[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8606-H8612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           NATIONAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be appropriate today to 
talk a little bit about national security, especially in the wake of 
the President's remarks. We have had some remarkable statements by the 
President in the last several days regarding national defense.
  They are remarkable not because they display any insight that is 
unusual, from my perspective, but that they are the first admission by 
the President that our military is broke and needs fixing. When I say 
it is broke and it needs fixing, I mean it is dramatically underfunded.
  We spent about $100 billion more per year in the 1980s under Ronald 
Reagan than we are spending today, if we look at real dollars. We do 
not have the soviet empire to contend with, but we still have fragments 
of the soviet empire, including Russia, which still has nuclear weapons 
which are still aimed at the United States.
  We have now a number of nations exploding nuclear devices, like India 
and Pakistan. We have Communist China racing to fill the shoes, the 
superpower shoes, of the Soviet Union. Also we have a number of 
terrorist nations, or would-be terrorist nations, around the world, 
including North Korea, which are now testing missiles and developing 
missiles much more rapidly than our intelligence service ever thought 
they would.
  Particularly, I think, we were alarmed when we saw just a few days 
ago, really, the North Korean Taepo Dong-1 missile, a three-stage 
missile, fired over Japan in a very long flight, or what would have 
been a very long flight, had they let it go all the way. We realized 
suddenly that they were years ahead of our intelligence estimates in 
terms of building and deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles, 
ICBMs.
  ICBMs have an important meaning to the United States because that 
means to us as Americans, those are the missiles that reach us. Short-
range missiles like the Scud missiles that Saddam Hussein used to kill 
some of our troops in Desert Storm of course can still threaten troops 
in theater.
  That means that if we have American Army personnel, Marine Corps 
personnel, or Navy personnel around the world, those Russian-made Scud 
missiles, which are proliferating to a lot of outlaw states like Iran, 
Iraq, Libya, Syria, and others, can fire on our troop concentrations.
  But ICBMs have a special meaning to Americans because those are the 
missiles that reach us in our cities. That means, to a serviceperson 
who may be serving in the Middle East, there are lots of little 
missiles that can reach him in his role as a uniformed serviceman for 
the United States, but the missiles that are being developed now by the 
outlaw nations can reach his parents and his family, his city, his 
community. That has a special meaning to us.
  Along with my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt 
Weldon) and the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence), I have taken to asking a lot of questions 
concerning our progress in missile defense to the Secretary of Defense 
and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs when they appear before us.
  My favorite question is, if an intercontinental ballistic missile was 
fired today at an American city and was coming in, do we have the 
ability to stop it before it explodes in our community? The answer 
always is no.
  The reason I ask that question is not because I think maybe the 
Secretary does not know the answer, but because if we ask the average 
citizen in the United States or a lot of average citizens in the United 
States whether or not we have a defense against missiles, most will 
tell us, sure we do.
  I remember watching one focus group when they were explaining to the 
monitor, good American citizens, hardworking, why they thought we had a 
defense against missiles. The guy that was running the program said, 
how would we shoot them down? One person said, we would scramble the 
jets. Of course, we know, a lot of us know, that one cannot possibly 
catch up with an ICBM that is traveling as fast as a 30-06 bullet or 
faster with a jet.
  Another person said, we would shoot them down with cruise missiles. 
We know we cannot do that, those on the committee, because cruise 
missiles are very slow compared to ICBMs.
  Another said, I thought Ronald Reagan took care of that program. But 
he did not take care of the program, President Reagan, that is, because 
he was stopped by the people who sit in this Chamber, by the U.S. 
Congress. We derided his warning to us that we were entering the age of 
missiles and we had to have a defense against missiles; that they would 
be proliferating around the

[[Page H8607]]

world to outlaw states, and that even if the Soviet Union went away, we 
were living in an age of missiles, we could not get away from that, and 
we had better start learning how to defend against it.

                              {time}  1900

  I think it is kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker, that you are here 
today, the great gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass). I want to 
make sure you are still there, because I remember when I was going on 
and on in one of our meetings about the need for missile defense and I 
invoked the name of Billy Mitchell. I reminded my colleagues that Billy 
Mitchell was warning the United States in the 1920s that we had entered 
the age of air power, and he so enraged some of our service leaders 
that when he sunk some ships, some Navy ships, with bombs to show that 
planes could sink ships, they promptly court-martialed him for his 
candor.
  He criticized, incidentally, the state of national defense. But he 
was trying to warn the United States that we were entering an age of 
air power, of air battles for which we were ill-prepared. We learned 
that. And only by our industrial base roaring back in the 1930s and 
1940s to take on the Axis Powers did we finally prevail. But his 
warning was a righteous warning it was a right warning, it was 
accurate. That, of course, was the Speaker's great uncle, the great 
General Billy Mitchell.
  Well, today we are living in the age of missiles. Yet we have given 
short shrift and not enough money to missile defense programs. That 
means that if a leader in North Korea brings his generals in and says, 
What if we have a tank war with the Americans? Can we beat them? His 
generals say, No, they have the best tanks in the world. What if we try 
to take on their Navy? Can we beat them? No, they have the quietest 
submarines in the world. We will never beat the Americans at sea. What 
can we do to the Americans that they cannot stop? His generals will 
tell that North Korean leader, as I am sure they do on a very regular 
occasion, They cannot stop ballistic missiles. Why not? I do not know. 
We were watching television, they might say, watching international 
television and we saw all these congressmen, I guess they are called, 
getting up and fighting against the missile defense. They said it was a 
bad thing to have war in the heavens and to stop an incoming ballistic 
missile. We cannot figure it out, but the Americans decided to not have 
any defense. They want to be totally vulnerable to a missile strike.
  What is that North Korean or Libyan or Iraqi or Iranian leader going 
to tell his Department of Defense? He is going to tell them, Go where 
they are vulnerable. Build missiles. We cannot beat their tanks. We 
cannot beat General Schwarzkopf's Army on the ground, or what is left 
of it under the Clinton administration. We cannot beat the Navy, but we 
can throw missiles at them and they have nothing to stop it.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to spend a large chunk of money. And I know 
there is going to be some waste and I know there is going to be some 
redundancy, but we better spend a large chunk of money under a national 
emergency framework. That means get all the regulators out of there, 
get the guys out of there that say we cannot test at this test range 
because there are certain mockingbirds that will not sleep when we are 
testing missiles out here. Or we cannot test here because this is a 
historic site.
  It means that when the bean counters come in and the Pentagon says we 
cannot go to the system yet because we have not checked off the 30,000 
boxes and the small business set-asides on that, it means we have to 
sweep them out of the way and go on an emergency program that is just 
as important, I think, to our national survival today as the Manhattan 
Project was at the end of World War II.
  My father was a U.S. Marine who had been in the Leyte Gulf operation 
in the South Pacific. He was in marine artillery and he was waiting for 
the call for his unit to deploy and invade the Japanese mainland. He 
did not have to do that because we came up with the Manhattan Project 
that built the nuclear weapon that we were forced to use at Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki.
  That precluded what we estimated to be 1 million U.S. casualties in 
trying to take the Japanese mainland. One of those casualties might 
have been my father. So, as tough a decision as that was for Mr. Truman 
to make, I think it was the right one and I think most Americans agree.
  Well, today we are in a race. It is almost as important as that race 
in World War II. This is a race not to throw offensive systems at 
people and kill a lot of Russians or kill a lot of Iraqis or kill a lot 
of Iranians. This is a defensive system that will shoot down a missile 
in flight so that we do not have to kill a lot of our adversaries in a 
retaliatory strike.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress, under the good leadership of 
our Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, and the leadership of Mr. Lott and a lot of 
right-minded Republicans and Democrats who realize that now missile 
defense is an emergency, will come to the fore and support a very 
strong, robust emergency missile defense program.
  We need to build on an emergency schedule a defensive system that 
will handle the missiles that North Korea is just now testing; that 
will handle the Iranian missile that was tested a short time ago; and, 
will handle in fact intercontinental ballistic missiles of all shapes 
and sizes, because we can bet they are going to be coming out us.
  Mr. Speaker, let me move to another part of the national security 
bill that I think is important. Incidentally, this bill was shepherded 
forward, was passed today with a big vote and it is the result of a lot 
of hard work by great members on the Committee on National Security, 
Republicans and Democrats, starting with our good chairman, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence), a very strong 
advocate for national defense.
  I was sorry to see that it was the last time this bill was going to 
be shepherded through the Committee on Rules by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gerry Solomon), chairman of the committee, one of the best 
national security Members I have ever seen.
  Mr. Speaker, want to talk a little bit about this bill. I am the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement which helps to 
authorize our ships and our planes and our tanks and those things. This 
bill does provide for ships and planes and tanks and a lot of other 
things like trucks and radios and generators and ammunition. But I can 
tell my colleagues, although we provided for all those types of things, 
we did not provide for much in terms of quantity.
  For example, we are only going to build this year 1 F-16. We are only 
going to build 30 F/A-18 tactical aircraft. We have money in for the 
Joint Strike Fighter, which I think is important. We have money in for 
the F-22. We are going to build some remanufactured Kiowa Warriors. We 
are going to build other aircraft that are on the periphery in all 
three of the services in terms of being support aircraft and combat 
support aircraft, but we are not going to build a great many of those 
aircraft.
  We are not going to build the B-2 bomber. Remember, Mr. Speaker, we 
only have 21 B-2 stealth bombers. The great thing about those bombers 
was that one of those bombers flying into a mission area could evade 
and avoid enemy air detection with their radars, could avoid enemy SAMs 
and could knock out the same number of targets as 75 conventional 
aircraft. So the B-2 bomber was a great multiplier. One B-2 equals 75 
conventional aircraft. But we killed that program. President Clinton 
killed that program last year, and we are only going to have 21 B-2 
bombers. So, we built none of them in this particular bill.

  We are only building enough ships, just enough to keep up to what I 
call the 200-ship Navy. President Ronald Reagan had an almost 600-ship 
Navy just a few years ago. Today, we are building toward the 200-ship 
Navy, a very small Navy.
  In the area of ammunition, we are still billions of dollars short. We 
are about a billion and a half dollars short of basic Army ammunition. 
We are still $300 million short of basic Marine Corps ammunition.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go to some of the personnel problems. We are 
going to be short, now we know, over 800 pilots in the U.S. Air Force. 
We are going to be short also of Navy pilots. We are going to be short 
lots of sailors, the people that go out and make the ships actually 
sail and deploy and do their missions.

[[Page H8608]]

  I am told now by members of the U.S. Navy that when our Navy ships 
come in we are so short in certain munitions that we have to take the 
munitions off the decks of some of the incoming ships and put them on 
the decks of outgoing ships. That means we do not have very many. If we 
have to expend those ammunitions in a war or conflict, we are going to 
be short of ammo very, very quickly.
  We did something in this bill that I do not think is a good thing, 
but we did it at the request of the conferees. Something we could not 
get through the conference, although the House did, I think, the right 
thing. That is we did not separate men and women in basic training.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen the requirements of infantrymen. I have seen 
the requirements of being able to carry a buddy who may weigh 220 
pounds off the field, while at the same time maybe carrying a weapon 
and some other things. I have seen the mixed platoons, that is men and 
women in infantry platoons, and I will simply say that I think we are 
disserving the parents of America who are counting on having an Army 
where the guy next to their son is able to carry him off a battlefield, 
along with equipment, before he is killed.
  In many, many other areas, but especially areas involving physical 
endurance, we are shortchanging not only the young people in the 
service who have to rely on their buddy, but we are also shortchanging, 
of course, the parents who invite them and ask them to join the 
uniformed services.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we tried to get that provision through to maintain a 
separation. We know that there are many, many personal problems that 
have emanated from the lack of what I would call good, practical, 
common sense oversight with respect to training and mixing of the 
genders in training. I do not think we have done a service to either 
the families of the young women or the young men whom we have thrown 
together in these very tight environments in basic training.
  Nonetheless, it was insisted by some of the conferees that we 
maintain that experiment in human behavior. But I will tell my 
colleagues that this committee is going to be watching very closely. 
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Bartlett) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and a 
lot of other folks who are really concerned about that are going to be 
monitoring it, along with myself. We are going to see to it that if 
there is not a reversal in the numbers of incidents that are arising 
from that mixed training, and other problems and disciplinary problems, 
we are going to come back with the bill that we had this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to a gentleman who is a great 
friend of mine, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research 
and Development, who knows his stuff on defense and has been a champion 
of ballistic missile defense, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the 
gentleman's special order and had to come over and first of all praise 
him for not just a special order, but for the leadership role he has 
played on defense issues in this Congress and in past Congresses as the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
  The gentleman has fought long and hard with his colleagues on the 
other side to make sure that we had the money to buy the equipment with 
the very limited budget to meet the needs of our troops. And as he has 
said time and time again, we are in the midst of a crisis right now.
  In fact, I predict that this 10-year period in time, the 1990s, will 
go down in history as the worst period of time in terms of undermining 
our national security. In the next century, people are going to realize 
that the economic savings that were generated during this 
administration were all done on the backs of our men and women in the 
military.
  While we have been cutting defense, and now we are in the fifteenth 
consecutive year of real defense cuts, we have a Commander in Chief who 
has increased our deployment rate to 26 in the past 6 years. That 
compares to 10 in the previous 40 years. And none of these 26 
deployments were budgeted for. None of them were paid for. The $15 
billion in contingency costs to pay for those came out of the hide of 
the men and women who serve in the military, their readiness, their 
modernization, and the research technology necessary to meet the 
threats of the 21st century.
  My friend and colleague talked about missile defense. This issue is 
now becoming again a major national issue. It is becoming such an issue 
not just because of our collective work to raise the issue, but because 
of what is happening.
  We were told by the intelligence community that we would not see 
these threats emerge. Earlier this year, we saw the Iranians test, and 
we think deploy right now, a medium-range missile, the Shahab 3, that 
threatens all of Israel.

                              {time}  1915

  Last week we had members of the Israeli Knesset, the chairman of 
their international affairs and defense committee Uzi Landau here for a 
week. The Israelis feel their backs are against the wall because they 
do not have a highly effective system that can defeat that Shahab 3 
missile. They are vulnerable, just as our 25,000 troops in that theater 
are vulnerable.
  We saw the North Koreans test the NoDong missile, and we think it has 
now been deployed, which puts all of our troops in Asia at risk, which 
includes Japan and South Korea. And we have no highly effective system 
to take out that NoDong. Then in August, we saw what none of us felt 
would occur because the intelligence community told us it would not 
happen for years and that is the North Korean test of a 3-stage rocket, 
a 3-stage missile that they had the audacity to fly over the 
territorial land and waters of Japan.
  We now have evidence that has been based on intelligence community 
assessments that says that this Taepo Dong missile may be able to do 
something that we were told 3 years ago would not happen for 15 years; 
that is, hit the territorial lands of the United States including all 
of Guam and parts of Alaska and Hawaii.
  This is totally and completely unacceptable to us. And as my friend 
and colleague knows, members of both parties in this body and the other 
body have been crying for a response, for systems to protect our troops 
or allies and our people against the threat that missile proliferation 
in fact has produced. But to date we have not had success.
  I say it is largely because there has been a lack of commitment on 
the part of this administration to follow through and to set the tone 
and to do something that the gentleman has repeatedly asked for, and 
that is to muster all the resources of our country, our national labs, 
our agencies, as much as President John Kennedy did when he mustered 
America to land on the moon within 10 years.
  My colleague and friend has said that we should muster all the forces 
that we have in this country to solve this problem and to provide 
protection. And for those who say that we should not worry about 
missile defense, that it is something in the future, I would ask them 
to look those families of those 29 young Americans who were killed 7 
years ago in Saudi Arabia when that low complexity Scud missile landed 
in their barracks and wiped them out, tell those moms and dads and 
brothers and sisters that this threat is not here, that it is not real.
  The single largest loss of life we have had in this decade of our 
American troops was when that Scud missile was fired into our American 
barracks, and we could do nothing about it because we had no system in 
place. What bothers me, and I think my colleague will agree with me, is 
that this administration talks a good game. In fact, just this week, 
they had a major press event. They even asked that, they are talking 
with the Japanese about doing a joint missile defense initiative with 
Japan. I happen to support that kind of a concept but what bothers me 
is, they are not even funding the existing systems. Yet they are 
putting the rhetoric out that they want to fund an entirely new 
initiative with the Japanese.
  Mr. HUNTER. Maybe they think, I would say to my colleague, maybe the 
Clinton administration thinks that they can talk those missiles down 
with the Japanese.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I tend to agree with my colleague, that 
if talk

[[Page H8609]]

in fact were the answer, we would have had every missile in the entire 
world, because of the rhetoric and the hot air that has come out of 
this administration on its commitment to missile defense. But the point 
is that as they did with the Israelis and the supporters of Israel, 
understand this very well, when President Clinton went before AIPAC's 
national convention in Washington 2 years ago, he pounded his fist on 
the podium and he said, we will never allow the people of Israel to be 
vulnerable to Russian Katushka rockets. He said to them, we will help 
you build the Nautilus program.
  What he did not tell the friends of Israel was that for the three 
previous years he had tried to zero out all the funding for the theater 
high energy laser program, which is what Nautilus is. And what he did 
not tell the friends of Israel was that in that fiscal year, the 
administration made no funding request to fund the Nautilus program. To 
this date, we have not received a funding request.
  As my friend knows, I had to go to AIPAC, and I had to say to them, 
how much money does Israel need to move this program forward? The 
dollar amount that we put in our defense bill 2 years ago was not 
requested by this administration, in spite of the President's rhetoric. 
It was provided by the folks at AIPAC who gave us the number to put in 
the bill to provide the dollar support for Israel.
  Now we have a request, a situation where they are saying we are going 
to help Japan. What about the $11 billion necessary to fund the Meads 
program which we have committed to with the Italians and Germans? What 
about the money necessary to fund Navy Upper Tier, Navy Area Wide? What 
about the funding necessary to deploy PAC 3, THAAD? What about the 
funding necessary to help Israel continue the Arrow program? Where is 
all that funding coming from when this administration has said they are 
going to take our current missile defense budget from $3.6 billion to 
$2.6 billion.
  You cannot do it. We need to take this message to the American 
people. The friends of Israel are aware of this rhetoric and they are 
on our side. But something is happening across America. I wanted to 
come over and I wanted to enter into the Record, if my colleague in 
fact will allow me, to put in the changing mood of the American people.
  Over the past 2 months there have been over 20 national newspapers 
who have put into the Record endorsements of the need for this country 
to very quickly deploy national and regional missile defense systems.
  I would like to, at this point in time, put into the Record comments 
from those 20 some odd newspapers, from all the major cities, from the 
Washington Times, the Savannah Morning News, the Wall Street Journal, 
the Daily Oklahoman, the Kansas City Star, the Boston Herald, the 
Chicago Sun-Times, the Detroit News, the Wisconsin State Journal, the 
New Republic, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Florida Times union, the 
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Las Vegas Review Journal, the San Diego 
Union Tribune, the Indianapolis Star, the Arizona Republic, Providence 
Journal, the New York Post, the same arguments that we have been making 
that America is now beginning to listen to.
  It is time this administration stopped the rhetoric and started 
putting the muscle where it is needed, and that is to deploy very 
quickly the most highly effective theater and national missile defense 
systems that our money can buy.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the editorial comments to which 
I referred:

      America's Editorial Boards Support National Missile Defense

       The irony in all of this is that Israel could have a 
     missile defense years before similar protection is afforded 
     Americans . . . Good for the Israelis that they have a 
     government determined to protect from a real and growing 
     danger from abroad. But could someone please explain why 
     Americans do not deserve as much?


``to hit a bullet with an arrow,'' the washington times, september 23, 
                                  1998

       Unfortunately, it seems some lawmakers would prefer to put 
     their faith--and America's safety--in arms-control 
     agreements. They trust Baghdad and Pyongyang to keep their 
     words more than they trust the ability of American scientists 
     to devise a last-resort shield against hostile attacks.


 ``invitation to missiles,'' savannah morning news, september 12, 1998

       So it's good to see Japanese officials wiping the mud from 
     their eyes to say that while the object that whizzed over 
     Japan was probably a missile, launching a satellite with 
     similar sophisticated rocketry would have sent the same wake-
     up call: that no country is safe today from the very real 
     threat of attack by missiles carrying weapons of mass 
     destruction.


 ``the missile plot thickens,'' the wall street journal, september 10, 
                                  1998

       Bold action is needed to counter Clinton's idle approach to 
     defending the U.S. against a grave and growing threat.


   ``vulnerable and at risk,'' the daily oklahoman, september 8, 1998

       Defenses against missiles for threatened American allies 
     and our troops and installations overseas--and soon perhaps 
     the nation itself--is the most important national security 
     problem today. Everything that Congress can do to prod a 
     head-in-the-sand administration must do so.


``missile defenses needed even more,'' boston herald, september 6, 1998

       In fact, changing the policy goal from research to 
     deployment--as soon as possible--will change the fundamental 
     dynamics of the research. The threat is closing in faster 
     than the response, and that's what must change.


``missile threat closing in fast,'' Kansas city star, september 5, 1998

       Lawmakers should get the process rolling toward development 
     of this very necessary defensive system. We certainly hope no 
     bin laden type ever gets his hands on a ballistic missile, 
     but it would be grievously wrong to relay on hope alone.


    ``in defense of defense,'' chicago sun-times, september 3, 1998

       But the alternative is to leave America without any defense 
     against enemy missile attack. In view of the Constitution's 
     requirement that the government ``provide for the common 
     defense,'' that wouldn't seem to be an option.


    ``north korea's wake up call,'' detroit news, september 2, 1998

       In these days of suicidal attackers, holding American 
     hostages to attack is even less defensible than before. 
     Holding them hostage is, in fact, an invitation to attack.


      ``no defense allowed,'' washington times, september 2, 1998

       The North Korean missile launch shows how quickly the world 
     can grow more dangerous. The United States can't protect 
     itself or its friends from threats posed by rogues like North 
     Korea or international terrorists. How many wake-up calls 
     will America's leaders get?


     ``missile defense needed,'' daily oklahoman, september 1, 1998

       America, meanwhile, is defenseless against missile attack--
     whether launched by Iraq, North Korea or another rogue state, 
     or an independent operator like bin Laden. Either way the 
     threat is real.


         ``missile madness,'' daily oklahoman, august 31, 1998

       If the United States waits until a terrorist state has 
     blackmail capability, it's too late. Congress should update 
     the nation's intelligence system and protect its shore from 
     unexpected attack. The United States won't win ``the war of 
     the future'' by relying on weapons and strategies of the 
     past.


``old strategy won't win new war,'' wisconsin state journal, august 27, 
                                  1998

       Mr. Clinton's Administration has repeatedly recommended 
     cuts in missile defense programs both in forward theaters and 
     here at home. One way to clearly signal terrorists of 
     America's new resolve would be to reverse this policy and 
     restore missile defense funding to the level that existed 
     before Mr. Clinton took office.


       ``a new terrorism policy?'' detroit news, august 25, 1998

       As for the religion of deterrence: Who would like to bet 
     the peace of the world and the lives of hundreds of thousands 
     of people on the rationality of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong 
     II? So far their behavior has not seemed overly influenced by 
     the theories of Thomas Schelling. The point is not that 
     deterrence will not work. The point is that deterrence may 
     not work. and there are now many more places, and inflamed 
     places, where it may fail. . . So, then, are there land-based 
     systems that belong in the security posture of the United 
     States, as one of its many elements of defense and 
     deterrence? In a madly proliferating world, the question must 
     be asked.


        ``shields up,'' the new republic, august 17 and 24, 1998

       It surely hasn't escaped the notice of this country's 
     enemies that the U.S. has absolutely no defense against 
     ballistic missile attack. The fact that the U.S. cannot shoot 
     down a missile heading for an American city is a powerful and 
     dangerous incentive for the bin Ladens of the world to 
     acquire one.


    ``the next terrorism,'' the wall street journal, august 21, 1998

       We may always have terrorists gunning for us. Congress 
     needs to move ahead with a strategic missile defense and 
     hardening U.S. defenses against biochemical weapons of mass 
     destruction.

[[Page H8610]]

     ``embassy bombings,'' the cincinnati enquirer, august 13, 1998

       Does anybody doubt that the terrorists in Tanzania and 
     Kenya would have bombed a U.S. city, rather than obscure 
     embassies, if they had the weaponry? In time, they may get 
     the weapons. Americans need protection.


     ``Revive Star Wars,'' The Florida Times-Union, August 13, 1998

       Missile technology is spreading more rapidly than predicted 
     while the United States still has no missile defense whatever 
     . . . The Iranian missile launch is another sobering warning: 
     It's time to move faster on missile defense.


``Don't wait on defense system until it's too late,'' Kansas City Star, 
                             August 9, 1998

       The fact that the United States has absolutely no defenses 
     against ballistic missile attack is an unacceptably large 
     negative incentive to this country's enemies. The way to 
     deter them is not by signing more archaic arms-control 
     agreements but by researching and deploying a national 
     missile defense system as quickly as possible after the next 
     president takes office.


       ``Early Warning,'' The Wall Street Journal, July 29, 1998

       To be sure, a workable missile defense is better than 
     nothing; it is one more protection, even if it is not total. 
     And in developing such a system, scientists stand to make 
     important technological breakthroughs with spin-offs in other 
     fields.


    ``A New Argument for Missile Defense Deserves Serious Study,'' 
                 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 29, 1998

       The Iranian missile test has energized calls from the 
     congressional leadership for immediate attention to building 
     and deploying an anti-missile defense system to protect the 
     United States from incoming warheads . . . President Clinton 
     should heed the calls to develop an ABM system.


   ``Missile Threat Looms,'' Las Vegas Review-Journal, July 28, 1998

       Recent events are challenging the Clinton Administration's 
     relaxed assumptions about the need for a defense against 
     ballistic missiles. And none too soon we think.


``Missile Defenses Deserve Urgent Priority,'' San Diego Union-Tribune, 
                             July 27, 1998

       It's easier for some to worry about global warming that may 
     or may not be resulting from human activity than it is to 
     recognize the real threat of a missile crisis that could be 
     prevented with a defense system along the lines Ronald Reagan 
     urged on the nation so many years ago.


          ``Reagan Was Right,'' Daily Oklahoman, July 23, 1998

       There are indications that the administration will dismiss 
     the Rumsfeld report as politically motivated and continue 
     with its go slow approach. Clinton's 1999 budget request 
     calls for just under $1 billion for national missile defense 
     . . . But Americans should take this report [from the 
     Rumsfeld Commission] seriously and demand action from 
     Congress.


      ``A Very Real Threat,'' The Indianapolis Star, July 23, 1998

       The Clinton Administration has used the three-year-old 
     [NIE] assessment by the CIA as an excuse to take its time 
     developing a national missile defense. The new [Rumsfeld] 
     report issued last week indicates that policy is foolhardy. 
     Ronald Reagan was right about the need for this sort of pro-
     active defense, so that never again would America have to 
     rely on nuclear attack weapons to deter a possible foe.


       ``Forcing the Issue,'' The Daily Oklahoman, July 22, 1998

       The Clinton Administration has for too long thwarted 
     research and development and delayed deployments of effective 
     defenses against missile attack. The message of the Rumsfeld 
     commission is that there will be consequences to pay 
     continuing the status quo. Dangerous consequences for all of 
     us.


  ``Unprotected Americans, Time for a Change,'' The Arizona Republic, 
                             July 20, 1998

       The Rumsfeld panel's report is the latest sign that the 
     United States will have to engage in more serious research, 
     and make heavier investments, in anti-missile defenses that 
     can help protect the public against menacing threats--and 
     possibly even outright attacks--by rogue nations headed by 
     irrational leaders.


``We still Need a Shield,'' Providence (Rhode Island) Journal, July 20, 
                                  1998

       Enough is enough. We have in the Rumsfeld Commission report 
     evidence aplenty that we are facing a serious national 
     security threat. To continue to leave Americans vulnerable is 
     unconscionable.


    ``Every Rogue His Missile,'' The Washington Times, July 20, 1998

       The commission's report should revive debate over 
     development of an anti-ballistic missile system. Perhaps some 
     of the money that Congress now spends on pork-barrel projects 
     the Pentagon neither wants nor requests could be used to 
     enhance the nation's defense against the newest, and most 
     unpredictable, members of the world's nuclear club.


 ``Renew Anti-Missile Debate,'' Wisconsin State Journal, July 20, 1998

       The emerging threat from countries like Iran, Iraq, and 
     North Korea makes it irresponsible for America not to do 
     whatever it can as soon as it can to develop a shield against 
     these terrifying weapons.


          ``The Final Frontier,'' New York Post, July 19, 1998

       In this new age of emerging, virulently hostile nuclear 
     powers, the United States must expeditiously negotiate with 
     Russia an end to the ABM Treaty and deploy an anti-missile 
     defense system.


       ``Naked America,'' Las Vegas Review Journal, July 17, 1998

       Until this odd Administration, we thought a President's 
     first duty was to the common defense. At least Congress is a 
     co-equal branch of government. And armed with the substance 
     of this [Rumsfeld] report, it has a stronger political case 
     for the more urgent development of missile defenses.


          ``Zero Warning,'' Wall Street Journal, July 16, 1998

       North Korea soon will have a missile that can reach Alaska 
     and Hawaii; does anyone think this mad regime will show the 
     military prudence of the Soviet Union? Saddam Hussein would 
     have fired nuclear weapons at the anti-Iraq coalition if he 
     had had them and some of his Scud missiles did get through; 
     does anyone think the world has seen the last of Saddam's 
     ilk? . . . Republicans must lead the nation to act against 
     real danger and abandon the foolish consolation of treaties 
     with nonexistent adversaries.


  ``It's Time for Missile Defense,'' The Boston Herald, July 12, 1998.

  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for his excellent comments and for his 
leadership. I remind him that a couple of years ago, I think it was 
1987, when the Israelis were building the Lavi fighter or embarking on 
the Lavi fighter program, which was kind of a mid-range fighter 
aircraft that they thought they needed, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon) and I and several other members on the Committee on 
National Security sent a letter to the Israeli leadership saying, if 
you had an attack by aircraft from a neighboring Arab country, and I 
think then we were thinking of Syria, you would shoot them all down 
before they got to Tel Aviv. But if you were attacked by ballistic 
missiles, Russian-made ballistic missiles coming from a neighboring 
Arab country, you would not be able to stop a single one. That is the 
essence of our letter.
  We urged them to begin the Arrow missile program, the Arrow missile 
defense program. As a result of that, partly as a result of our letter 
and the result, I think, of a lot of other factors and also the 
importance, the realization by the Israeli leadership that they were in 
the missile age, they realized that even if we do not and they would 
have to defend against these missiles sooner or later, they began that 
program, the Arrow missile defense program. And it is going very well. 
They have had a number of successes. I have often thought that here we 
have a very small country, and it seems that they have been able to do 
more with a handful of scientists and a couple of pickup trucks than we 
have been able to do with this big defense apparatus, big Department of 
Energy apparatus and this huge bureaucracy. And maybe it is because we 
have a huge bureaucracy, but I think more important than that, it is 
because we have an administration in the White House that does not 
really want to do it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman raises a very interesting 
point. In fact, two hours ago I met with the senior leaders of the 
Israeli company building the Arrow program in my office as well as 
Israeli officials. They have had the success the gentleman refers to. 
In fact, this past week they had another success with the Arrow 
program. But it gets down to a basic philosophical debate in this city 
where the liberals want to tell us that arms control agreements and 
arms control regimes will provide the security protection we need.
  And many on our side, like myself and my colleague are saying, you 
need systems because you cannot always trust those other signatories to 
the arms control regimes. But this administration has failed in three 
different ways.
  First of all, they have not committed themselves to force the 
deployment of missile defense systems, partly because they want arms 
control agreements. This administration has the worst record in 
enforcement of arms control agreements in this century. Two months ago 
I did a floor speech where I documented 37 instances of arms control 
violations by Russia and China, where Russia and China sent technology 
to India, to Pakistan, to Iraq, to Iran, to Syria, Libya and North

[[Page H8611]]

Korea. In those 37 instances, the administration imposed sanctions 
three times and then waived the sanctions in each of those cases. So it 
should be no surprise to us when India and Pakistan saber rattled each 
other. We saw China sending 11 missiles to Pakistan. We saw the ring 
magnets going to Pakistan for their nuclear program. We saw the 
Russians sending technology to India.
  Why should we then be surprised when these two countries are going at 
each other? We did nothing to stop that proliferation because this 
administration did not enforce the very arms control agreements that 
they maintain are the cornerstone of their security arrangements 
worldwide.
  So not only have they not funded missile defense, they have not even 
enforced the arms control agreements that they maintain are the basis 
of stability in the world, and they have created the false impression 
through their rhetoric that they really are concerned about having 
systems in place to provide protection.
  For all of those reasons, I think we are more vulnerable today, our 
allies are more vulnerable today than at any point in time in my 
lifetime.
  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman makes an important point. I know he is on 
the select committee, the special committee that is looking at this 
administration's transfer of technology to Communist China with respect 
to satellite technology and missile technology. I saw what I thought 
was a great cartoon the other day. Some cartoons really hit close to 
home. It had a truth to it.
  The first question in the cartoon was, which country's missile 
technology has the Clinton administration most improved? And the second 
part of the cartoon was, Communist China's.
  And the gentleman, I would ask him to make any comments that he can 
make at this time because I know he is on the special committee, but 
basically this administration allowed the top engineers and scientists 
in this country, people who can go out and examine a missile and tell 
what is wrong with it, they allowed them to interchange and meet with 
and send papers to the Communist Chinese rocket scientists who were 
having real trouble making the Long March missile work.
  The Long March missile is a missile that the Chinese Communists use 
for two things. One is they put up satellites with them. Some of our 
satellite companies in the United States hire them to shoot our 
satellites up on their missiles. But the other use of the Long March is 
they have nuclear warheads on some of them aimed at cities in the 
United States.
  It is not in our interest for the Long March missile to work. 
Especially if it is launched at Los Angeles. However, our engineers, 
under the permissions or the negligence of the Clinton administration, 
were allowed to engage for months at the request of the Chinese 
Communists, after they had some failures with the Long March missile 
launching a satellite, to engage with them and show them what they were 
doing wrong and after that series of interchanges, their most important 
type of Long March missile, as I understand it, has not had a failure.
  That means we helped them fix whatever was wrong. That reminds me 
about the joke about the three guys who were caught by Khomeini and 
they were going to be guillotined, and the first one got under the 
guillotine and Khomeini ordered pull and the guillotine came halfway 
down and stuck. Khomeini said, that must be a message from Allah, let 
this man go. The second guy gets under there and he says, pull, and 
they pull it, sticks halfway down. Another message. Let him go. The 
third guy gets under and says, I think I see your problem. That is kind 
of what we did with the Chinese and the Long March missile.

                              {time}  1930

  Here we are, the target of those missiles carrying nuclear warheads, 
and our engineers are over there in China showing them what is making 
the missiles crash after they have only gone a few miles. We want those 
missiles to crash.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
obviously, I am not authorized to divulge information from the select 
committee's investigation, but I can relate one piece of information 
that is in the public domain that I think points up exactly what the 
gentleman is referring to very clearly.
  Before 1996, China had no high-speed supercomputers. None. The only 
two countries that manufacture high-speed supercomputers are the U.S. 
and Japan. Japan's export policy has been very rigid and very tight. Up 
until 1996, so was ours. In 1996, things began to change. Export 
waivers began to be issued. Presidential waivers began to be issued. 
For whatever reason. The bottom line. Today, there is public 
information, on the record, that China has over 100 high-speed 
supercomputers, all of which were obtained from the U.S., which gives 
China, listen to this fact, more high-speed supercomputing capability 
than our entire Department of Defense, within 2 years. That is on the 
record, in public documents provided by this administration, in terms 
of what capability China has.
  Now, I am not against engaging China. In fact, I led two delegations 
there last year. I am for an engagement that is based on candor and 
strength, much like the engagement I think we should have with Russia. 
But facts are facts. They do not need over 100 high-speed 
supercomputers to do computational research. They need that kind of 
supercomputer research to design nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons, and to 
be able to do testing of nuclear systems, like we are doing with our 
ASCII Blue project.
  The 100 supercomputers that China has, I would maintain many of them 
are being used in developing new generations of weapons that China is, 
in fact, today working on. Prior to 1996, they had none. From 1996 
until today they have in excess of 100. Again, more than the entire 
supercomputing capability of our Defense Department. If that is not an 
outrage, I do not know what is.
  And I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and thank him for his 
contribution here today. I think he is one of the great experts in 
defense in our House and he has done a great job as the R&D 
subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter) has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, one other thing I wanted to comment about 
today, because it is coming up on the House floor, is so-called fast 
track, and I just want to tell my colleagues why I do not think this 
President, this administration, should be entrusted with fast track.
  Fast track is power. It is a power that we give American presidents, 
we as Congress, who are vested under the Constitution, or chartered 
under the Constitution with the obligation of making trade agreements. 
We give up some of that trade agreement power, power to negotiate the 
agreement, to the executive branch; to the President. And so the 
President, instead of all the Congressmen making the deals and the 
committees being involved in all the details, the executive branch goes 
out and makes the deals, like NAFTA, and then they bring them back to 
the House of Representatives and to the Senate and we vote on them.
  Now, I would say, first, a couple of things. First, I think that the 
negotiating team that the President has, that he has utilized for trade 
deals, has not been a very competent team. And I am thinking of the 
port entrance treaty that we made, or agreement that we made with Japan 
where we were going to be able to get some liberalization from Japan 
for other people coming in and unloading in ports around Japan. In that 
deal we were totally finessed.
  I think of NAFTA, primarily negotiated by another administration but, 
nonetheless, by a bureaucracy that started with a $3 billion trade 
surplus in favor of the U.S. and today is in a $15 billion trade loss.
  Now, the great thing about being a free trader, and I like free 
traders, I have a great sense of humor about them, but the great thing 
about being a free trader is they never have to say they are sorry. If 
we have a trade surplus with a nation, they say that is great; and if 
their deal makes a trade loss with a nation, a loss for America, they 
say that is great, too. Today we have a $15 billion trade loss with 
Mexico. We went from a surplus of $3 billion to a $15 billion loss.

[[Page H8612]]

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. As the gentleman knows, as a Republican 
and a colleague, I supported the same position he did on NAFTA, which 
is opposition to NAFTA, because I felt that this administration would 
not impose the requirements on Mexico in terms of improving wage rates 
and labor conditions and tougher environmental laws. So in not doing 
that, our companies would, in fact, fly south to Mexico, which they 
have done.
  But the interesting point that I want to tie in here is organized 
labor has been so quick to criticize Republicans on issues like NAFTA 
when, in fact, it was this administration who shoved NAFTA down our 
throats in the Congress.
  And I want to raise one more point.
  Mr. HUNTER. President Clinton pushed NAFTA.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Absolutely.
  Mr. HUNTER. He rammed it through.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. As he is doing with fast track this week.
  I want to raise one more additional point before I leave and let my 
colleague finish his time. Unlike most of my Republican friends, I get 
strong support from organized labor, and I am proud of that. I come 
from a working class family and understand the needs of working class 
people. My friend, I think, probably has many similar votes. I do not 
know if he has the support I do, but I get a lot of support from labor.
  I had a group of steelworkers in today asking me about what I was 
going to do on fast track. I asked them this question: Where has the 
AFL-CIO been on the one million union jobs that have been lost in this 
country because of this administration's cuts in defense and aerospace?
  Now, we have heard Members get up and rale about the loss of decent 
paying wages and how critical that is. One million U.S. union jobs were 
lost in the past 6 years from cutbacks in defense and aerospace 
budgets. The AFL-CIO did not issue a peep. Union workers, steelworkers 
who were building the ships at Bath Iron Works, UAW workers who were 
building the C-17, people who were building the F/A-18-Cs and Ds, all 
of these cutbacks that have occurred across the country were with union 
plants. IBEW workers, UAW workers, steelworkers, Teamsters. Where was 
the AFL-CIO? Where was that on the rating card of rating Members of 
Congress on their votes? Why was no member of either party rated for 
not voting to provide the funding support to keep those union jobs in 
place?
  And to all those union brothers and sisters out there who are today 
working at labor positions making one-half or one-third or one-fourth 
of what they used to make, I ask them, what did their union dues go 
for? Their union dues did not go to fight for those jobs they now do 
not have. One million of them are out of work today because the only 
area we have cut in the Federal budget for the past 6 years has been 
the defense budget. The only area.

  Sure, we can talk about decreasing the level of increase, and we call 
that a cut. And we all know that is not what we are talking about with 
defense. Defense is the only area of the budget that has sustained real 
cuts above the rate of inflation to gut the program itself. And that 
has resulted in one million American men and women who carry the union 
card who have lost their jobs.
  When we cut the MilCon budget, the gentleman knows the requirements 
of the Federal Government, even though many on our side oppose it: 
Davis-Bacon. So who benefits or who loses when we cut the MilCon 
defense budget? All of those building trades: the steamfitters, the 
pipefitters, the brick layers. They are the ones who lose because we 
have cut back on MilCon construction projects, all of which must be 
done according to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates.
  Where has the AFL-CIO been? It has been like this: With its fingers 
in its ears, its hands over its eyes, and its hands over its mouth. It 
has not spoken one word on behalf of the union members who are today 
out of work because of those cuts.
  Mr. HUNTER. My friend makes a great point, and there is one other 
thing that we have done for every union worker and every nonunion 
worker in this country, and it was done by Presidents Reagan and Bush, 
and that is that we built a military that was strong enough.
  Besides providing those millions of jobs, one million of which have 
been cut by the Clinton administration, but besides providing those 
jobs, we fielded a force, a military force, which, since 1991, has been 
cut roughly in half, but which was so strong in 1990 and 1991, that 
when we took on Saddam Hussein in the sands of the Middle East, even 
though we sent over, in my understanding, 40,000 body bags, that is 
where they put the bodies of the dead Americans after they have been 
killed in battle, we sent over 40,000 empty body bags, only a very few 
Americans came back in those bags because we were so strong that we won 
overwhelmingly without many casualties. If we had to fight that war 
today, having cut the Army from 18 to 10 divisions, our air power from 
24 air wings to only 13, and our navy ships from 546 ships to about 333 
ships, we could not win overwhelmingly. We would lose more Americans.
  The gentleman knows how great it is when we go to a union picnic and 
we see, like during Desert Storm, all those bumper stickers saying, ``I 
support our men in Desert Storm'', ``I support our troops,'' ``I 
support our soldiers.'' The best service we can do for working men and 
women is to see to it that they come home, when they are of service 
age; that they come home alive, with all their faculties. And if they 
are retired and they have a couple of kids out there, to see to it that 
their kids come home alive, with all their faculties. That is why we 
need a strong defense. I thank my friend for bringing that point up.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just close on this pending fast track, and why I 
think it is a bad idea. I think we have established that trade deals 
are business deals. And if we look at the trade lobbyists and some of 
the proceedings that are now being investigated with respect to this 
administration, I do not think we can give them a clean bill of health 
and say that they were not unduly influenced by some bad elements. I 
think that is putting it charitably.
  Secondly, I think they just are not smart enough or good enough to 
make good deals. After 4 years of making deals with China, we have now 
a trade deficit with Communist China that is over $40 billion a year. 
So we have lost in trade with China. The merchandise trading lost this 
year was a loss to the United States, according to our own statistics 
from the Clinton administration, of over $240 billion.
  So the first rule is, if we have a guy who is a businessman who 
always loses money, we do not trust him with all our money. That is 
pretty simple. That is a very basic thing. We have, unfortunately, Mr. 
Speaker, folks in the Clinton administration who are losers, proven 
losers with respect to making trade deals, and we should not entrust 
all of this power to them. So not this President and not this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be back with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) and other members of the Committee on National Security to talk 
a little bit more about the need to rebuild national defense over the 
next several weeks.

                          ____________________