[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.
____________________