian missiles that were 
built with Russian and Chinese technology?
  The answer is, Mr. Speaker, that this administration, while basically 
putting forth a good public story about its commitment to theater 
missile defense, has not in fact been aggressive in pushing for 
deployment of these systems.
  We have a number of options. We have a Navy option called the Navy 
upper and lower tier systems, which are under development with Navy and 
Army, called THAAD, theater high altitude area defense system, under 
development. We have another system, a variation of the Patriot, called 
PAC-3, which has more capability than the earlier version of the 
Patriot that was used in Desert Storm.
  Israel, likewise, is working on a system entitled the Arrow. The 
Arrow system is similar to the Patriot and will have a capability but 
not quite the capability to take out the speed and the length in terms 
of distance of the Iranian missile that we expect to be deployed as 
early as 12 months from now.
  So unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as we look to meet this threat, the 
fact is that we will not have a system ready to be deployed 12 months 
from now. So if Iran does what the media reports that in fact they will 
be able to do, and that is deploy this system, we will have a window of 
vulnerability. That window of vulnerability could last 6 months. It 
could last 12 months. It could last 2 years. We will have a period of 
time, beginning sometime in late 1998, where Iran will be capable of 
deploying a system that we will not be able to take out if in fact they 
should use that system.
  Now, let us remember back to the largest loss of life in Desert 
Storm. It was that SCUD missile that Saddam used against our troops in 
Saudi Arabia, the largest loss of life in Desert Storm. Iran has 
threatened to use both offensive chemical and biological weapons, as 
well as nuclear weapons on both Israel and on America. One year from 
now, under a current estimate that has been established in terms of 
Iran's program, they could have a medium-range missile that could hit 
Israel, any of our troops in that theater, or our allies. The problem, 
Mr. Speaker, is that it could well contain either a biological or a 
chemical weapon and quite possibly, and we have not yet determined 
this, quite possibly a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration has not done enough. What our bill 
does is it says that this is a priority that this country has to 
address today, not 12 months from now, not 16 months from now, but 
today. If we are going to be prepared to deal with the threat that we 
see emerging 1 year from now, then the development and deployment has 
to begin in 1997.
  What does our bill do? Our bill, Mr. Speaker, takes assets that we 
now have and increases funding in ways that can give us enhancements 
and improvements. Let me give my colleagues an example. Our bill takes 
the Patriot system, which has very serious limitations on what it can 
defend against.

                              {time}  1515

  The Patriot system initially in Desert Storm could only impact an 
area the size of this small green circle, very limited. I cannot give 
the distance in terms of miles because that is classified, but I can 
give the approximate detail percentagewise of the impact area. The 
Patriot itself was very limited in what it could defend against, which 
is why it was not really successful in Desert Storm. By putting into 
place immediately additional radar systems, additional early warning 
systems, and by putting additional batteries and early sensors for the 
PAC-3 system, we can expand the coverage area by the area in the blue.
  So that Members can see, Mr. Speaker, that we can take a system that 
we have available today and we can enhance it and improve its 
capability significantly, both in terms of distance and in terms of 
circumference, by putting in additional enhancements now. Our bill 
provides the dollars to do just that, to allow us to put into place 
additional radar, additional coordination of interoperability, 
additional C3I in terms of interactive communications in command and 
control of these systems, and in doing so we get an enhanced capability 
that 12 months from now we can deploy.
  In addition to the Patriot system, we provide additional funding for 
the

[[Page H9859]]

THAAD program. Mr. Speaker, THAAD is a system that has still not been 
proven. It is being developed by the Army. The premise of THAAD is that 
it is a land-based unit that the Army can take wherever it goes and it 
can protect those troops in that theater. So if our troops are assigned 
in the Middle East, we can put a THAAD battery there and it will 
provide areawide protection for all of our troops so that we never have 
another barracks loss of life like we had in Saudi Arabia.
  The problem with THAAD is it is good technology, but we have not yet 
had an intercept in our test program. We are hoping that this first 
intercept will take place in the first quarter of 1998. In the bill 
that I have introduced today, Mr. Speaker, we set aside additional 
funding so that if and when we have that successful intercept for the 
THAAD program that we immediately make money available to not just buy 
one test unit but to buy two demonstration test units. One of the units 
would be tested here in the United States, as is currently planned. The 
second battery would be deployed to the Middle East to be a direct 
support system for our troops that are stationed in that area. So we 
would have two test batteries of the THAAD system deployed where it in 
fact in several years could take out an Iranian missile or any other 
missile fired at our troops.
  The third option, Mr. Speaker, is called Navy Upper Tier. The Navy 
Upper Tier system uses our existing Aegis technology, our most 
sophisticated systems, on our submarines. This technology is several 
years away from being fully deployed. But by putting additional dollars 
into radar systems and enhancements, we think we can speed up the 
deployment of the Navy Upper Tier system by perhaps as much as 1 year, 
so that by the turn of the century or slightly thereafter, we will be 
able to use Navy Upper Tier as a major defensive program.
  The fourth major system that benefits from our bill to provide us 
additional protection against the Iranian capability is what the 
Israelis are working on. Israel has been working with our missile 
defense organization on a program called Arrow. Arrow is a system 
developed in Israel with American technology help. This system will 
ultimately give Israel very capable protection against lower level 
missiles that are not fired from long distances. The problem is that if 
Iran develops a capability for this medium-range system, as we 
currently think it is doing, then this Arrow system will not be able to 
cover all of Israel to take out those missiles if, in fact, they are 
used. What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, in this legislation is provide 
additional funds so that Israel can both look at enhancing the Arrow 
Program as well as providing additional Arrow missiles for test 
purposes.
  In this legislation, Mr. Speaker, Impact 97, we have four very 
specific actions that we take to give us a capability within 12 to 18 
months to deal with the threat that we think is going to be in place, a 
threat that jeopardizes not just our friends but also American troops 
and American citizens. Now, the President has said repeatedly and the 
administration has said repeatedly that theater missile defense is its 
top priority. If that be the case, Mr. Speaker, then we should have no 
problem in getting the administration to work with us in these systems. 
Unfortunately, that has not been the case.
  Three weeks ago, I met with Gen. Les Lyles, who heads up the 
ballistic missile defense organization and who is the point person for 
the President. He said, ``Congressman Weldon, I want to work with you 
and I want to provide good solid information on which you can base your 
bill.'' Three weeks later, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say I have had no 
concrete data provided from General Lyles' office. Why? Because the 
Secretary of Defense and the Budget Office of the Department of Defense 
does not want to cooperate in giving us in the Congress realistic 
numbers upon which we can make our suggestions for additional dollar 
allocations to meet this threat. We have had to go to people in a 
private way, who are in the administration, who do not want to be 
named, and we have had to go to former directors in the agency to have 
them give us the dollar amounts and the direction as to where we should 
put additional resources to meet this threat.
  Mr. Speaker, that is just unacceptable. This administration, which 
has said repeatedly that theater missile defense is our top priority, 
has again not been supportive of this Congress' attempt in a bipartisan 
way to deal with the threats that we see emerging. In spite of their 
lack of cooperation, we have put together a bill that we think is 
fairly realistic.
  On Wednesday of next week, Mr. Speaker, I will chair a congressional 
hearing that will focus on the Iranian threat, that will focus on what 
Iran is now doing, that will focus on Iran's capabilities but will also 
look at what our response will be; namely, Impact 97, our bill to 
protect our people, our troops, and Israel and our friends from the 
threat of medium-range missiles and the potential devastation that they 
can cause on America and our friends and our allies.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that in this process, we will convince the 
administration to join with us, since this President has said 
repeatedly that this is, in fact, his highest priority. But 
unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, time and time again this administration has 
said one thing while doing the opposite.
  It was this administration and this President who pounded his fist on 
the table in front of APAC's national convention and told the Israeli 
supporters that he was for a program called THEL. What he failed to 
tell those people was he tried to zero out funding for the testing for 
THEL for 3 consecutive years. It was the Congress, Democrats and 
Republicans in the Congress, who kept that program alive.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply like to 
rise as, I think, the most recent cosponsor of the gentleman's 
legislation to congratulate him. I believe this will go a long way 
toward addressing a number of our concerns. Technology transfer, as he 
and I were discussing earlier, is a very important way of stepping up 
our national ballistic missile defense system. I would simply like to 
congratulate my friend and encourage him wholeheartedly to proceed.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my good friend and colleague from 
California [Mr. Dreier] for stopping by and sharing his thoughts and 
thank him for his support. He was the 104th cosponsor, we now have 105. 
One hundred and five Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker, have 
challenged this administration on their top priority, theater missile 
defense, in 1 week. I started this bill on Monday. Today I introduced 
the bill with 105 cosponsors, 20 Democrats, 85 Republicans, who are as 
concerned as the Israeli Minister of Defense, who this week is in 
Washington, Minister Mordecai, who has said publicly that if the United 
States does not respond Israel will have to take preemptive action to 
protect its people.
  Is that what we are getting to now, Mr. Speaker? We have to rely on 
our allies coming to our defense because we do not want to put the 
systems in place to protect the loss of life of our troops? Is that 
what we have degenerated into? A second-rate nation that is going to 
allow our kids to be killed first and then say we should do something? 
That is what happened, Mr. Speaker. When we lost those kids in Desert 
Storm, it was because we did not apply the resources where the need was 
greatest. This bill will prevent that from happening again. It will 
allow us to put the resources, very small resources, on the threat that 
is here and very nearly will be deployed by a nation that everyone in 
the world considers to be a rogue operative and that has threatened to 
annihilate the American people and our troops on a consistent and 
regular basis.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that the reason why I think 
we are where we are today is a threefold reason. First of all, this 
administration has not enforced arms control agreements. I have given 
instances, seven times now with the MTCR, no sanctions imposed. With 
the case of China, accelerometers and gyroscopes going to Pakistan, no 
sanctions imposed. In the case of China, chemical and biological 
materials going to Iran, no sanctions imposed. What good are arms 
control agreements if we are not going to enforce them?

[[Page H9860]]

  The second problem, Mr. Speaker, is the President has used the bully 
pulpit to lull the American people into a false sense of complacency. 
As I said on this floor many times before, this President 140 times has 
given speeches all over America, 3 times from this pulpit in the State 
of the Union Address where he has looked at the camera and said, ``You 
can sleep well tonight because for the first time in 50 years, Russian 
missiles are no longer pointed at America's children.'' As the 
Commander in Chief, he knows he cannot prove that, because Russia will 
not give us access to their targeting practices. He further knows that 
if he could prove that, you can retarget an ICBM in 30 seconds. But by 
saying that over and over again, 140 times on college campuses, in the 
well of the Congress, around the world, you create the feeling in 
America that we have nothing to worry about, there are no longer any 
threats, use of the bully pulpit in an extreme way just as wrong as 
some of my colleagues wanting to recreate Russia as an evil empire, 
which I do not believe.
  The third reason why we are where we are today with Iran, Mr. 
Speaker, is because this administration has deliberately politicized 
and sanitized intelligence data. That is a pretty harsh statement. Can 
I back that up? Mr. Speaker, I will cite, not today with the lack of 
time, but I will cite for anyone who wants the information five 
specific instances where I can prove that this administration has 
deliberately taken intelligence data that is intent on giving the 
Congress an understanding of an emerging threat and this administration 
has either cut off the head of the messenger or has sanitized that 
information. Most recently last week we saw the announced early 
resignation and retirement of the director of our CIA Non-Proliferation 
Center, an outstanding professional who has given his life to allowing 
this country to understand emerging threats from proliferation 
activities of countries like North Korea, China, and Russia. Because of 
pressure that was felt on this individual and his job because of 
briefings he has given to Members of Congress and where he has given us 
information about technology transfer about China and Russia giving 
technology to rogue nations, he was basically put in such a terrible 
position that he took early retirement rather than face the prospect of 
having to fight his superiors in the White House and the State 
Department.
  The second example. I heard about a briefing from a Russian expert at 
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 2 years ago called Silver Bullets about 
emerging Russian technology. As the chairman of the House research 
committee on defense, I asked for that briefing. For 6 months, I was 
denied the briefing. During the 6 months, I got an anonymous letter in 
my office which I have kept. The anonymous letter was addressed to me, 
no return address, no signature. It said, ``Congressman Weldon, please 
continue to ask for this brief.''
  Mr. Speaker, we should never have to have the intelligence community 
anonymously ask us to be briefed on an issue as important as emerging 
technologies. Another example of this administration choking the 
information that we need to make intelligence decisions about the 
threats that are emerging around the world. Mr. Speaker, we need to 
understand that intelligence is designed to keep us informed on 
emerging threats.
  A third example was the direct removal of Jay Stewart from his 
position as the person in charge of security for the Department of 
Energy intelligence operation monitoring Russian nuclear material. That 
case has been documented. Jay Stewart has been before my committee. Jay 
Stewart was removed from his position because he was saying things that 
people in the White House did not want to listen to. This is not 
America, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are where we are today. That is 
why Iran has a capability that is going to threaten America, threaten 
our troops and threaten our allies. I would encourage our colleagues to 
cosponsor Impact 97 so that we have the protection we need 12 months 
from now to defeat Iran in its effort to destabilize the entire world 
community.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank the staff for bearing with me 
during this special order.

                          ____________________