[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6122-H6125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3616, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX, and by 
direction of the Committee on National Security, I move to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations 
for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  The motion was agreed to.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Skelton moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3616 be 
     instructed to insist upon the authorization levels provided 
     in title II of the House bill for Theater Missile Defense 
     programs and for space-based lasers.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is about the priority we accord our troops 
rather than the special interests. The House passed bill gives priority 
to protecting the troops from theater ballistic missile attacks while 
the Senate version, on the other hand, would gut theater missile 
defense to pay for resumption of futuristic Star Wars experiments. The 
House bill, Mr. Speaker, got it right. Our bill got it right.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill would increase the administration's 
request for space-based lasers by $94 million, a 100 percent increase. 
The Senate bill would also reduce the administration's request for 
theater missile defense by a net of $203.9 million, resulting in a 40 
percent reduction of the highest priority theater missile defense 
program.
  Correctly, the House bill would do neither. For that we owe a debt of 
gratitude to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman 
of the full Committee on National Security, and to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development, for their leadership in this important area. 
I thank them, and I know the rest of the committee joins me in doing 
so.
  The proposed Senate increase would begin to put weapons in space by 
starting a multibillion dollar 8-year program to demonstrate a space-
based chemical laser capability for the national missile defense 
system. It is premature because, as a Nation, we have not made the 
policy decision to put weapons in space, nor have we decided that a 
chemical laser is preferred over solid state or other lasers.
  And, perhaps most important, we have already rejected the near $30 
billion price tag such a space-based laser national missile defense 
system would entail. Worse, the chemical laser to be demonstrated is 
not slated to be part of any actual space-based laser national missile 
defense system we might one day choose to develop.
  Moreover, the theater missile defense decreases proposed by the 
Senate would unnecessarily slow development of our lead theater missile 
defense program, the Army's Theater High Altitude Air Defense System. 
THAAD, what it is known as, is our highest priority missile defense 
effort and is being developed to counter the theater missile threat 
currently facing our troops overseas and our friends and our allies.
  Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that during the Gulf War the highest 
fatalities we had were as a result of a theater missile, and we must do 
something to protect the troops in that regard.
  The program has suffered some setbacks, but we must recover from 
those setbacks as quickly as possible. There are no reasonable 
alternatives. The proposed $323.9 million cut to the THAAD system would 
gut our ability to restructure the program and put it on a more sound 
technical footing and it would add further delay. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, 
this is just unacceptable.
  The House position is correct. Taken together, the recommendations in 
the Senate bill would have us walk away from our first missile defense 
responsibility, countering the theater ballistic missile threat already 
facing our troops and friends and allies today, in favor of a 
futuristic space-based laser experimentation to benefit special 
interests. It makes no sense.
  For several years now we have had consensus on the priority to be 
accorded theater missile defenses between the legislative and executive 
branches, Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives. Mr. 
Speaker, nothing has changed.
  The House-passed bill got it right, got it correct, and correctly 
prioritizes protecting the troops from theater ballistic missile attack 
over futuristic space-based laser experiments.
  I sincerely urge my colleagues to keep our troops in mind. We know 
what the past has held for them on the front lines in combat, and it is 
up to us to do our very best to protect them, to protect the troops. 
Stick by the House position.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with all of my colleague's 
statements, I am in complete agreement with him that this Nation needs 
to do everything in its power to protect American troops deployed 
around the world. In fact, when it comes to theater missile defenses, I 
was one of a number of Members who felt compelled to take the highly 
unusual step back in 1996 of suing the Clinton Administration for 
consciously ignoring the law that established timetables and provided 
increased funding in order to ensure the fielding of theater missile 
defense systems to protect our troops.
  Likewise, many Members who serve on the Committee on National 
Security have helped to lead the fight over the past several years to 
prevent the administration from implementing arms control agreements 
with the Russians that would slow down or ``dumb down'' and otherwise 
limit the capabilities of this country's theater missile defense 
capabilities.
  The single largest loss of life during the Gulf War was the result of 
a ballistic missile attack, and here we are, 7 years later, without a 
deployed theater missile defense. I would hope we could move past 
finger pointing, lawsuits and unsound arms control agreements and get 
on with the business of fielding systems to defend our troops against 
ballistic missiles. In this regard, I look forward to continuing to 
work with my colleague from Missouri to compel this and future 
administrations to deploy theater missile defenses.
  While the Cold War has been officially over for almost a decade, 
serious threats to this Nation have not disappeared. As the recent 
report of the bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission indicated, the long-range 
ballistic missile threat to this country is not 15 years down the road. 
In fact, the threat is here today, it will only get worse, and we may 
not have any warning of the threat until it is too late. The time, 
effort and resources many nations and rogue actors are investing to 
develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction is truly frightening.
  I believe the Rumsfeld Commission report is one more nail in the 
coffin of the argument made by some that our Nation does not, should 
not or will not need to build a system to defend the American people 
against ballistic missile attack. The threat is real and it is 
imminent. So the question is not whether to build such a system, only 
when and how.
  In that regard, I agree with the concerns of the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I do not claim to know what the proper 
technological answer or combination of answers to the question of how 
best to defend the American people against ballistic missiles. If part 
of the answer is to deploy space-based weapons, whether kinetic or 
directed energy, then the Nation should not hesitate. Space-based 
weapons may

[[Page H6123]]

well prove to be an essential component of a long-term answer to 
defending Americans against ballistic missile attack.
  Frankly, in the near term I am more concerned with getting the 
administration to commit to move forward with the deployment of some 
missile defense system, any missile defense system, for the American 
public. American technological skills and ingenuity will ultimately 
show us how, but it will not happen until our Nation's political 
leadership demonstrates the will and commitment to address the threat 
with more than words.
  In conclusion, let me once again commend the gentleman from Missouri 
for his leadership. When it comes to standing up for our men and women 
in uniform, he stands second to none. His motion to instruct is 
consistent with the House-passed bill, and as such, I fully support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentleman from South Carolina not just for his kind 
comments but also for his reasoned thinking regarding this issue, and 
thank him for his support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct is about as straightforward as it 
can get. We are saying, simply, let us not cut funding for missile 
defense systems that could soon be able to provide protection for our 
troops and our deployments in tactical theater situations. Let us not 
take it out of these systems that show near-term promise and put it in 
something that is totally futuristic, space-based lasers, a technology 
that is literally decades away from being realized and tens of billions 
of dollars away from fruition.

                              {time}  1630

  Ever since we lost 28 servicemen and women to one of Saddam's SCUDs 7 
years ago, we have been pushing the development of theater missile 
defense, so-called TMD, theater missile defense systems, to protect our 
troops and our deployments from short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles.
  Support for the TMD programs in the House has been consistent and has 
been bipartisan. The primary systems that we are developing cover the 
whole spectrum. There is a Navy Lower Tier, primarily to protect ships, 
and a Navy Upper Tier to protect the literal and 3 Army programs: the 
THAAD, the Theater High Altitude Air Defense System; the PAC-3; and the 
so-called MEAD-4 division level Army defense.
  The House provided this year a very modest increase, $120 million, to 
the President's request of $1.7 billion for TMD, theater missile 
defense, research. The President's request for Space Based Lasers was 
$94 million. On a bipartisan basis, after studying it carefully, the 
House took $20 million out of the so-called Space Based Laser and 
shifted it to the theater missile defense. We added it on to TMD.
  The other body takes these priorities and stands them on their head. 
It cuts THAAD, or cuts theater missile defense, by $237 million, 14 
percent below President Clinton's request; and then it doubles the 
funding for the so-called Space Based Laser. This is not only unwise, 
it is reckless.
  We need to focus our efforts on fielding TMD systems. We spent tens 
of billions of dollars during the Reagan and Bush years in pursuit of 
Space Based Lasers, lasers of different kinds, ground based as well as 
space based. At one time we had 5 different laser systems which we were 
funding; two or three chemical laser systems, an excimer laser system, 
a free-electron laser system. They have all gone by the board.
  What we need is focus, as well as funding, and our troops need 
theater missile defense. The technology is very nearly within our 
grasp. It is near term, and we should not be cutting funding now when 
we have just about got this technology in grasp in order to put it into 
futuristic technologies that may not ever work. And even if they are 
deployable in space, they may be so enormous in outerspace that they 
are highly vulnerable to counterattack.
  Now, the primary reason that the other body came in below the 
President's, $237 million below the President's request, is to cut 
THAAD, the so-called Theater High Altitude Defense system, sharply.
  As most folks know, the THAAD has not made a good showing for itself. 
In testing, it is zero for five so far. So I am not here to defend the 
THAAD in its present status. I am here to say we need a system that 
fits that specification, we need a ground based system, we need 
something that has its reach and its range. And this approach to take 
this much out of that system is short-sighted and it misses an obvious 
point.
  Ballistic missile defense is rocket science. In fact, it is harder 
than rocket science, and the Pentagon and the Congress must be patient 
and we have got to expect setbacks.
  The Patriot, for example, started the concept development in 1968. It 
did not really come to final fruition and complete testing until the 
late 1980s. That is how long it took to bring the Patriot, and we far 
outstrip the need for a system like that. We have got to go further.
  THAAD proves that we cannot rush technology. We cannot legislate 
initial operational capability dates. We have got to be patient. We 
should not take development shortcuts, and we should test these 
programs rigorously, which we are doing with the THAAD. If we abandon 
every missile defense system, theater missile defense system in 
particular, that runs into technical problems and then take up another 
system instead, we will never field anything.
  Our committee worked in a very bipartisan way to fix the THAAD 
program. We did not simply give the money to the President as he 
requested, thanks in good part to my colleague the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). He helped fashion this language that will 
put the feet of the contractor to the fire, install a new co-prime 
contractor, as it were, to look over the contractor's shoulder.
  We kept the top line for THAAD, but we placed the bulk of the funding 
in the so-called demonstration and validation account to help identify 
the flaws in the THAAD, to help make fixes to the THAAD and to provide 
additional tests to evaluate those fixes.
  We injected competition into the program, too, to make sure that the 
contractors got the best people working on the program; and if a 
contractor cannot do it, another contractor may have to be selected.
  We should insist on the House position on TMD because we have to stay 
the course on this system if we are going to protect our troops and our 
interests and our installations and our deployments abroad. It is my 
understanding that the Ballistic Missile Defense Office agrees with the 
position that we are taking here.
  Let me say something about the Space Based Laser. We are not zeroing 
it out. We will leave $74 million. In any other budget, that is big 
money, a reasonable level of money certainly to do exploratory 
research.
  Some in the other body say the Rumsfeld Commission shows the need to 
put more money into Space Based Lasers. Listen, the best it can really 
promise us with respect to the Space Based Laser is a demonstration 
test in the year 2008, and to fund it we have got to put up $3 billion 
to get from here to the year 2008. And that is not a system. That is 
just a demonstration test in space. We need something in place before 
the year 2008.
  If we want to believe that, if we want a prudent course, vote for 
this resolution in order to instruct our conferees to do what we are 
proposing to do, restore the THAAD and take the money out of the Space 
Based Laser.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for speaking for the protection of the troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. I 
agree with our ranking member the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton); the House bill got it right on ballistic missile defense.

[[Page H6124]]

  Last week, the committee received the report of the commission to 
assess the ballistic missile threat to the United States. This was a 
bipartisan commission, with unimpeachable credentials. It was appointed 
by both the legislative and executive branch to assess the nature and 
magnitude of the existing and emerging ballistic missile threat to the 
United States.
  In addition, commission members testified before the committee. The 
report and testimony of the commission members made two things clear. 
First, the ballistic missile threat to the United States may be coming 
faster than previously estimated. And second and more importantly, the 
threat to our friends and allies and our troops overseas already exists 
and in some parts of the world is already deployed. Frankly, the 
commission report frightens me and makes me question to some degree 
what our intelligence community has been saying all this time.
  That said, it makes no sense to me to cut theater missile defense, 
TMD, which is intended to protect our friend, allies, and troops from 
today's threat in favor of futuristic science fair projects in space 
that are neither conceived or designed to respond to the near-term 
threats identified by the commission.
  I urge my colleagues to put protecting the troops ahead of the 
science fair projects that may not even be finished for 10 or 20 years. 
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees and 
support the House position.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees. The Balanced 
Budget Agreement demands that we live within our means and that we make 
choices. In the defense authorization bill, we must prioritize among 
competing programs.
  As the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, 
mentioned, our troops in uniform must receive our highest priority. 
This motion offers a clear choice: Do we support the House position and 
help protect American troops from today's ballistic missile threats, or 
do we go with the Senate and revive the fanciful, futuristic, and 
fruitless Star Wars program?
  The Senate defense bill provides over $200 million less for theater 
missile defense than the House bill, yet gives $94 million more for the 
Space Based Laser. Theater missile defense entails systems like the 
Patriot that seek to shoot down short- to medium-range missiles.
  While the technological challenges are great, these defenses are 
realistic. They protect our troops and they have bipartisan support. 
The Space Based Laser, on the other hand, exists only on paper and in 
the minds of those nostalgic for Star Wars ideology.
  As envisioned, this weapon would fire a chemically-powered laser from 
space at ascending missiles. But a chemical laser may be too heavy to 
launch on any rocket and we would only get a few shots from the laser 
before it is depleted and we cannot reload it. The Space Based laser is 
a very risky and costly venture and it does not deserve high priority.
  Earlier this year, a panel of missile defense experts commissioned by 
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization reported, and I quote, a 
``rush to failure in current missile defense programs.'' They concluded 
that one problem was a ``perceived urgency of the need'' for these 
systems, especially the dubious National Missile Defense Program.
  The report cited steep technological challenges, recommended 
realistic program schedules with adequate tests and evaluation periods, 
and warned against rushing development under political pressures.
  The Senate bill ignores these warnings by dictating the launch of a 
Space Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator as early as 2006. In a time of 
limited resources, we cannot afford that. It is a dangerous policy, and 
it will not help our troops.
  I urge Members to support this motion to instruct, affirm the House 
position, and vote to protect our servicemen and women in the field.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
time, and while I support this motion to instruct, I wanted to speak 
briefly about another provision that will be going to conference.
  As the gentleman knows, the House bill concludes a provision that 
would provide for the termination of a Department of Energy worker and 
community transition program that was set up to ease the downsizing of 
the nuclear weapons complex in the wake of the Cold War.
  That program has been very successful in enabling these communities 
and cities to get through the transition to smaller workforces at 
places like Rocky Flats in my district and elsewhere around the 
country. But that work is not done, and I am convinced that terminating 
this program prematurely would be a mistake.
  Last year's defense bill did direct DOE to study this problem and 
report back to us this fall; and I would hope that when that report is 
received we will be in a better position to make a judgment about 
continuing the program.
  So I hope both my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
and the distinguished chairman of the committee will consider taking 
another look at this and recede to the Senate provision in this 
respect.
  I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman for any comment he might 
make on that point.
  Mr. SKELTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) I appreciate his bringing this to 
our attention. We know this is a very important subject to him that he 
has worked hard and well on, and I can assure him that I will consider 
the points that he made in favor of dropping this provision from the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), 
the chairman, for his support of this motion to instruct. I think it is 
very important that this carry in conference, for the simple reason 
that we have to take care of the troops. It is a high priority should 
there be another battlefield. We hope and pray that does not come to 
pass. But those things happen.
  No one predicted Desert Storm, but it did come to pass, and the 
largest number of casualties did come as a result of a missile that 
came down amidst American soldiers. So, looking out for the soldiers 
and looking out for the troops, looking out for the men and women in 
uniform, I think this is the proper procedure to instruct the conferees 
to stand by the House provision that is well thought out and well 
worked on.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman, for this motion to instruct.
  Having served on the Subcommittee on National Security for 20 years, 
one of the things that I remember most vividly was being in the Gulf 
with General Schwarzkopf and having him tell me how worried he was 
about the fact that if the enemy had had accurate SCUDs, we had 500,000 
troops out there deployed that would have been vulnerable.

                              {time}  1645

  We had a terribly difficult time finding those launchers. In fact, 
the Iraqis used very sophisticated denial and deception. I believe as 
far as defense priorities go, there is no higher priority than getting 
to theater missile defense.
  I am very much aware of what the Senate did, taking money out of 
these crucial programs and then using it for something that is highly 
speculative, a paper program at best. I urge the House to adopt this, 
and I urge our conferees to go in there and do the very best they can. 
As an appropriator we will stay with them on this because this would be 
a terrible mistake. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on the 
issue.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, that is a well-stated comment from the 
gentleman from Washington. It is right. We did right. I thank the 
gentleman for his influence and his supportive words.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H6125]]

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion to 
instruct offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, further proceedings on 
this motion will be postponed until later today.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________