[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 43 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1411-H1448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
DECLARATION OF POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING NATIONAL MISSILE
DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 120 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 120
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4)
to declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy
a national missile defense. The bill shall be considered as
read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate
transmitting H.R. 4 with Senate amendments thereto, it shall
be in order to consider in the House a motion offered by the
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee
that the House disagree to the Senate amendments and request
or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a closed rule for
H.R. 4, the National Missile Defense bill. The rule provides for 2
hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Finally, the rule provides that it will be in order, upon receipt of
a message from the Senate transmitting H.R. 4, with Senate amendments,
to consider in the House a motion offered by the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services or his designee that the House disagree to
the Senate amendments and request or agree to a conference with the
Senate.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 is a simple, one-sentence bill declaring that it
is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile
defense. During remarks at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in
my home State of New York, President Ronald Reagan said that ``a truly
successful army is one that, because of its strength and ability and
dedication, will not be called upon to fight, for no one will dare
provoke it.''
Indeed, President Reagan's policy of peace through strength was the
beginning of the end of the Cold War and established the United States
as the world's only remaining superpower.
But the end of the Cold War did not bring about the end of a lasting
threat to our Nation's security and our people's safety, which is why I
rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4,
which will establish a national missile defense system.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, ``eternal vigilance,'' wrote Jefferson,
``is the price of liberty.'' Yet our current national missile defense
has neither the ability nor the technology to ensure that either our
safety or our liberty is held in the United States.
Even as we sit at the dawn of the next century, the United States
could not defend itself against even a single incoming ballistic
missile.
Mr. Speaker, that fact bears repeating. Our current national defense
could not shoot down even one incoming ballistic missile let alone the
thousands that stand ready to point toward our Nation's borders.
According to the Rumsfeld Commission, the threat to America and her
people from a ballistic missile attack is not only very real but even
greater than once expected. Besides thousands of nuclear warheads on
ballistic missiles maintained by Russia, China has more than a dozen
long-range ballistic missiles targeted at the United States, and
countries like North Korea and Iran are developing ballistic missile
technology and capability much more rapidly than once believed.
Another astonishing fact is that the overwhelming majority of the
American people, some 73 percent, is unaware of the threat to their
country, their homes, and their families. They believe we already have
the technology to knock down and defeat a ballistic missile attack. We
do not.
The American people are entitled to know the truth, just as they are
entitled to us doing something about it to ensure their safety and
their lives. They are also entitled to know the facts about the cost of
a national missile defense. And the facts are that the current national
missile defense plans account for one-half of 1 percent of anticipated
defense spending from fiscal year 2000 through 2005 and less than 2
percent of the Department of Defense's entire modernization budget
during these years.
The threat of a ballistic missile attack is real, as real as our
resolve must be to protect all Americans by deploying a national
missile defense.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, President Reagan taught us that we could
be victorious against the Cold War threat of nuclear annihilation by
adopting a policy of peace through strength. Now we must be victorious
against the threat of a ballistic missile attack by adopting a policy
of peace through security, the security that a national missile defense
will provide our country and our citizens.
[[Page H1412]]
I would like to commend the Committee on Armed Services chairman, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development, for their hard work on this very important
measure.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) for yielding me the customary half-hour.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. The Committee
on Rules has reported a series of bills to the floor under open rules
in the last couple of months. But if the truth be told, Mr. Speaker,
those bills could have been considered under the suspension of the
rules and did not really have to come to the floor at all.
Now, when the House is about to consider legislation that is of
paramount importance to every man, woman, and child in the country, the
Republican party has reported out a closed rule.
What we heard earlier today during our closed session reinforces the
significance of this issue. Yet we are being asked to consider it under
a closed rule. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this
rule.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority refuses to allow even one
amendment on this bill. We asked for an additional hour of debate on
the bill but that was not allowed. What is at stake here, Mr. Speaker,
is the future and well-being of this Nation. Yet my Republican
colleagues do not want to take the time to fully debate and air this
issue.
I cannot support this closed process, and I strongly urge every
Member of this body who supports the democratic ideals of free and open
debate to oppose this closed and unfair rule.
The ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services
yesterday indicated that, while he is opposed to the amendment that was
proposed by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), he felt that the
amendment should be considered by the House. The Allen amendment seeks
to clarify that any national missile defense system must be proven to
work before it is deployed and that any deployment decision must be
weighed against other military as well as civilian priorities.
Allowing the House to consider an amendment like the Allen proposal
is really not too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. Yet my Republican
colleagues seem to think that allowing an alternative to their proposal
to be heard on the floor is indeed too much to ask.
Mr. Speaker, if the Republican Party is really interested in changing
the atmosphere in this House, we do not have to go up to a mountainside
and smoke a peace pipe. All we have to do is be fair about the rules
and allow the Democrats to participate on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I see little evidence of that on this rule, and I urge
my members to defeat this unfair, closed rule so that we can have an
open debate on the entire issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the ranking member that yesterday the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) outlined that there would be
more than ample debate in the hour that we have on the rule now, in the
two hours of debate, and the hour on consideration of the conference
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss).
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, a new member
of our committee and a valued member of our committee, for yielding me
this time.
Today we embark on a crucial debate directly relevant to the lives of
all American men, women, and especially our children. I would argue
that the Congress of the United States has no more significant duty
than to ensure the greatest level of protection for our national
security.
With the dawn of the next century just a few short months away, we
face a future that is bright with opportunity and promise, some of
which we are realizing today, but a future that is also vulnerable to
attack, including specifically missile attack, by those who would do us
harm.
And let us be clear. Those who would do us harm inhabit many quarters
of this ever-shrinking world. Many are actively seeking to develop and
deploy the technology to provide themselves a ballistic missile
capability to use against the United States of America.
We do not pursue this debate today to scare people, but rather to
engage them in an open-eyed assessment of the world as it is. We all
might wish to believe President Clinton's pronouncement that no
American child is currently being targeted by a missile, but that is
unfortunately not exactly a true statement.
Sadly, the 1964 election year Johnson campaign ad of a little girl
playing in a field of flowers backdropped by an atomic cloud is still
vivid and still a sickening possibility in today's world. Beyond the
state of affairs today, there is also the reality that the world's bad
guys are moving quickly and with the sense of purpose toward a tomorrow
when they can wreak havoc and cause damage with weapons of mass
destruction or mass casualty targeted against Americans and our
interests.
I have always advocated investment in the eyes and ears capabilities
of U.S. intelligence so we can have as full a picture as possible about
the threats we face as we develop policies to protect ourselves. We
need not only to know about the missiles but also about the plans and
the intentions of the Saddam Husseins and Khadafis, Khomenis and Kim
Jong Ils of the world today.
Some might say that since the Cuban missile crisis we have not
focused enough on these threats in recent years, perhaps because the
policymakers did not want to see the dangers. But, Mr. Speaker, our
intelligence says unequivocally that the threat is real, growing, and
much more immediate than some had thought. So I strongly believe we
must commit ourselves to putting in place a missile defense program as
soon as practical.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 is a deceptively simple bill. Its entirety is
only one sentence. But the 15 words that comprise the operative text of
H.R. 4 speak volumes to the entire planet that we will not shy away
from the tough challenge of making America and her people safe from a
missile attack.
Support this rule and vote for H.R. 4 and do America a favor.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the American people may be surprised to
know that although we have not declared it our policy to do so, we have
already spent $120 billion of taxpayers' money for a nuclear umbrella
which does not exist for a threat which has never materialized.
I propose that we can save the taxpayers at least another $120
billion by announcing to the world that we already have a nuclear
umbrella. Who is going to know the difference? Latter-day Dr.
Strangeloves are running around the Capitol today saying the sky is
falling and we ought to buy a net to catch it. Save the taxpayers
money.
Here is a prototype nuclear umbrella. This has about as much of a
chance of repelling raindrops as the real thing would have in stopping
nuclear missiles if scientific evidence is to be believed. Now, if we
buy into the fear mongering, what is next? Duck-and-cover drills?
Loyalty pledges? Red scare number 2? The second Cold War?
We have already proven that we can leave the post-Cold War world in
peace not through preparing for war but through dedicated nuclear
nonproliferation.
{time} 1230
Let us work for peace and let us be brave and strong and true in
defense of democratic values here at home and around the world.
Vote against the rule and vote against H.R. 4.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
[[Page H1413]]
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
This debate today is going to be a serious debate. I think we ought
to set the tone early. I reject as a Member of this Congress
trivializing this issue with an umbrella, because 28 young Americans 8
years ago came home in body bags because we had no system to defend
against. And to say that somehow an umbrella with nothing there is the
way we are going to discuss this issue is absolutely disgusting to me
because half of those young men and women came from my State. It is not
a joke to hold an umbrella up with nothing there and say this is what
we are doing.
We have no defense today against any missile system. It is a national
priority that this Congress needs to address. And to trivialize this
debate as has been done in this body for 30 years has got to come to an
end. I think we should treat this debate with more sincerity and
dignity than that.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, even though I have opposed it in the
past, I will vote for a missile defense system today. The first reason
is the Russian spy who defected to America warned us that China is
determined to destroy America. Since then, China has stolen our
military secrets and China has missiles aimed at America. Russia has
missiles that could reach America. North Korea has missiles that can
reach America. India, Pakistan, Iran, all have nuclear capability.
But the main reason for my vote here today is very simple: Our
misdirected foreign policy. It is so misdirected that if you threw it
at the ground, it would miss.
Check this out. Most-favored-nation trade status for China is debated
on economic merits. Beam me up. With a $70 billion trade surplus, China
is buying nuclear attack submarines and missiles with our money and has
them aimed at American cities. How stupid can you be, Congress? How
stupid can we be?
I have no choice today. I do not believe Congress has a choice. These
policies have placed America in great danger and these policies have
placed my constituents, my neighbors, my family, my friends at great
risk.
Let me say one last thing. National defense and security is our
number-one priority, and you cannot protect America with the
neighborhood crime watch. I am changing my vote. I am voting for the
missile defense system for the United States of America.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania who spoke that this debate should not be trivialized.
That is why I deplore seriously the refusal of the Republican
leadership to make this open to amendment.
Yes, this is a serious subject and it ought to be given full
discussion and not trivialized. But what trivializes this more than the
arrogant refusal to allow any amendment? The question is not simply a
missile defense or not but what sort? Under what circumstances? With
what tradeoffs? With what information?
The Republican leadership ran for office to take over the House a few
years ago with a long list of ways in which they were going to be
better, more democratic. What we have seen since is a systematic
striptease in which the Republicans have systematically discarded every
pretense to ethical superiority in running the House. Term limits was,
of course, one of the first to go as a serious effort. But now we have
a pattern. We saw it last year when we debated impeachment. We see it
now that we are debating a missile defense. The more important the
subject, the less there will be democratic debate on the issue.
As the ranking member of the Committee on Rules pointed out, on
noncontroversial measures of little significance, the Republicans are
willing to give us open rules. They would undoubtedly be willing to
give away ice in February--in Alaska--but when it comes to fundamental
issues of great importance, political advantage and partisan
maneuvering displaces commitment to democratic ideals.
The gentleman from Maine has a thoughtful alternative to the
Republican proposal. It will be able to be brought up in the
recommittal, because they have not yet figured out a way to snuff that
one out, but there might have been other amendments. The recommittal,
you only get one. There might have been other variations.
There are a number of important issues here. One is, what are the
costs of this? Yes, there are people who are worried about a threat
from missiles from overseas. There are 75-year-olds worried because
they cannot afford to pay for the medicine that would keep them alive.
There are people who live in neighborhoods who are afraid they do not
have enough police protection; people who are afraid of unsafe
transportation; people who are threatened by environmental hazards. We
are operating in an era of limited resources. Billions and billions of
dollars that go for this system are billions that will not be spent for
other matters.
There are Members in this House who have told people they want to
increase housing, they want to improve environmental conditions, they
want to work harder to provide prescription drugs for people on
Medicare. Yet they are going to vote today for a measure that might
preempt all of those and not give us a chance to debate them. Where are
the chances to have amendments?
The gentleman from New York who is presiding for the majority pointed
out to the gentleman from Massachusetts, he quoted the gentleman from
California, there are going to be 4 whole hours of debate. The
gentleman's generosity is unbounded. We can debate it. But no
amendments are in order. So I guess I congratulate the majority for not
having abrogated the first amendment to the Constitution. They will let
us talk. But where are the amendments? Where is the legislative
process? No, it should not be trivialized.
By the way, this whole bill, so-called, as the gentleman from Florida
said, it is a one-sentence bill. This one-sentence bill in and of
itself it seems to me is of some dubious value, but even if it is
simply a statement of policy, if that is considered important, why can
we not debate what the impact would be on other forms of arms reduction
treaties? Why can we not debate what the opportunity costs are in other
funding? Why can we not debate whether or not we should do more of a
study about technical feasibility?
Are we talking about protecting every inch of the United States?
Well, how much is that going to cost? How feasible is it? What are the
chances that money spent there will be successful as opposed to money
spent in fighting disease, in fighting crime, in fighting in other
theaters with conventional research?
North Korea is a threat. We have ground troops in North Korea who are
at risk. Would this money be better spent in beefing up a conventional
capability? Those are all significant subjects, none of which can be
part of this debate. I take it back. They can be part of the debate. I
do not mean to be ungracious. The gentleman from New York has kindly
allowed us to talk about them. But an amendment to affect the bill, an
effort to write them into policy, no, the Republicans will not have
that, because it would spoil the partisan nature of this event.
The question is not simply yes or no on missile defense. That is
wholly unintelligent. The question is what kind of missile defense?
Under what circumstances? Is it feasible? At what cost? The Republicans
quite carefully made sure that none of those could be the subject of an
amendment. Because what they want out of this, apparently, is a
political statement, not a genuine democratic debate.
By the way, I hope the argument is not that, ``Gee, we don't have
time.'' This House has been languorous. We have not done very much. We
could debate more of these things. But it is a refusal on the part of
the majority to allow serious issues to be debated.
What we have, yes, is a trivialized debate. It has been trivialized
by the calculated decision of the majority to make this a political
exercise and to refuse to allow any amendments which will raise any of
the serious issues that ought to be debated. And so in advance
[[Page H1414]]
they have devalued the statement they hoped to get because they have
deprived us of the chance to do it.
Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. We could not debate
censure versus impeachment. We cannot debate the specifics of the
decision factors that go into this whole question. This is a group
apparently that is determined to leave as its legacy in running the
House of Representatives a refusal to allow the most important
questions to come before the public to be debated in a serious and
thoughtful fashion. So they will get their political victory today, but
it will come at the price of an informed effort to try and come forward
with a policy that truly deals with the complexities and the specific
questions involved.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), one of the leading experts on our Nation's
defense.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
My colleagues, we have a time in the oversight committee when the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs appear before
the House Committee on Armed Services as they appear before a number of
committees.
Sitting there with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the other members of
the committee, I usually ask as a first question, this question of our
Secretary of Defense. I ask, ``Could you stop, could the United States
of America stop a single incoming ballistic missile today should it be
coming in at an American city?'' The answer is always ``no.'' And yet
most Americans think that we do have some kind of a defense.
Interestingly, if the Russian defense minister was sitting there at
the witness table, he would be able to say ``yes,'' because the
Russians do have missile defenses. They have the defenses that are
allowed by the ABM treaty. They have interceptors which are tipped with
nuclear devices that can go off when incoming missiles come in
proximity of their cities that they have decided to protect under the
ABM system. They also have what are known as SA-10 and SA-12 missile
defense systems which they advertise in open literature as having
capability against not only airplanes but ballistic missiles.
They, like a lot of other people in the world, understand something
that the Weldon bill tries to make us understand, and that is this: We
live in an age of missiles. Back in the 1920s, Billy Mitchell tried to
prove to us that we lived in an age of air power. To do that, he sank a
number of ships, American ships, and I believe one large German ship
that had been captured. It infuriated the U.S. Navy because the U.S.
Navy wanted to live in the past and they did not want anything that
threatened the funding for their battleships and they thought that air
power would do that. And so Billy Mitchell was a great advocate for air
power. He argued for the development of air power by the United States,
we refused to develop it in a timely way, and we paid to some degree
the price for that in World War II. But his argument to some degree did
get a few wheels spinning and we had more in World War II than we would
have had if Billy Mitchell had not gone out there, ultimately getting
court-martialed for the crime of saying that the United States was not
ready for a conflict.
Well, today we live in an age of missiles. And for my friends that
act like it is an impossible thing to shoot down a missile with a
missile, that is not true. The missiles that came in on the American
troops in Desert Storm and killed a number of them were ballistic
missiles. They were slow ballistic missiles. But we did shoot down some
of those ballistic missiles with our Patriot missile batteries. We have
now upgraded those. So we have shot down the slower ballistic missiles.
Our adversaries are making faster and faster missiles. My point is that
we have shot down already the slower ballistic missiles and, yes, we do
have the capability, if we decide to deploy.
Now, the other side throws this back at us. They say we have spent
$120 billion and we have not deployed anything. Well, that is because
we have always spent that money under the condition that nothing could
be deployed and now it is thrown back in our face that we have not
deployed. The Weldon bill mandates deployment. It puts us all on the
same page, it gives us a national purpose, and hopefully we will move
forward and defend America.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule
and to the bill, H.R. 4. I would have preferred the opportunity to
debate an amendment that outlined what criteria and conditions need to
be met before we pursue a policy to deploy a national missile defense
system, an amendment like the one my colleague from Maine (Mr. Allen)
wanted to offer. That opportunity has been denied by this closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, today we are rushing to embrace a bad idea. Today we are
debating the deployment of a national missile defense system that does
not work, costs too much, undermines and violates our arms control
treaties, is aimed towards the wrong threat, will make us more
vulnerable, not more secure, and will likely lead to a new arms race. A
lot of figures regarding the cost of a national missile defense system
will be thrown around in today's debate, but what is not in dispute is
that over 40 years we have already spent over $120 billion in trying to
develop a missile defense, 70 billion of that since President Reagan
announced his Star Wars program in 1983, and we still have absolutely
nothing but a failure to show for those tax dollars. This technology
has failed 14 out of 18 tests for problems far less sophisticated than
what is required by national missile defense. In short, we have a $120
billion failure on our hands. General Shelton of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff said just last year spending more money on national missile
defense will only amount to a rush to failure, and yet the supporters
of H.R. 4 want us to throw good money after bad and spend, at minimum,
another 10.5 billion on this failed project.
At a time when we are struggling to find money for Pell grants and
Federal aid to send our kids to college, when we are struggling to find
money to fully fund the Federal share of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act, when we are struggling to find funds to
protect our environment, to repair our infrastructure and to revitalize
our neighborhoods, cities and towns, we seem to have no problem finding
enough money for this fabulously expensive project.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who are expressing our reservations about
this system are not trivializing this issue. We are raising legitimate
concerns about the technical feasibility of this project, the costs and
the implications of a national missile defense system. Mr. Speaker, I
do not believe it is fiscally responsible to support H.R. 4. I think
this is a bad idea. I think this could have a destabilizing effect on
our national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule
and to oppose H.R. 4.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the
American people want to hear procedural arguments or partisan
jockeying. What they care about is our national security, and that is
why I rise today in strong support of this rule and strong support of
H.R. 4. I do so for one reason. I believe it must be our policy to
deploy a national missile defense.
As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, the real surprise today is not
the bipartisan support that I believe will emerge in this House later
on but that took us so long to get here. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and
saddened when I saw the results of a recent poll conducted by the
Center for Security Policy. Their survey of 800 registered voters
revealed a number of very troubling public misconceptions. When asked
hypothetically about a ballistic missile system and if it were fired at
the U.S., 54 percent of those polled believe we could destroy that
missile before it caused any damage. Over half of those polled believe
we were capable of protecting ourselves from a ballistic missile
attack, and of course the sad reality is that we cannot. And when
respondents
[[Page H1415]]
learned this fact that we could not, 19 percent were shocked or angry,
28 percent said they were very surprised, 17 percent said they were
somewhat surprised.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I find more troubling, the fact that
so many people incorrectly believe that we can protect ourselves from
missile attack or the lack of outrage on the part of so many leaders of
the fact that we cannot.
Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming, the threat of attack is
increasing. Concerns over Russia's control over its nuclear arsenal
continue to grow. China continues to develop weapons of mass
destruction. North Korea recently demonstrated that its missiles are
capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii. And as we know, Iran and Iraq
are working to develop missile technology that will threaten the Middle
East and southern Europe.
We are no longer in the era of two superpowers kept in check by
mutually assured destruction. The threats of today and tomorrow come
from rogue states, in some cases nations with arsenals controlled by
persons who we have to admit are blind with their hatred of the U.S.
The harsh reality is that we are vulnerable. It is time that this
Congress and this President got serious and made it the stated policy
of our government to deploy a missile defense system. It would be
reckless for us to stick our heads in the sand, it would be reckless
for us to ignore the threats we face today, and worse yet, the threats
we will face tomorrow if we fail to act. Let us make it this country's
stated goal that we will deploy a national missile defense system that
will protect us from those who seek to do us harm.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support
H.R. 4.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Sixteen years
ago Ronald Reagan stood in this Hall and articulated a vision. We, the
United States, or Luke Skywalker? And the Soviet Union was the Evil
Empire, and we were going to build a Star Wars system, an umbrella over
this country that would render the intercontinental ballistic missiles
of the Soviet Union useless, impotent and obsolete, in his words. And
of course the whole scheme was concocted by ET, not the cuddly little
alien from the Spielberg movies, but the original ET, Edward Teller,
his vision. In the years since then Star Wars went from the star dust
and moon beams of Reagan's rhetoric to become a giant pork barrel in
the sky. In fact, we have spent approximately $50 billion on missile
defense over the last 15 years with virtually nothing to show for it.
But I have some good news for my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. The Cold War is over. We won. The Soviets never used their
weapons.
Now it was not because of Star Wars, because of course there was no
Star Wars in the 1980's, and there was no Star Wars in the 1990's. The
reason that we won was that we had a superior political and economic
and military strategy apart from Star Wars because it never existed,
and now, since their internal contradictions have led to the collapse
of the Soviet system, for some reason or another the majority believes
that we should take up the Star Wars prequel 3 months before the new
George Lucas film hits the theaters. This resolution gives us a preview
of things to come, and we need to give it two thumbs down. According to
the GOP script, despite the end of the Cold War we are still going to
deploy missile defenses. Why? Because, we are told, there are new
ballistic missile threats from North Korea, and Iraq or China because,
we are told, we need to defend against accidental nuclear war at a cost
of tens of billions of dollars.
This is a bad idea. The North Koreans are starving to death, and we
routinely bomb the heck out of Saddam Hussein with impunity. Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons. Did he use
them against us when our troops were heading towards Baghdad? No, he
did not. Do my colleagues want to know why? Because we would wipe him
off the face of the earth, that is why. We have overwhelming massive
retaliatory capacity. If either side, any country, ever used weapons of
mass destruction against us, we would destroy them. The greater threat
from Korea, the greater threat from Iran is that they will put a
nuclear weapon onto a freighter, put it right into the Seattle or the
Boston or the San Diego port and just detonate it. We will not know
where it is coming from, and we will not be able to identify the
source. That is our greater threat by far, and if at any time they want
to use any other means, then we will be able to give massive
retaliatory response capacity to that problem.
The problem with the Republicans is, yes, the Cold War is over, but
they still want Star Wars. They have arms race amnesia. They have
forgotten everything but their favorite weapon system. But the real
danger from the Republican plan is not the tens of billions of dollars
which we are going to waste, but rather that it could touch off a new
arms race between us and the Russians or the Chinese.
As the Duma meets to determine whether or not they are going to
ratify the START II treaty which would result in the elimination of
3200 strategic weapons, do we really want to be talking about the
deployment of a ballistic missile system that would make them even more
vulnerable to a first strike from the United States? Do we want the
Chinese to think that we are going to build a defensive system that
allows us to attack them and they cannot attack us back? Do we not
think that they are going to go to a new round of offensive weapons by
an emboldened right wing military in both countries and other countries
around the world that will result in us having to spend tens of
billions of other dollars? When we make a step like the Republicans ask
us to do today, we not only waste tens of billions of dollars, but we
wind up ultimately undermining our security because of the investment
made by our potential enemies in weapons which could actually hurt the
United States of America.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my Democratic
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) in the House
Republican majority's continued spirit of bipartisanship.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there is no Member of this House who has
done more to promote the rights of fairness to the minority than the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and I commend him and thank
him for that, but on this issue on this day I respectfully part company
with him. I think this rule strikes the appropriate balance in the
tension between the powers of the President as Commander in Chief and
our powers and duties to set broad policy for this country. I think it
would be a terrible mistake for us to micromanage a serious military
strategy issue like this, and I believe that an open rule in this sort
of circumstance would invite that kind of micromanagement.
I also believe that it would be an equally serious mistake for us to
abrogate our responsibility and not take a position as to where our
country should go in this issue. The process that begins with this
legislation on this day gives us that opportunity beginning with our
opportunity to offer a motion to recommit today, but, more importantly,
after today, after today when decisions about how to deploy, what to
deploy, when to deploy, under what circumstances to deploy will be
debated and worked out in the actions of the House Committee on Armed
Services, in its bills that come to this floor over the next several
years and probably decades.
I certainly understand and revere the rights of the minority, but in
this case I believe that the essential constitutional balance prevails,
and that balance calls for us to set broad policy, which we will do in
this bill by casting our vote and for the President, as our Commander
in Chief, to execute that policy as he or some day she sees fit.
I support the rule as I will support the bill in the debate
hereafter.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the assistant to the Democratic leader.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule
essentially because the rule prohibits amendments
[[Page H1416]]
which, if adopted, will strengthen the bill and our Nation's long term
security.
Yesterday in the other body, in the Senate, it unanimously passed its
national defense bill with two important amendments. It conditioned a
national missile defense deployment on annual authorizations and
appropriations, it affirmed the United States policy to seek further
cuts in Russia's nuclear arsenal. This was the right thing to do. It
was a responsible thing to do.
The gentleman from Maine has authored a thoughtful amendment which
should be debated in this body. That is what our responsibility is as a
legislative body.
I support the Pentagon's plans to consider a national missile defense
system at the turn of this century. We need to plan to guard against
future long-range strategic missiles and a possible laser attack, but
any system must be both affordable and capable of protecting all of our
national security interests.
{time} 1300
Pentagon leaders have emphasized over and over again that a rushed
job would be, and I quote, a rush to failure that would cost taxpayers
millions of dollars, jeopardize U.S. national security.
General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said just
last month, and I quote, that the simple fact is that we do not yet
have the technology to field a national missile defense. He went on to
say, and I quote, the Chiefs question putting additional billions of
taxpayers dollars into fielding a system now that does not work or has
not proven itself, end quote.
Our first priority must always be the long-term safety and security
of American families. Without a guarantee of success, our national
missile defense system may not be able to protect Americans from the
threat of ballistic missiles that rogue nations like Iran and North
Korea are expected to have developed by 2002.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule or to allow for this body to
take up thoughtful amendments on this very critical and important
issue. Oppose rash legislation that threatens to jeopardize our future
national security.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and the
rule. As this resolution states, the U.S. must deploy now and not just
develop a national missile defense system but deploy it. This
resolution and debate hopefully will spur the deployment because, as
has been noted so forcefully here today, we are now defenseless against
a single ballistic missile launched against American soil.
Defending our Nation against attack is so fundamental a
responsibility of ours and the stakes that we are talking about are so
high, that I think it is important that we better understand how our
country, with its great military, has gotten into our predicament of
being defenseless.
The American people need to know. The answer is that since Ronald
Reagan introduced the idea of missile defense over 15 years ago, every
reason in the world has been found to delay. For one, we have heard the
threat discounted. In 1995, the administration predicted that no
ballistic missile threat would emerge for 15 years. This past August,
the administration again assured Congress that the intelligence
community would provide the necessary warning of a rogue state's
development and deployment of a ballistic missile threat to the United
States. Then that same month, that same month, North Korea test-fired
its Taepo-Dong missile. The sophistication of this missile
unfortunately caught our intelligence community by surprise.
North Korea, impoverished, unstable North Korea, a regime about which
the Director of Central Intelligence recently said that he could hardly
overstate his concern over and which in nearly all respects, according
to him, has become more volatile and unpredictable, may soon be able to
strike Alaska and Hawaii, not to mention our allies and U.S. troops in
Asia.
Ominously, North Korea is continuing its work on missile development.
This is the very threat that was supposed to be 15 years away. Even
before this rosy assessment last July, Iran tested a medium range
ballistic missile. Iran is receiving aid from Russia. Not surprisingly,
the bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission recently concluded that the threat
posed by nations seeking to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of
mass destruction, quote, is broader, more mature and evolving more
rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the
intelligence community.
The fact is that we live in a world where even the most impoverished
nations can develop ballistic missiles and warheads, especially with
Russia's aid, and thus I ask the Members to support the rule and this
resolution.
This by no way is said to disparage our intelligence efforts.
Instead, we just need to appreciate that these threats are difficult to
detect, and that we need to react in defense. Pearl Harbor caught us by
complete surprise. We have no excuse with today's missile threat.
The second excuse to delay is the ABM Treaty.
Faced with the very real threats we've heard about, I'm at a complete
loss as to why our country would let an outdated treaty keep us from
developing a national missile defense system. Essentially, this
Administration has allowed Russia to veto our missile defense efforts.
This is the same country, Russia, that is contributing to missile
proliferation by working with Iran.
Fortunately, Secretary of Defense Cohen has suggested that we would
not be wedded to the ABM Treaty (Jan. 20)--that this treaty would not
preclude our deployment of a defensive system. But this is only a step
toward the deployment we need, and others in the Administration
persists in calling the ABM Treaty ``the cornerstone of strategic
stability'' (Berger, Feb. 8 letter).
I believe we need to get beyond a treaty that keeps us from defending
our territory in the face of a very real threat--a treaty, I might add,
that the Soviets secretly violated. And re-negotiating this treaty in a
way that still precludes us from deploying the best missile defense
system we can--allowing for a dumbed-down system--which is what the
Administration is suggesting, is simply not acceptable.
The fact is that the Russians have nothing to fear from us. The
United States doesn't start wars. To forgo defending our territory
because we're afraid of what the Russians or others may say about our
defensive actions is indefensible.
Third, we hear that a national missile defense system is too costly.
Yes, we have made an investment in missile defense since Ronald Reagan
launched his initiative, though this has been a small fraction of what
American industry invests in research each year. But let's be honest
here, defense is not free. And there have been some failures. But since
when does success come without failure? Entering the twentieth century,
the United States is the wealthiest, most technologically advanced
country in the history of the world. There is no reason beyond the
ideology of arms control, complacency or worse not to deploy a national
missile defense now.
Before World War II, many people were stuck in a similar mindset.
Leaders in England and elsewhere didn't want to develop advanced
defensive weaponry. One leader stood alone though, pushing for England
to develop its technology, including radar, in the cause of its
national defense. His efforts encountered much resistance. Many said
that there could be no defense against air power. There was some
outright opposition from those who favored disarmament, including Prime
Minister Stanley Baldwin, seeing disarmament as a way of better dealing
with Germany. Well, history has told us that the dark days England soon
after suffered through would have been much darker if England had not
had Winston Churchill. Radar, by the way, which Churchill tirelessly
pushed, was critical to winning the Battle of Britain.
Sometimes it's not easy exercising foresight and taking preemptive
action. But I cannot think of a more pressing issue for this Congress
to address than defending our nation against the emerging threat of
ballistic missiles. I commend the authors of this important resolution
and hope it receives overwhelming support from this body.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution but I am going to
oppose the rule because I think the Allen amendment should have been
put in order. I wish we would have had an opportunity, like the Senate
did, to take
[[Page H1417]]
amendments on this important national security issue.
Having said that, I do want to compliment my colleagues, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and those people who have tried to work to make
this into a bipartisan issue. I want to remind my colleagues, I have
been on the Subcommittee on Defense for 21 years. I was there in 1983
when Ronald Reagan announced his effort to build a national missile
defense system.
I happen to believe that we always have to have defense priorities.
My number one defense priority today is theater missile defense. When
we deploy our troops in all these countries, whether they are in the
Middle East or whether they are in Saudia Arabia, wherever they are,
Bosnia, we want to be able to have a credible theater missile defense
system in place.
It was not until just this week that Patriot 3 had its first success.
So as we come to this decision on national missile defense, I must
point out to my colleagues that we still do not have the technology in
place to deploy such a system, and that is why we are going to have to
continue the research, continue to look at this on the year-by-year
basis and, again, my hope is that the first thing we get done is
theater missile defense to defend our troops.
I do believe there is a threat out there and I do believe that
warning times are less than they used to be and many countries are
proliferating and building ballistic missiles.
We are also going to have to work out a relationship with the
Russians. This is not going to be accepted by them. We are going to
have to negotiate with them. So hopefully, if we can deal with these
issues, then we can go forward and have a system like this. I think we
have to go into this with our eyes open.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in strong support of
the underlying piece of legislation. I represent the area of Florida
that includes Cape Canaveral and the issues of ballistic missiles and
space technology and aerospace technology is of tremendous interest. I
ran in 1994 originally for Congress in support of deploying a missile
defense system.
To those people who would say right now that we do not have something
that is technically capable, I would say to them it depends on how one
wants to define that. The Russians have had a missile defense system
for 30 years. We currently have the Patriot system on-line. The
technology is there. The debate is over how good it will work.
In my opinion, we should deploy the best system that we are capable
of deploying now. After seeing the Rumsfeld report and personally
reading the Cox report, I would say we need to make a commitment to not
only deploy the best system we are capable of deploying now but to plan
on upgrading that system within the next 10 years to a better, more
sophisticated system, because the threat is real and the threat is
great.
As parents, we are responsible for taking care of our kids and making
sure they have good manners and making sure they get fed, but it would
be very irresponsible if we left the front door unlocked and the window
open every night allowing somebody to come in to rob, steal and commit
mayhem.
What good is it for us in this country if we are going to do all of
these wonderful things for Social Security and for education in America
and all of the other proposed good things that we are going to do while
we leave New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami, Philadelphia and all the
great cities of this country vulnerable?
The Chinese have already said that we would not be willing to risk
those cities in defense of Taiwan, and we already know, from reading
the New York Times, that the Chinese have acquired the most
sophisticated weapons systems.
Support the bill. Support the rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who I have had the occasion to
recognize as one of the leading experts on missiles.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my
distinguished colleague for his leadership on the rule. I also want to
pay my respects to my good friend, the ranking Member on the Committee
on Rules, who is a real gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I want this debate to be focused on factual information
and not rhetoric and so I am going to go through the comments made by
my colleagues in opposition to this rule one at a time.
We heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts. He said this was a
Republican partisan effort. When I introduced this bill last August, I
reached out to the Democrat side. The bill had 24 Democrats and 24
Republicans when I dropped the bill in, because I did not want it to be
a partisan battle. There were some in my party who criticized me for
that.
When I introduced the bill in this session of Congress, Mr. Speaker,
it had 28 Democrats and 30 Republicans. In fact, when it passed the
Committee on Armed Services, the vote was 50 to 3, with Democrats
joining Republicans in support. This has been a totally bipartisan
process.
Mr. Speaker, amendments could have been offered. The gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen) could have offered an amendment. He chose not to.
Now, are we being unfair, Mr. Speaker?
At the Committee on Rules yesterday there were two people who wanted
amendments, one Republican and one Democrat. I opposed both because
each would have taken the bill to an extreme position that perhaps
would not have been the clear-cut debate that we need on this issue,
which is whether or not to move forward.
Some say there has been no debate. Mr. Speaker, in the 5 years I have
controlled the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, there
have been over 60 hearings, briefings, classified sessions. For someone
to say there has been no debate is just a case where they do not
understand what in fact has transpired.
One of my colleagues on the other side said the cost. Let us look at
the cost, Mr. Speaker. We have spent $9 billion in Bosnia already. The
administration's estimate for the cost of NMD is $6 billion. So we are
going to spend more to protect peace in Bosnia than we are to protect
our own people.
In fact, we are spending $10 billion this year on environmental
cleanup, $10 billion on environmental cleanup versus the
administration's estimate of $6 billion for an NMD system.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said this is going to
jeopardize our relationship with Russia. I say hogwash. If one wants to
know what is going to jeopardize our relationship with Russia, Mr.
Speaker, ask the administration why they cancelled the funding for the
only joint Russian-American missile defense initiative that we have
last October, the Ramos project.
When we were in Russia this past weekend, that is what the Russians
were concerned about, that this administration cancelled all the
funding for the only joint program to build confidence that we have.
Ask the administration why they cancelled the Ross-Mamaedov talks
back when they took office in 1993. It was President Bush who started
those talks because Yeltsin said, let us work together. What did this
president do? When he came into office in 1993, he cancelled the talks
and said, no, we are not going to work together in missile defense.
If one wants to talk about instability, ask the arms control crowd.
The arms control crowd who was arguing against our bill today, and I am
glad they are because this is what they are, this was a chart that they
had inserted in a national magazine on the debate about missile
defense. One of my Russian friends read this to me and he said, ``Curt,
I understand what you are trying to do but this is what is going to be
all over Russia.''
The arms control crowd, the Natural Resources Defense Council, has a
chart
[[Page H1418]]
saying destroy Russia, killing 20 million people. This is the kind of
rhetoric that inflames the Russian side, not what we are doing. I ask
my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill in a true
bipartisan fashion.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the producer of the amendment.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this House should defeat this rule. It is a closed rule
that silences an important voice in the national missile defense
debate, and that voice is the voice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
General Hugh Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said in
testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the House last
month that, and I quote, the decision to deploy a national missile
defense system will be based on several factors, the most important of
which will be assessments of the threat and the current state of the
technology.
{time} 1315
H.R. 4 does not address threat or technology, or cost, or arms
control. I asked the Committee on Rules to make in order an amendment I
drafted, but that request was denied. The amendment provided that it
would be the policy of this country to deploy a national missile
defense that is proven to be effective. In other words, the system
needs to work.
Second, that it would not diminish our overall national security. We
have the task of making sure that we develop and we proceed with
strategic nuclear arms reduction talks with Russia. Third, that it
would not compromise other critical defense priorities. We have to pay
attention to our troops, and as the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) said a few moments ago, a theater missile defense to protect our
forward-deployed troops is vitally important.
This is the position, the amendment I proposed, I believe is the
position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I am dismayed that their
views were shut out.
Now, H.R. 4 came up in the Committee on Armed Services, but it is
interesting. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Development,
said I did not offer this amendment in committee. Well, the truth is, I
did not offer the amendment in committee because we had not even held a
hearing with General Lyles. This bill was marked up in committee before
we heard from General Lyles on that day.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Did the gentleman have an opportunity to
offer an amendment in committee?
Mr. ALLEN. I certainly did.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ALLEN. But I chose not to exercise that right, because I wanted
to hear from the military as to their opinions.
Does it make sense for us to commit to a program before we hear from
the office that executes that program?
H.R. 4 would deploy a national missile defense system before we have
tested the system, before we know whether or not it works. My
amendment, however, was not designed to kill this system. On the
contrary, it was designed to make sure that a national missile defense
system would work.
First, national missile defense must be demonstrated to be
operationally effective against the threat as defined as of the time of
the deployment and as we can project for a reasonable time into the
future. Does anyone disagree that we should test national missile
defense before we buy it?
Second, national missile defense should not diminish the overall
national security of the United States by jeopardizing other efforts to
reduce threats to this country, including negotiated reductions in
Russian nuclear forces. Does anyone disagree on seeking further Russian
disarmament?
Third, national missile defense must be affordable and not compromise
readiness, quality of life of our troops, weapons modernization, and
theater missile defense deployment. Does anyone disagree with these
critical defense priorities?
H.R. 4, however, is silent on each one of these priorities. We should
defeat this closed rule and allow Members the opportunity to vote to
recognize that there are real world considerations for national missile
defense deployment. That is the opportunity the Senate had; that is the
opportunity that we should have in this House and well. I urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman, because I just want to comment on the strangeness of my
colleague from Pennsylvania's understanding of parliamentary procedure.
My objection was, and my assertion that this has been made partisan,
was due to the refusal to allow the gentleman's amendment to come up on
the floor of the House, the House of Representatives, the whole body,
the body that represents the people.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania's answer, was well, he could have
offered it in committee. That is another one of those gracious
concessions that is offered only because it could not have been
withheld. There are under our rules no way to stop an amendment from
coming up in committee.
But the notion that because the rules allow amendments to be offered
in committee, and the gentleman said he withheld because there had not
yet been a hearing held that he wanted have to take place, that that is
some justification for shutting off discussion of this amendment and a
vote on this amendment as an amendment, not as a recommittal, on the
floor of the House, makes no sense.
This is the place where the ultimate Democratic decisions are made,
and the notion that oh, okay, one could have offered an amendment in
committee, committees are not wholly representative of the House. They
are not supposed to be. This is the body in which public policy is
supposed to be discussed, and the majority's refusal to allow a fair
debate and vote as an amendment on the gentleman's proposal is what
makes this unduly partisan, in my judgment.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker I rise in strong support of this rule, and I
would like to begin by complimenting the newest member of the Committee
on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), who I think in a
tough situation has done an extraordinarily good job in dealing with
this in, as he pointed out when he recognized the gentleman from New
Jersey, in a very bipartisan way. I am very encouraged by that.
I also want to say that as we look at this issue, it is obvious to me
that we have a number of experts; Mr. Weldon has done a wonderful job
on this, I think about the U.S. Constitution. There are no more
important words in the U.S. Constitution than the five words in the
middle of the preamble: ``Provide for the common defense.''
In light of that, it seems to me that a 15-word bill, which is
exactly what this is, is the right thing for us to do. One is either
for it, or one is against it. That is really what it comes down to.
So I think that we have had full consideration in committee. Both the
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the ranking minority
member talked about the debate that took place in the Committee on
Armed Services, and my friend from Massachusetts is right. There should
be the opportunity on this floor for the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen) to offer his amendment. And guess what?
Back in 1994 when we won this majority, we very proudly made an
important change in the Rules of the House. Now, he and I came together
in 1980, and on numerous occasions, at least a couple of times a year,
the opportunity to offer a motion to recommit was in fact denied to us
when we were in the minority. When we made this rules
[[Page H1419]]
change in 1994, we decided that it would be, in fact, a rule of the
House that the minority would have an opportunity to offer a motion to
recommit. And guess what? The Allen amendment can be made in order
under the motion to recommit that we have.
Now, we have this hour of debate on the rule; we are going to have,
in fact, 3 hours of debate.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is the chairman of the
Committee on Rules telling us that in his judgment now, the motion to
recommit, which has 10 minutes of debate and which is often cast in a
very partisan way, and it is better than nothing.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I was just going
to say that we are going to have 3 hours of debate. Now, if the
decision is made at this moment that the motion of the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen) is the one that the ranking member of the committee
wants to offer as a recommittal motion, for that entire 3 hours of
debate, the opportunity is there, the opportunity is there for a full
and open discussion on this issue.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under the Rules of the House
as I understood them, if the amendment of the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen) had been made in order, we could have had debate on that
amendment, and then we would have also had a motion to recommit.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I apparently misunderstood
the gentleman saying that he would yield. I thought the gentleman said
he would yield.
Mr. DREIER. May I reclaim my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize for misunderstanding when I
thought the gentleman said he was going to yield.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I did yield. The gentleman said that he
wants to have a debate, and we are going to have debate. In fact, 3
hours of debate can take place on the Allen amendment if you all so
choose. So the idea that the opportunity to offer it has been denied is
crazy, because we changed the rules in 1994 to make that order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I make a couple of points as we conclude
this debate on the rule?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, of course the gentleman may
conclude. He controls the time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.
What I want to say is if we look at the report that has come forward
from the Rumsfeld Commission which was presented to us on the House
floor today in a closed meeting, the declassified segment of that makes
it obvious. It says, the Rumsfeld Commission, the ballistic missile
threat to the United States is broader, more mature, and evolving more
rapidly than reported in estimates and reports in the intelligence
community.
Now, what does that say? It says that as we look at this threat that
is there from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, China, it is
obvious that this is the most responsible thing for us to do. So that
is why I will say again, one is either for it or one is against it.
This reminds me of the debate that we had in the 1980s.
Again, I congratulate my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) for the great job that he has done on this.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of concern that the majority
is not allowing amendments on this important legislation. Yesterday the
Administration and the Senate were able to compromise on a similar
measure, simply because the Senate Majority Leader provided the room to
compromise. Unfortunately, such leadership is absent today in the
House.
I don't have to remind my colleagues of the importance of this
decision today. As most of you know, I am the youngest member of the
House. Many people have tried to find a name for my generation, because
in earlier times there was the World War I generation, the World War II
generation, and the Vietnam Generation. There are no wars to name us
by.
Why is that? Because we have learned how to work with other nations
to reduce the threat of armed conflict between the great powers. We
have learned that effective diplomacy, backed by the threat of the use
of force, can help defuse this threat among members of the
international community.
Of course, the threats posed by rogue states such as Iraq and North
Korea--who have been ostracized by the international community--have
dramatically changed the rules. I believe that we need to prepare for
the asymmetric threats posed by nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons. However, we should not act impetuously.
The Administration has requested that we amend H.R. 4 in order to
make clear that the decision to deploy a missile defense system is
contingent on a variety of factors, including an assessment of the
costs and feasibility of the project. The rule, however, prevents us
from taking this sensible step. Instead, it asks that the House make
the decision for the President after 2 hours of debate, without any
consideration of what such a project entails.
The rule also prevents us from reaffirming our commitment to the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It jeopardizes the adoption of the START
II treaty by the Duma in Moscow. Indeed, the Russian parliament is also
addressing concerns over weapons of mass destruction. To show our
support for strategic arms reduction, we ought to demonstrate our
commitment, yet we are unable to do so because of this rule.
As the legislative branch, we have a right to be involved in foreign
policy decisions. Yet we need to use this right responsibly.
We learned in the 1980s that relentlessly pursuing the goal of a
national missile defense system without any realistic assessment of the
costs involved is a bad way to make foreign policy.
By not allowing amendments, the majority is again acting in their own
political interests, not the interests of sensible, prudent policy. Mr.
Speaker, I oppose this rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 185, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 57]
YEAS--239
Aderholt
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
[[Page H1420]]
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--185
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Archer
Boehner
Burton
Buyer
Clyburn
Coburn
Frost
Myrick
Payne
{time} 1343
Messrs. BOSWELL, KLECZKA, MATSUI, BISHOP, HINCHEY and MORAN of
Virginia changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 57 on H.
Res. 120, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 120, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4) to declare it to be the policy of the United States
to deploy a national missile defense, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 4 is as follows:
H.R. 4
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it
is the policy of the United States to deploy a national
missile defense.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Pursuant to House Resolution
120, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I would like to remind all
Members who attended this morning's briefing with the Rumsfeld
Commission that the briefing was classified. Accordingly, during the
next several hours of debate, Members should take extreme care not to
discuss any of the details or specifics of what they heard.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 is a 15-word bill stating, and I quote, ``That it
is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile
defense.'' The bill is clear in its intent, elegant in its simplicity
and reflects a bipartisan belief that all Americans should be protected
against the threat of ballistic missile attack.
Mr. Speaker, the biggest frustration of my life, as chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, has been to persuade our own government to
protect our own citizens from nuclear attack. This is a threat that is
not sometime in the future, it is a threat that is here this minute. As
a matter of fact, the threat has already passed.
There is a scenario about President Yeltsin of Russia getting on the
hot line to our President and saying the following: ``Mr. President,
some dumb fool has pushed the wrong button over here and we've got an
intercontinental ballistic missile with 10 multiple reentry vehicles on
it heading your way. We can't call it back, we can't shoot it down, and
thought you ought to know about it.''
The President calls over to the people in the Pentagon and tells them
what he has heard and tells them to take care of it. They have to tell
him, ``Mr. President, we can't defend against that one intercontinental
ballistic missile launched by accident.''
That is not way out. That could happen. It could have already
happened. As a matter of fact, a few years ago, the Norwegians launched
a weather rocket in Norway. The sensors in Russia mistook that launch
for a launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile from us on them,
and they were literally minutes away from launching an attack against
our country in retaliation; minutes away before they had it sorted out
and called it off. That is what we are facing today. That is the
threat. It is right here.
We have been trying to warn this administration and the American
people of the dangers we face. I think back in history of all the many
warnings that we had before Pearl Harbor. Those warnings were not
heeded, and we see what happened. We have had many warnings to date on
all sides of the many threats we face from throughout this world, of
all kinds. The warnings are not being heeded.
We tried to pass a national missile defense back in 1995, the 1996
Defense Authorization bill. The President vetoed it. We have tried to
do some other things since that time. We have had to try to take one
step at a time to bring the administration to the realization of what
is happening and what we need to do to properly defend this country.
After the President vetoed that bill, he said that there was no
threat facing this country; we did not need a national missile defense.
As a matter of fact, he even had the CIA issue a National Intelligence
Estimate which politicized the issue and was phrased this way: ``Aside
from the declared nuclear powers, it will be 10 or 15 years before
rogue nations, other nations, will develop a capability.'' I said to
myself, ``That is misleading. These other countries can buy the
capability from the countries which have it right now. They do not have
to do it as an indigenous thing on their part.''
I remember calling up the Director of the CIA at that time and trying
to get him to change that National Intelligence Estimate to more
clearly reflect the true state of affairs. He would not do it. So we
had to appoint this Rumsfeld Commission, a bipartisan commission, to
study the question and come back and give us an independent assessment
of the threats we face.
After studying the seriousness of the question over a period of about
a year, they came back, in a bipartisan way, unanimously, and said that
instead of us having to be concerned about 10 or 15 years away from the
threat, we would have little or no warning of a system deployed
somewhere else that could impact on us in that way.
[[Page H1421]]
Even after the report came out, the administration still maintained
that they would go on with the 3-by-3 policy they had, which meant they
would study the question for 3 more years and, at the end of that time,
if the threat was real, then we would decide whether or not to deploy
the system.
So here we are today, after all this time, one step at a time, now
trying to get them to utter that one word: Deploy.
North Korea's launch of a 3-stage ballistic missile last August was
one of a number of disturbing events that confirmed the Rumsfeld
Commission's findings and compelled the Administration to concede that
the threat was not a decade away. Earlier this year, Secretary of
Defense Cohen publicly confirmed the Administration's updated
perspective on the threat in stating [quote] ``that there is a threat
and the threat is growing.'' [unquote]
Technology has matured to the point where it is feasible to move
forward with plans to deploy a national missile defense system. There
will always be test failures and there will always be technological
challenges. But Americans have never shied away from a challenge, and
this is certainly no reason not to proceed in the face of a threat that
gets worse by the day. And as this week's successful PATRIOT missile
test demonstrated, missiles can intercept other missiles.
Even with Congress adding funding to missile defense programs during
the past four years, the Administration has just recently recognized
that its own budgets were inadequate. To its credit, the Administration
has budgeted, for the first time, a level of funding intended to
support an initial deployment of a national missile defense system. And
just to put cost in perspective, the cost of a national missile defense
system, by the Administration's own estimates, will comprise less than
one percent of the overall defense budget, and less than two percent of
our military modernization budget over the next five years.
Mr. Speaker, national missile defense is necessary, feasible, and
affordable. But in spite of the growing consensus that the threat is
real, progress on technology development, and increased funding, the
Administration has steadfastly refused to commit to actually deploy a
national missile defense. H.R. 4 fills this void and will put this
House on record making an important commitment to each and every
American that they will be defended.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be recognized to manage, at the end of
my statement, the balance of the time on our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, a bill to declare it
the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense.
Many of my colleagues know me as a strong advocate for a strong
national defense, maybe even doctrinaire when it comes to taking care
of our troops. Fair enough. As my colleagues should also know, my
support does not extend to all things defense, nor is it without
qualification. Today's topic, national missile defense, is a case in
point.
For some 15 years, I have been concerned that various proposals for
deploying a national missile defense system were unjustified and too
expensive. Further, I believe that any effort to do so would siphon
needed resources from what I considered to be higher priority defense
needs. Thus, I have not been among the voices advocating deployment of
a national missile defense system. Instead, while others have been
speaking passionately on the subject over the years, I have been
listening.
I am persuaded by the facts from current intelligence estimates and
the events of the past year, Mr. Speaker, that the technology needed to
develop an ICBM capable of delivering a warhead of mass destruction
against large portions of the United States is today in the hands of at
least one so-called ``rogue'' actor. Worse, much of the needed
technology has been demonstrated. And, as my good friend and former
colleague, Ron Dellums, would say, ``I can see lightning and I can hear
thunder.'' Accordingly, I now believe it is not only possible, but
probable, that significant portions of the United States will be
threatened by ICBM delivered warheads of mass destruction sometime
before the year 2005; time the administration now says it needs to
deploy a suitable, limited national missile defense system.
I also believe that $6.6 billion included in the administration's
fiscal year 2000 future years defense plan for national missile defense
deployment related activities recognizes this threat development and
tacitly acknowledges that the administration also views the ultimate
deployment of a limited national defense missile system as inevitable.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is not just about a national missile defense
system, nor can it be. To successfully defend America from an ICBM
delivered threat, we need to act on a potential threat of a missile
over its entire life; not just the last 15 minutes to do so.
Priority must be given to our first line of defense: Aid and
diplomacy, counterproliferation programs, and arms control agreements.
Although not perfect, these programs work and are relatively cheap.
More importantly, by reducing or preventing the number and
sophistication of ICBMs that might threaten us, they make national
missile defense system technically feasible. Deterrence also works, and
since these forces already exist, it is the logical second line of
defense.
{time} 1400
Finally, I now think deployment of a limited national defense system,
as a third and final line of defense, is as advisable as it is
inevitable. At the same time, however, I believe we must guard against
the national missile defense program that undercuts the first and
second lines of defense.
This brings us to H.R. 4, a simple declaration that we are committed
to ultimately deploying a national missile defense, period. It is an
opportunity to move past the philosophical debate that has divided us,
to move past who is and who is not willing to defend America.
Therefore, I must admit to my disappointment with the administration
for considering this legislation to be unnecessary and withholding
their support on that basis. Nevertheless, it is significant that its
concerns do not rise to the level of a veto threat. Thus, I would ask
my colleagues to keep this fact in mind during deliberations here
today.
In my opinion, H.R. 4 does not go beyond the administration's program
for a limited national missile defense in any way. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 4 will not increase missile defense
costs one cent. More importantly, it does not compel a national missile
defense system architecture that is incompatible with the ABM Treaty.
Equally important, Mr. Speaker, it does not mandate a deployment date
or condition. Thus, it does not generate a rush to failure by calling
for deployment of an inadequately tested or ineffectual system.
The new realty is that a lot has changed since the strategic defense
initiative debate was joined some 16 years ago. A lot has changed since
last year, and yesterday's truths are no more. So I ask my colleagues
to approach H.R. 4 with an open mind, try to consider it as a good-
faith effort to establish a bipartisan consensus, and I will repeat
this, a bipartisan consensus on defending America. That is what I
believe it is.
Mr. Speaker, our most distinguished colleagues on the subject of
missile defense, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), two respected Members who
have in the past been disagreeing on this issue, have joined together
in a significant collaboration to provide us with a rare and distinct
opportunity to rise above our differences and move the national missile
defense debate forward on a less philosophical and less partisan basis.
For the good of the country and for the good of this institution, I
believe in the strongest possible terms that we should seize this
opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and pass H.R. 4.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I
want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for coming
together to write and draft H.R. 4 and provide us with this historic
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
[[Page H1422]]
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4.
Today I rise in support of H.R. 4, ``A bill to declare it to be the
policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense.''
Let's face the fact that the ballistic missile threat is not, I repeat,
is not decreasing, it's here now and growing. The deployment of a
national missile defense system is necessary for protection from rogue
nations such as North Korea and Iran.
Alaska is still on the front line, as it was during the cold war, but
today's threat is from the increase of important military technology,
including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic
missiles. In recent years, ballistic missiles and weapons of mass
destruction technologies have increased at an alarming rate. In fact,
rogue states such as North Korea and Iran have arsenals which are
growing by the day. Alaska is within the sites of these rogue nations.
Residents of Alaska are concerned about the fact that there is no
protection from the threat of a ballistic missile attack. The Alaska
state legislature recently passed a resolution calling on the President
and Congress to provide for the common defense of our nation and the
deployment of a national missile defense system. We not only owe it to
Alaskans to protect them from the threat of a ballistic missile attack,
but to the entire United States.
Today, we can deliver on a policy that will move the defense of our
nation forward. I urge your support of H.R. 4.
Mr. Speaker I include for the Record a copy of the Alaska House Joint
Resolution.
House Joint Resolution No. 8 in the Legislature of the State of Alaska
A resolution relating to a national ballistic missile
defense system.
Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Alaska:
Whereas the collapse of the Soviet Union has rendered
obsolete the treaty constraints and diplomatic understandings
that limited the development and deployment of weapons of
mass destruction and their delivery systems during the Cold
War; and
Whereas the world has consequently witnessed during this
decade an unprecedented proliferation of sophisticated
military technology, including nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons and ballistic missiles; and
Whereas the United States has recognized that it currently
has no means of protecting all of its citizens from attack by
these new threats and has initiated a program to develop and
deploy a national ballistic missile defense system; and
Whereas four locations in the state are currently being
considered as sites for deployment of the intercept vehicles
for this system; and
Whereas each of these locations provides the unmatched
military value of a strategic location from which Americans
living in all 50 states can be defended as required by the
United States Constitution; and
Whereas, throughout Alaska's history as a territory and a
state, Alaska's citizens have been unwavering in their
support of a strong national defense while warmly welcoming
the men and women of our armed forces stationed here;
Be it resolved, That the Twenty-First Alaska State
Legislature calls upon the President, as Commander In Chief
of the Armed Forces of the United States, to provide for the
common defense of our nation by selecting an Alaska site for
the deployment of the national ballistic missile defense
system.
Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable
Bill Clinton, President of the United States; the Honorable
Floyd D. Spence, Chair, Committee on Armed Services, U.S.
House of Representatives; the Honorable John Warner, Chair,
Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate; and to the
Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S.
Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative,
members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Research
and Development.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
chairman for yielding, and I want to thank both him and our
distinguished ranking member the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their leadership
in working to bring a solid bipartisan resolution to the House floor.
I want to set the tone, Mr. Speaker, for the debate and why we are
here, so I want to outline for my friends why we are offering this bill
at this time.
It was back in 1995, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the United
States vetoed our Defense Authorization bill; and in his veto message,
one of the key elements that he referred to was that our intelligence
community does not foresee a missile threat in the coming decade. This
is President Clinton. And he went on to say that we should not force an
unwarranted deployment decision then, which we had in our bill, again
with a bipartisan vote, and so he vetoed the legislation.
Since that point in time, Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community, in
support of the Rumsfeld Commission's findings, which were briefed to
Members of Congress on the House floor today in an unprecedented 90-
minute closed session, has stated the threat is here now.
In fact, the intelligence community publicly has said that North
Korea, with their test of a three-stage Taepo Dong rockets on August 31
of last year demonstrated that it can put a small payload with a
chemical or biological or small nuclear warhead into the heartland of
the U.S., not to just Alaska or Hawaii, but to the heartland of the
U.S. That is the first time we ever faced such a threat.
With the Rumsfeld Commission and intelligence community now in total
agreement on the threat then, the question is, let us make a deployment
decision so that we can move forward. Unfortunately, the administration
has chosen not to do that. This is the statement of Defense Secretary
Bill Cohen on February 1 of this year. This statement says, and I would
ask my colleagues to look at this, ``If the President decides that the
deployment should go forward,'' if he decides, ``next June the
President would make that decision.''
This bill, make no mistake about it, is a clear and definitive
difference between the administration's policy of waiting a year until
June and us making that decision right now. We need to make that
decision now. It does not mean we know the architecture, how long it
will take. It does not mean that we should immediately abandon the ABM
Treaty or have the Russians in fact think we are trying to back them
into a corner. Because some who will support this bill want to keep the
ABM Treaty until we can negotiate with the Russians. So the bill was
written in such a way as to allow a number of Members in each party to
support it.
Let me talk for a moment since we have now identified the fact that
the threat has been verified by the intelligence community. Some would
say, what about the cost? As I mentioned during the debate on the rule,
we have today spent $9 billion on Bosnia protecting the Bosnians and
the people in the Balkans.
This system the President is proposing would be less than or, at
most, equal to what we will spend in the Balkans, less than what we
spend each year on environmental cleanup, less than one half of one
percent of our total defense acquisition budget.
The third issue that is raised is this will destabilize our
relationship with the Russians. We heard that repeatedly. This past
weekend, eight of us, two Democrats and six Republicans, along with Don
Rumsfeld, former Defense Secretary, the former CIA Director Jim Woolsey
for President Clinton, and Bill Schneider, former Deputy Secretary of
State, traveled to Moscow and we briefed the Duma on why we are doing
this. This is not about destabilizing our relationship.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution and
vote ``yes.''
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4. Simply
stated, this bill is wrong. It does nothing to advance our
technological capability to protect America. And even worse, it could
reverse ongoing efforts to dismantle Russia's nuclear arsenal.
Today's vote would wager America's national security. Our Nation
would be dependent on a nonexistent system that has failed 14 out of 18
recent tests. If this bill actually becomes law, it will lock us into
automatic deployment of a national missile defense system without
regard to cost to our taxpayers or the system's effectiveness or its
impact on relations with our allies.
This bill is a blank check to defense contractors and a hollow
promise to
[[Page H1423]]
Americans who are rightly concerned about our national security.
However, instead of spending billions of dollars committing to deploy a
system that is unlikely to work undermining our national security, we
should focus on defense initiatives we know will make American families
safer, conducting tougher arms control and verification measures,
continuing the dismantling of Russia's nuclear weapons, engaging in a
coordinated effort against terrorism, and making sure our troops have
the training, equipment, and quality-of-life programs that they need
and deserve.
Finally, this vote really sends the wrong message at the wrong time.
Why, Mr. Speaker, are we pushing this vote just days before the Russian
Prime Minister is set to arrive in Washington in the midst of U.S.
efforts to negotiate modifications to the ABM Treaty and just as the
Russian Duma has asked President Yeltsin to start the ratification
process for START II?
We must be vigilant in our attempt to keep efforts on track to reduce
nuclear weaponry. We must not allow this bill to turn back the clock on
these efforts. For these reasons, I urge the House to reject H.R. 4,
reject the automatic deployment of weapons derived of latter-day Star
Wars mentality, and, if necessary, call on the President to veto this
bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Defense Appropriations.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to very much
express my appreciation to our chairman, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
for the wonderful work they have done. And congratulations to both the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their bipartisan effort.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4. This morning prior to the
start of this debate, every Member had the opportunity to be briefed on
the growing threat to Americans from ballistic missiles. What is
extremely alarming is the emerging threat posed by North Korea and
Iran. As we know, both countries are of particular concern because they
are actively seeking to develop medium- to long-range ballistic
missiles. In fact, with regard to North Korea, the Rumsfeld Commission
issued a clear warning. Their report said:
There is evidence that North Korea is working hard on the
Taepo Dong 2 (TD-2) ballistic missile . . . the TD-2 could be
deployed rapidly . . . This missile could reach major cities
and military bases in Alaska and the smaller, westernmost
islands in the Hawaiian chain. Light-weight variations of the
TD-2 could fly as far as 10,000 km, placing at risk western
U.S. territory . . . from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison,
Wisconsin.
The actual launch of a three-stage Taepo Dong 1 in August 1998, just
a month after that report was issued, served as unambiguous
demonstration of North Korea's capability. The threat emanating from
unfriendly rogue nations like North Korea is why I strongly support
this legislation.
Unfortunately, opponents of this bill argue that the U.S. is not
ready to deploy missile defense and that the system is not technically
mature. Others will say, the system is too costly and that the bill
mandates deployment and ignores important issues such as the threat
environment, ABM treaty implications and START agreements. To those who
oppose this legislation on these grounds, I say the language of the
bill is simple. It states: ``That it is the policy of the United States
to deploy a national missile defense.''
What is important is that it does not say that missile defense should
be deployed before it is ready or technically mature. It does not say
that the U.S. should deploy a missile defense system regardless of cost
or that policy makers should ignore the threat environment. Perhaps
most important, the bill does not say that the U.S. should abrogate the
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty nor does it say the U.S. should
abide by the treaty.
H.R. 4 simply says the Congress and the Administration are committed
to protecting American citizens against ballistic missile attack.
The White House says that it wants to protect the American people
against the emerging long-range threat and asserts that the decision to
deploy National Missile Defense will be based on four factors: (1) the
threat environment; (2) the cost of the system; (3) treaty
implications, and; (4) the technology and operational effectiveness of
the system.
If handled in an expeditious manner, it is my view that this is not
an unreasonable list of considerations. In fact, as Chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense I will be very interested in the
cost of the system.
Therefore, I believe this bill is an opportunity to get bipartisan
agreement on a critical policy and yet it is flexible enough to allow
for continued discussion on matters concerning cost, technology and
treaty implications.
The time is right to secure an agreement on the policy of protecting
our citizens against a potential limited ballistic missile attack. I
commend Mr. Weldon for introducing this legislation and I strongly urge
Members to vote for the bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, there is a scripture that I believe in that goes this
way: It says, ``If you are prepared, you shall not fear.''
As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, the Cox Commission,
and a former member of the Committee on Intelligence, I find this a
very interesting debate that we find ourselves in.
I remember the early 1980s we were standing here debating something
called the MX missile. I noticed how many people stood up and said,
this will enhance the risk and buildup and we should not do it. That
did not happen. Then later on we got into something we called ``nuclear
freeze,'' and some people stood on floor and said, if we do that, the
other nations will have to go along with this, as the Soviet Union.
Fortunately, we did not do that one either.
Then we got into something called Krasnoyarsk, and that is where many
people were saying they do not have that radar in violation of the
treaty. It turned out they did. And when they came down, they even
acknowledged that they did.
Now we find ourselves in a position where people are standing up and
saying, Mr. Speaker, the Cold War is over. There is nothing more to
worry about. Where have they been? What about Iraq, Iran, China, Korea,
all of these particular areas that are still doing these things?
I think it interesting as we hear the President and other dignitaries
stand up and they say there are no missiles pointed at the United
States. Past Director of the CIA, Jim Woolsey, stood up at one time and
made this statement. ``How long would it take to reprogram those
missiles?'' He used this example. He said, ``As long as it takes my arm
to go from here to there.'' So big deal that they are not programmed at
us. Basically, they think that we think that they are.
Does anyone in their right mind actually think Saddam Hussein if he
had these weapons of mass destruction would not use them against the
United States of America? What is it they need? The weapon of choice in
a rogue nation happens to be a missile. They do not need big armies.
They do not need big navies. They do not need a big air force. So what
do they need? They need a missile. And we know they have a missile.
They need a warhead. And we know that they have a warhead. And we know
that they have a guidance system.
I would urge my colleagues to support the resolution and this bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, most Americans have lived their entire
lives under the threat of nuclear Armageddon. At the conclusion of the
Cold War, many hoped that threat would subside. But today rogue states
are developing ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
China has at least 18 ICBMs capable of hitting the United States and
is stealing our nuclear secrets. Russia has thousands of tactical and
strategic nuclear weapons, and that society is fraying at the edges in
its ability to control each military unit that possesses nuclear
weapons and to control each of its scientific institutes is not
assured.
Further, in addition to the risk of ICBMs, smuggling things into the
United States is demonstrably easy. A nuclear weapon is smaller in many
cases than a child. And one could only
[[Page H1424]]
imagine a Saddam Hussein holding a press conference in Los Angeles
where one of his agents unveils that they have snuck into my city a
dummy nuclear weapon while, God forbid, holding a press conference in
Baghdad displaying a real nuclear weapon.
Missile defense can be one element of our security, and this bill is
broad enough to encompass a cost-effective approach toward missile
security. But it is also broad enough so that it could be interpreted
as spending all of our available security resources on missile defense.
We instead must devote some of those to diplomatic efforts to ensure
international support of nonproliferation.
{time} 1415
We must spend resources on counterintelligence. We must spend
resources on domestic security so we are confident that biological
poisons cannot be surrepetitiously entered into our water supply. We
must spend funds on border security so that the chance that a nuclear
weapon that is sought to be smuggled into America is caught in that
process is at least as good as the possibility that an ICBM aimed at
America would be destroyed. We must cooperate with Russia as well.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the adoption of this resolution and
its reasonable interpretation.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Installations and Facilities.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and
commend the leadership for bringing this issue to the floor today. I
thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will have the
courage to vote to declare it the policy of the United States to deploy
a national missile defense.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, Colorado Springs is ground zero for the
missile launch warning and tracking system for the United States
military. I have visited the incredible facilities at NORAD, Cheyenne
Mountain, the U.S. Space Command, and Schriever Air Force Base on many
occasions.
In fact, on one occasion when I visited NORAD, they put me in front
of a monitor and they simulated an attack on the United States. A
missile came over the polar region from the Soviet Union and they told
me what that missile was, what its explosive power was, where it was
going to hit, and I said, ``This is magnificent. This is state of the
art. What do we do now?'' And they said, ``Nothing.'' They said we
might be able to warn, give a short warning to some of the people that
are going to be killed by it, but not enough warning for them to
escape. We can do nothing. I do not think most of the American people
realize that.
I wonder how it sits with the American people. I wonder how my
colleagues who are opposed to this policy can look their constituents
in the eye and say, ``We shouldn't try to build a system to protect you
and your families.''
I have listened to the arguments coming from the President over the
years who has opposed this and others and they make some points. We
need to consider all of these points. But, Mr. Speaker, to not even try
sickens me. I hope all Members will, when considering their vote on
H.R. 4, think about the people that sent them here to represent them
but also sent them here to protect them from things like this.
That building across the river over there that we call the Defense
Department, I have always thought it curious that we called it the
Defense Department but it cannot defend us against the number-one
threat to America today.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for their
bipartisan and tireless effort to bring this legislation to the floor
and thank our committee leadership, the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for giving
us this opportunity.
The Constitution says that one of our foremost responsibilities is to
provide for the common defense. I do not think there is a Member here
who does not hold in his or her heart that responsibility very highly.
But there will be those who argue that this is not the right way to
provide for the common defense. I respectfully submit that they are
wrong. This is the right way to provide for the common defense. Some
say that the risk is not there or we are exaggerating it. I believe
that our best judgment from our best intelligence compels us to
conclude otherwise. Some say the technology will not work yet. They are
right. But the technology for virtually every major weapons system did
not work in the early stages. The technology for our space program did
not work in the early stages. The technology of corporate America
rarely works in the early stages. Technology never works if you do not
try. This is about trying to make this technology work.
Others will say that other priorities should take precedence over
this provision for the common defense. There are other important
priorities. There is no priority more important than defending this
country from attack. Because nothing else we do is possible if we fail
to defend the country from attack. And how much are we asking to invest
in this? Over the next 5 years, we will spend about $10 trillion of the
taxpayers' money to develop this country on education, health care,
transportation, all the other things that we do. This program will
spend about one-tenth of 1 percent of that amount of money. The other
99.9 percent will be otherwise spent.
This is a wise choice. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on National Security for yielding me this time and for
bringing this measure to the floor at this time.
I am pleased to express my strong support for this important
legislation, H.R. 4, a bill which declares our Nation's policy to be
able to deploy a missile defense.
Each of us, after hearing this morning the findings of the Rumsfeld
Commission, more fully understands the extensiveness and the
seriousness of our national security concerns. Each of us understands
that the ballistic missile threat is growing and presents not only a
danger to our men and women deployed overseas but also now to our
citizens here at home. Each of us understands that today our Nation
does not have the capability to defend ourselves against a ballistic
missile attack.
Today, we take important action to address this threat. Coupled with
the vote in the Senate yesterday, we can now assure the American people
that we are moving ahead with the deployment of an appropriate national
missile defense shield.
Today's vote is timely for another reason. Just yesterday, a senior
White House official concluded that Chinese espionage at our U.S.
nuclear labs facilitated their efforts to modernize China's nuclear
capability, thereby improving the ability of Chinese missiles to strike
American cities.
Even more alarming is the possibility that China will pass on nuclear
secrets to other nations, such as Pakistan and North Korea, as it has
repeatedly done before.
Many deserve credit for this vote today, but I want to single out the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who has tirelessly and
steadfastly worked to educate all of us and the American people on the
necessity to deploy a ballistic missile defense system.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 is a simple, straightforward, 15-word bill. But
its simplicity belies the profound implications it has for our Nation.
Accordingly, I urge all Members to fully support this legislation.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Congress and as a
mother and as a grandmother, I take deadly seriously the decision to
commit the United States to the deployment of a missile defense system.
I see
[[Page H1425]]
this proposal as nothing more than the beginning of Cold War II. And
for me it is not just about the money, and it is not just about whether
an antimissile defense system works, although we have already spent $55
billion and we still have not developed a technology that will work,
and it is not just about whether it is truly defense. The fact is that
America's borders and ports are open to penetration at much less cost
and much less risk. So even if we could develop a bullet that could hit
a bullet, it still remains not the best and most direct route from here
to security.
We should begin that journey by canceling plans to proceed with the
deployment of a national missile defense system, because it is in our
security interest to do so. Then we could put more emphasis on measures
to reduce strategic arsenals around the world. For example, we could
apply some of those billions of dollars to programs like the Nunn-Lugar
program to assist the Russians in dismantling nuclear weapons. Make no
mistake about it, a military buildup, which is what this is, brings us
closer to war.
My granddaughter, Isabelle, celebrated her first birthday this week.
For her sake, we must put our energy, our resources, our intelligence
and our dollars into actively, proactively pursuing peace.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Procurement.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I think there is one thing that housewives
and our other citizens across the Nation need to know, because I have
sat in focus groups and listened to them say over and over again that
they thought that there was a defense. And interestingly, the mothers
of this Nation seem to be the most outraged when the moderator tells
them, no, there is no defense. They say, ``Well, that's outrageous. Of
course our country has a defense against incoming ballistic missiles.''
Now, it has been argued over and over that we have spent $120 billion
and we have not produced or built any system. Well, that is because
every bill that we have put forward that has authorized expenditure of
money has specifically kept that money from going toward production. We
have said in every authorization bill and every appropriation bill, you
can research, you can do all kinds of analysis, you can't build
anything. So now the opponents of national missile defense say, well,
we haven't built anything. Well, that is right, and that is why the
bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is on the floor
today, to move the country forward in a unified manner and build
something. And for those folks like the gentlewoman who just spoke who
say that they will rely on mutually assured destruction, the problem
that we have now is that it appears that there are certain people on
this globe like Mr. Khadafi who will take that bet. They will go along
with mutually assured destruction. Mr. Khadafi has said that if he had
the missiles when we backed him down in the Gulf of Sidra, he would
have fired on New York City. Unfortunately, because of arms sales and
the proliferation of missile technology, Mr. Khadafi may well soon have
the ability to carry out what he has stated that he will do.
Now, can we hit a bullet with a bullet? Well, yes we have done that.
In fact, when Adolf Hitler fired the first missiles, those slow cruise
missiles that he called buzz bombs at London in World War II, within a
few weeks we designed a system to hit those slow-moving bullets with
other bullets, with real bullets, and shoot them down. When we had
American troops shot at by those Scuds, which are ballistic missiles,
we hit those bullets with bullets, albeit slow bullets, we shot them
down. Can we shoot down faster bullets? Absolutely. With a computing
power that is millions of times above what it was just 10 or 12 or 15
years ago, of course we have that capability. But as long as we have
conditions in our authorization bills that say you can research and
develop forever but don't ever build anything, of course we never will
build anything.
Finally, every time a threatening system has come before this
country, has faced this country, whether it was the advent of the
machine gun, or the tank, or radar, or enemy aircraft, we have built
defend against those systems to protect our people. If we do not build
a system to defend against incoming ballistic missiles, we will have
turned down that most important duty for the first time in our history.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4. I think we
all know and I think the American people know that the issue before us
is as much about politics as it is about a meaningful debate over
national security policy. It appears to me that the Republican Party
views missile defense as a good issue for the year 2000 elections. How
else could we find ourselves in the sorry position of being asked to
write a blank check to build a system that is unproven, that threatens
to undermine the arms control efforts of the last six administrations,
that could easily be thwarted, that could lead to a second nuclear arms
race, and would divert billions of dollars from other neglected defense
and nondefense programs?
This is certainly a prime example in my opinion of dumb public
policy. Apart from squandering billions of dollars on a system that has
not been successfully tested, this proposal poses a threat to our
national security in three other ways: First, it provides a false sense
of security while doing nothing to combat perhaps our most pressing
security threat, which is terrorism. A rogue state or a terrorist group
is far more likely to deliver a bomb or a chemical or biological attack
in a suitcase, a subway train, as was done in Japan, or in a Ryder
truck.
Second, it will divert resources from other neglected defense
programs. Over the past several months, we have heard compelling and
professional testimony from the heads of all uniformed services on many
other emerging threats to our armed forces, from laser technology that
can blind our pilots to sophisticated computer attacks. And every one
of the service chiefs has spoken of the immediate need to provide
adequate pay and benefits for our most important military asset, our
people in the military service, thousands of whom still depend on food
stamps to provide for their families.
{time} 1430
Instead of addressing these issues today, here we are debating
spending billions and billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars for
the return of Star Wars.
Third, deploying a national missile defense system jeopardizes the
START process.
To quote one commentator: ``The only thing this national missile
defense system is ever likely to intercept is billions of taxpayer
dollars.''
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon).
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4, and I want to
thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership in getting this bill
to the floor.
As my colleagues know, I grew up at a time when we had a worldwide
threat. I can remember when I was going to school and our teachers
would call drop drills, and we had to dive under our desk and turn away
from the windows. We lived in constant threat of nuclear attack. Lately
that threat has seemed to have disappeared, and the President said in
the State of the Union that we were safe, that we were not under any
threat of nuclear attack, and polls say that 70 percent of the people
of our country feel that we are safe from nuclear attack.
But I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for
making the truth known and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) for joining him in a bipartisan way.
Mr. Speaker, we do not live in a safe world. The defense of our
Nation, which is one of our fundamental responsibilities in the
Constitution, is an issue that should unite all Americans regardless of
ideology. Less than 1 percent of our defense budget is spent on
research to develop a national missile defense capability, yet the
threat we are facing is growing. Russia and China are selling missile
technologies to nations such as Iran and North Korea bringing these
last two countries closer to producing their own missiles.
[[Page H1426]]
The threat to our national security and the security of our citizens
is real. We do not have drop drills now, but perhaps we should until we
get this missile defense system deployed.
H.R. 4, which was passed overwhelmingly by the House Committee on
Armed Services, is an appropriate response to this threat. I urge a yes
vote on H.R. 4.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, maybe I am just too simple, but today's
debate, today's argument for an extended missile defense system, takes
me back to the 1950s when I was in school. At least weekly while I was
in grade school every student and our teachers went under our desks to
practice protection against the atom bomb. Mr. Speaker, I can assure my
colleagues we have a false sense of security, and it all came from
these exercises. Now I question just how safe we could be with this
missile defense technology against rogue States.
Mr. Speaker, what are we really investing in? I fear what we will be
investing in is a false sense of security. I would suggest that instead
we invest in true security. We can spend our scarce Federal dollars on
technologies to protect us from the unknown, or we can use these scarce
resources to keep our country secure by investing in humanitarian
relations with other nations around the world.
For example, if we want to get serious about our nation's defense, we
should be investing in programs that will prepare us to confront the
international challenges we actually face and keep nuclear materials
out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. This is a more
effective tool for nonproliferation than Star Wars will ever be. This
is where we should be investing our scarce dollars.
There is an even greater way that we can invest and that we can
ensure national security. We can invest in our children. Education is
truly the cheap defense of our Nation and all nations. By investing in
education of our children, we will ensure that they are prepared for a
high-tech global economy, they will be prepared to work for peace, and
they will know that weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles
can destroy every human being on this Earth.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the work of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter), others and the Rumsfeld Commission, no
one seriously questions whether we are threatened today by the spread
of missiles, nor does anyone question whether that threat is going to
grow in the future. No one seriously questions whether the American
people want and in fact demand a defense against those missiles, which
even the administration now seems to acknowledge.
Mr. Speaker, if the national security is the first responsibility of
the Federal Government and if protecting the homeland of the United
States and the people of the United States is the first job of national
security, then I do not know of any program that ought to be higher on
the priority list than this one. The question is do we in Congress and
does the administration really mean what we say in this resolution? Are
these words merely a way to try to deal with a political problem and
the polls, or do they mean something, and are they going to be backed
up with action?
Since 1983, we have heard a million excuses about how we could not do
this or we should not do this. Even today we hear excuses. But we
cannot give Russia or anyone else a veto over our right to defend
ourselves, we cannot be afraid of test failures, and we certainly
cannot be fooled by those few people who say that by weakening
ourselves we are really making ourselves stronger.
Mr. Speaker, the time for excuses has ended. The time for action is
now. The time to back up these words with real actions that protect the
American people is today.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is about whether, after spending $140
billion on missile defense programs over the last 40 years, we continue
to spend billions more. But this debate is about much more than that.
Given the fact that there is a limited amount of funds available for
our needs, let me tell my colleagues what this debate is also about.
This debate is whether millions of senior citizens today who cannot
afford the prescription drugs they need to ease their pain or stay
alive are going to get those prescription drugs or whether we continue
to spend even more on the military. That is what this debate is about.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, I attended a committee meeting with
representatives of all of the veterans organizations, and they said
what is absolutely true, that this Congress has been disgraceful in
ignoring the needs of our veterans and our Veterans Administration
hospitals, and they are begging us for a few billion dollars more to
protect our veterans so that we do not turn them away from our VA
hospitals. But over and over again we hear there is no money available
for our veterans; but, yes, there is $150 billion more available over
the next 5 years for military spending.
And we have young families all over America who look forward to
sending their kids to college; no money available for Pell grants, yet
more money available for Star Wars, for B-2 bombers, for every defense
system that the military industrial complex wants.
Now I have heard that we are spending very little so far on defense,
on understanding, on research for the missile defense program. If we
have $300 billion in the defense budget now and we do not even have a
Soviet Union out there to oppose us, why do we not take some of that
money rather than asking us for more? The United States today spends
$300 billion, NATO spends $200 billion, North Korea spends less than $3
billion.
Take what we have and spend it wisely.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, most Americans believe the United
States military has the ability to defend our country against a
ballistic missile attack. However today the United States does not have
the capability to shoot down one single ballistic missile.
Mr. Speaker, I ask why have we failed to develop this capability? Is
it because the threat of a ballistic missile attack disappeared with
the fall of the Soviet Union? Absolutely not. Since the end of the Cold
War, the threat of a ballistic missile attack against the United States
has become more serious and more difficult to anticipate. Through the
continued proliferation of key missile technologies by China and
Russia, rogue nations around the globe have acquired long-range
ballistic missile technology that now puts the United States in
jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the current administration did not foresee a
long range ballistic missile threat for at least a decade. The
administration's opinion has now changed. General Lester Lyles, the
Pentagon's Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization,
confirmed the threat to the American people by saying this, and I
quote:
We are affirming the threat, it is real today and it is
growing.
Mr. Speaker, these are not reassuring words, and they are disturbing
words that relay a disheartening message to the American people.
Detractors of a missile defense system spread the rumors and the myths
that a national missile defense system would cost too much to deploy.
It has cost this administration an estimated $19 billion over 6 years
to support its peacekeeping missions. Compare that to the estimated $10
billion that it will cost the United States over the next 6 years to
protect American lives from a long-range ballistic missile attack.
Mr. Speaker, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya have all acquired
the
[[Page H1427]]
technology to deploy ballistic missiles against the United States. H.R.
4 is the first step that must be taken if the United States wishes to
protect its population against an existing ballistic missile threat.
I commend the diligent work done by my colleagues, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4 and
urge its support by my colleagues. This is a simple resolution that
above all else is a statement about the reality of the world in which
we live. I was pleased to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon), my colleague on the other side, in a very important trip to
Russia this past weekend with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner),
who will speak on this issue as well. We delivered a message to the
Russian Duma about ballistic missile defense and the fact that we will
protect the shores of this country. This is not a violation of our
treaty with Russia.
The Cold War is over, but the threat is there. Listen to the words of
the Rumsfeld Commission. We have invested billions of dollars in
technology to try to protect the shores of this country. The only
responsible thing to do is to now deploy. To vote for deployment is to
begin to protect the shores of this country from missile threats from
rogue nations. It is our responsibility to do so.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), I thank the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their leadership, and I
urge Members to support H.R. 4.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Cold War is over, and
yet America is less safe. Here are the facts. Iran conducted its first
flight test of a medium range ballistic missile last year, an entire
year earlier than the intelligence community had predicted. North Korea
continues to develop and test a ballistic missile with long-range
capabilities that would pose a direct threat to much of the continental
United States. In 1996, a Chinese general threatened the destruction of
Los Angeles, and today China has 13 of its 18 missiles pointed at
United States cities.
Mr. Speaker, our national security is threatened, and to the surprise
of most Americans our United States military cannot destroy one, not
one incoming missile.
Americans are just now learning the frightening truth. The Clinton
administration has lulled the United States citizens into a false sense
of security. How can we afford to send U.S. troops to Bosnia and now
Kosovo, but we cannot find the money to protect America against a
missile attack? The fact is the costs to deploy a national missile
defense capability will amount to less than the amount this
administration has spent on peacekeeping deployments over the past 6
years.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for H.R. 4 is a vote to protect and defend the
citizens of this great Nation.
{time} 1445
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, one out of every five children
lives in poverty. Over 40 million Americans have no health insurance.
One out of every three public schools is falling apart. Spending
billions of dollars on missile defense does nothing to solve these
problems.
In the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, every gun that is made, every
warship launched, every rocket fired signifies a theft from those who
hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
President Eisenhower, a Republican, had the experience and the wisdom
to appreciate the cost of the military to our society. It is the price
we paid during the Cold War because we had to.
Mr. Speaker, that threat is no more. There is no need for a missile
defense, for spending billions of dollars on some pie in the sky
boondoggle.
This May, the sequel to the film Star Wars will be released. It is
called The Phantom Menace.
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating whether to build a sequel to
Ronald Reagan's Star Wars system. It too should be called The Phantom
Menace.
This Phantom Menace defense system will cost at least $20 billion and
protect us against a threat that simply does not exist.
It is time to recognize the peace dividend, to redirect our
priorities and invest in our people, not in weapons.
Make no mistake, a dollar more for missile defense is a dollar less
for health care, for education and for food. This Phantom Menace
missile defense system will not educate the unlearned. It will not
provide hope for the hopeless, food for the hungry or medicine for the
sick.
I urge my colleagues, do not choose bullets over babies, bombs over
books, missiles over medicine.
Let it be the policy of our great Nation to beat our swords into
plowshares, to invest not in the instruments of war but in the
dividends of peace, in education and health care, in hope and
opportunity, in our children, our families and our future.
Vote no on the remains of a bygone age. Vote no on this resolution.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R.
4. Recent showdowns with Iraq and North Korea are a stark reminder that
the fall of the Soviet Union has not led to an absence of threats to
our national security. Indeed we still live, and as people have said,
in a very dangerous world. We must continue to make this Nation's
defense our number one priority.
While the United States has conducted research on missile defense for
years and possesses the technology to protect the American people from
a ballistic missile attack, most Americans are outraged to discover
that political foot-dragging has prevented such a defense system from
being put in place.
Clearly, it is time for Congress and the President to make a
commitment to deploy a national missile defense. Additional excuses and
further delay will only weaken our national security and endanger
American lives.
With rogue nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea working feverishly
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missile technology to
deliver them inside the United States, there is simply no justification
for leaving the American people vulnerable any longer. Cast votes in
favor of a strong, secure America. Vote for H.R. 4.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 11 minutes.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have followed this issue for a long time,
since chairing a panel of the Committee on Armed Services in the mid-
1980s on SDI for 4 years, and I want to put this whole matter in some
context, explain to my friends who do not understand why I am
supporting this simple bill.
In March of 1983, Ronald Reagan launched the strategic defense
initiative, and with it a charged debate. The arguments over the old
perennials of the Cold War, the ASATs and the B-2 and the MX, ended
long ago but this one smolders on. Unlike any other weapons system I
have seen in the time that I have served here, this one has become a
political totem. Its advocates not only disagree with its opponents but
they accuse them of leaving the country vulnerable to missile attack.
They diminish the fact that deterrence worked for all of the Cold War
and they act as if missile defenses were almost off the shelf,
available to shield the country, the whole country, from attack, when
this capability is far from proven and may never be attained.
On the other hand, opponents accuse the advocates of firing up the
arms race again. They give too little credit to the advantages of
defending ourselves against nuclear attack and moving away from massive
retaliation, mutual destruction, complementing deterrence with defense.
Today, the House takes up that missile defense debate again, this
time with a resolution that is notable for its brevity, if nothing
else, that it is the
[[Page H1428]]
policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense
system. Of course the United States has deployed a national missile
defense system.
We spent $15 billion in today's money building Sprint and Spartan and
setting up Safeguard at Grand Forks, North Dakota, only to shut the
system down in 1976. Even then the Pentagon did not quit spending in
missile defense.
In the year Reagan made his speech and launched SDI, the Pentagon put
$991 million in its budget for missile defense and that sum was
budgeted to rise annually to $2.7 billion by 1988, most of it to go for
protecting MX missiles in their silos.
After the eighties, the mid-eighties, the defense budget, as all of
us know, barely kept up with inflation. With Ronald Reagan pushing it,
SDI kept on increasing, rising so fast that within 4 or 5 years of his
speech SDI was the largest item in the defense budget, a big defense
budget.
At nearly $4 billion, SDI was getting almost as much as the entire
research and development account of the United States Army.
Sixteen years have passed and the Defense Department has spent some
$50 billion on ballistic missile defense and has yet to field a
strategic defense system. Now by anybody's reckoning, that is real
money.
It is hard to claim, with this much spent, that the absence of a
deployed system is due to the lack of commitment. The problem is more
lack of focus than a lack of commitment or lack of funding. Plus the
fact, the plain hard fact, that this task is harder than Ronald Reagan
ever realized.
Early on, the architects of strategic defense decided that it had to
be layered; one layer would not do. The system had to thin out some
missiles in the boost phase as they rose from their silos. It had to
take out some reentry vehicles in the mid-course as they traveled
through space, and the remainder had to be taken out as they descended
in the atmosphere to their targets.
So the Pentagon developed a whole family of systems. There was the
Endo-atmospheric interceptor, and Exo-atmospheric interceptor, a
terminal interceptor. There was Space-Based Kinetic-Kill Vehicles which
later became Brilliant Pebbles. All of those were kinetic killers,
which meant they were designed to collide head on with their targets.
Since hitting a target that is moving 7 kilometers a second is a
daunting task, to say the least, SDI put some money into an alternative
technology: Directed energy.
At one time, the SDI program supported five different laser systems,
space-spaced and ground-based. Since missile defense requires better
acquisition of targets, better tracking, and a means of discriminating
real targets from decoys, SDI had to put money into those systems, too.
We developed a pop-up system, known as the GSTS. We developed space-
based infrared sensors first known as Space and Missile Tracking
System, now known as SBIRS Low and SBIRS High.
We even went into interactive discrimination with an esoteric
technology called the neutral particle beam, which would have been
based in space.
Now let me emphasize, not all of these pursuits took us down blind
alleys. Not all of this money was wasted, not by any means. The ERIS,
for example, was bypassed for a better interceptor but the projectile
that the Army developed for the ERIS, the Exo-atmospheric interceptor
called the LEAP, is now on the top of the Navy's upper tier system. It
has been used there.
The Army has a system called the THAAD, which intercepts in the
atmosphere. In the atmosphere, there is a lot of friction. That system,
the THAAD, has a sapphire window aperture on it developed for the HEDI.
So we have used the technology for other systems and it has evolved
forward. We have made progress with this $50 billion.
After the Gulf War, SDIO eventually evolved into BMDO, and BMDO had
theater missile defense and strategic defense, a bigger plate and less
money. It decided it had to put its money where it would pay off so it
started taking assessment of what worked and what did not work. The
first thing they did was discard lasers because lasers were too
futuristic. Ground-based lasers are hard to propagate in the atmosphere
without distortion. Spaced-based lasers in fixed orbits are easy to
counter attack, hard to power. They were discarded.
Boost-phased interceptors are also vulnerable to attack if they are
in fixed orbit in space, and given the fact that there have to be so
many on target on station all the time, we need thousands of them,
literally thousands launched to do the job.
Even if all of these problems could be overcome, for boost-phased
interceptors they could still be outrun by missiles like the SS-24
which had a boost-phase burnout time of 180 seconds.
Why go through all of this? Because it shows the frustration of these
efforts. We are not here today because we have not had the will to do
it. We have spent the money. We have pursued these things. We simply
have not yet been able to prove that the system can work.
Where we have ended up is with ground-based interceptors, mid-course
interceptors. These have the merit of being treaty compliant. They are
technically mature. They are clearly the best candidate to go first,
but nobody should think that they answer Ronald Reagan's dream. The
first problem they face today and 15 years ago is countermeasures in
the form of decoys and chaff and RVs that are attached to and enveloped
in balloons which lure the interceptors off course.
The next is a limiting condition that the SDIO acknowledged in the
1992 report. Because of the radiation and the heat and the
electromagnetic effects that are generated when an RV is destroyed with
a nuclear warhead inside it, SDIO decided that it could not postulate
the destruction of more than 200 oncoming RVs at any given time.
If we were attacked by an adversary as sophisticated as Russia, with
an arsenal as large and diverse as theirs, the first wave attack could
easily exceed 200 RVs. So nobody should assume that we are anywhere
close to protecting the whole American continent from ballistic
missiles. We are not even close to that.
Now, H.R. 4 says it is our policy to develop a national missile
defense. The mid-course interceptor is clearly the candidate for this
mission. This is not a system, however, that will render nuclear
weapons impotent and obsolete. If we have learned anything over the
past 16 years, we have learned that a leak- proof defense is so
difficult it may never be attained.
H.R. 4 calls for a national missile defense, but the committee report
acknowledges that this is a system that will protect us against limited
strikes. By limited strikes what we mean is up to 20 oncoming RVs.
There is a legitimate concern, I think, that Russia may react
adversely to this but, in truth, Russia has nothing to be concerned
about here because this system would not begin to defend us against the
threat that the Russians still pose to us. That is why we should not
push too hard. That is why we should not be talking about breaching the
ABM Treaty, because START II and START III are still more important to
us, to our security, than launching this NMD system with its limited
effectiveness.
The merit of this bill to me is, as I have said, not what it says but
what it does not say. It is simple. It does not say that the technology
is in hand. It does not try to prescribe what we should do. It leaves
that to be worked out in time. It just commits us, focuses us on a
deployable system.
It does not mandate a date for deployment. It does not call for the
revision of the ABM Treaty. It simply says, let us focus on getting
something done. Let us see if we cannot bring to fruition a system that
will at least give us limited protection against a ballistic missile
attack.
Then we can, first of all, reap some return on the $50 billion we
have spent. Secondly, with a treaty complaint system we can tell what
its potential is, test its practical potential. That is the only way we
can find out if we can overcome the countermeasures of decoys and
balloons and all the other things that can lure these interceptors off
track.
{time} 1500
Thirdly, this technology that we are talking about is not on a
continuum
[[Page H1429]]
with theater missile defense, and we all agree in this House that that
is something we should do, having seen the consequences of it in the
Gulf War.
Finally, if we do this, we will have a system, if it has proven its
mettle, that may give us some protection against an accidental strike,
which could happen; against a rogue attack, which could be threatened.
It may give us some protection, and it will certainly give us something
that we can learn from and build upon and, as I said, reap some
investment.
I support this bill finally in the hope that we can put BMD on a
bipartisan footing. Theater missile defense enjoys bipartisan support,
we all support it. National missile defense has been a bone of
contention. What we sought in this bill was something that we could all
come to common ground on. I am not just advocating that we build
anything. National missile defense needs to stand the test of any
weapons system. It ought to be put to rigorous testing, made to prove
that it can hold this country harmless against a limited missile
attack. If a strategic defense can rise to this mettle, I think we
should buy it and deploy it. If it cannot, there is nothing in this
bill that says we should buy a dud.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), a very valuable member of our committee.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Russia where I joined a bipartisan
delegation of my colleagues in communicating the intent of H.R. 4 to
members of the Russian Duma.
Although Russia is skeptical of America's intent to deploy a national
missile defense, I can tell my colleagues that a limited national
missile defense would not undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. In
fact, Russia still has a strategic nuclear arsenal of over 7,000
warheads. Even if Russia ratifies and complies with START II, they will
still be able to sustain a strategic force of 3,500 warheads. If the
U.S. had a national missile defense system similar to what Russia
already has deployed outside of Moscow, Russia's strategic missile
force could still overwhelm such a defensive U.S. system.
The fact is, we have no missile defense system to defend against any
incoming ballistic missile, whether that missile is part of a limited
or accidentally launched attack from a rogue nation such as North Korea
or Iran, or an accidental launch from Russia or China. Russia, not the
U.S., is the only country that currently maintains the world's only
operational ballistic missile defense system for their country.
Even if the 1972 ABM Treaty were still legally valid, it at least
allows for deployment of a limited national missile defense system at a
single site in the U.S., a deployment that this administration has
consistently opposed, up until recently, through and through. I find it
shocking, though not really surprising, that Russia has the only real
missile defense system, and that they do not really want to change the
ABM Treaty, and yet the U.S. gets criticized for not cooperating with
Russia.
The fact is, our bipartisan delegation to speak to the Russian Duma
this past weekend was all about the U.S. Congress taking the initiative
to cooperate with and give advanced notice to Russia regarding our
intent to enact a national missile defense policy for the United
States, a national missile defense system to protect our cities, our
businesses, our families, our children, from a missile carrying a
nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead that could flatten an entire
metropolitan area with one strike.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4, and I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence), the chairman of the full Committee on Armed Services, for
advancing the goals of the Constitution: to provide for the defense of
our Nation.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The consideration of this bill is the story of an overwhelming, but
rather hollow, victory, and a total policy failure. This Star Wars
scheme is, first, a technological failure, failing one test after
another, again and again. This system assumes the capability, as U.S.
Air Force General Lester Lyles said, of ``hitting a bullet with a
bullet'' in outer space. And indeed, it would be not one bullet, but
many bullets, coming down over this entire 50 United States. That would
be a challenge even for Superman.
Well, the system has failed to do that. It represents more political
mythology than technological reality.
Star Wars is, secondly a failure for the taxpayer a failure of over
$100 billion wasted on this program. And now our Republican friends
tell us that for a mere $184 billion more, we can deploy this defective
system. They are wrong. It is wrong to assume that if we waste enough
taxpayer money, we can purchase absolute security.
For indeed, this Star Wars scheme represents a failure also for true
national security. It diverts very precious resources away from other
military needs and other nonmilitary needs that are at the heart of
maintaining ours as the most powerful country in the world. More
importantly, this scheme jeopardizes our efforts to reduce nuclear
armaments and endangers those agreements we have already negotiated,
such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Our paramount security goal should be to reduce the nuclear threat,
not to raise false promise that we will live happily ever after in the
event of a nuclear attack. Forsaking that paramount goal constitutes a
tragic failure by this Congress.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Jacksonville, Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4.
This morning, this House received a top secret briefing from the
independent commission to assess the ballistic missile threat to the
United States. Now, maybe my colleague who just spoke from Texas was
not at that briefing and if he was not, then I recommend he go read
that report, because they discussed the findings that led them to
conclude unanimously that ballistic missile threats from North Korea,
Iran, Iraq, China, have developed far more rapidly than predicted in
recent years by our intelligence community, and pose a serious threat
to the United States.
Now, while many of us in this House have long championed deployment
of a national missile defense capable of defeating at least a limited
or accidental attack on our Nation, this legislation represents this
Congress' first concrete expression of support for such a deployment.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question the threat is real. Last August,
North Korea flight-tested a 3-stage Taepo Dong I missile. Though the
missile's third stage failed, the launch raised serious concerns. Our
intelligence community revised its previous estimates of North Korea's
capabilities, concluding that with the resolution of some tech issues,
the next generation of the North Korean missile, the Taepo Dong II now
under development could soon target not just Alaska and Hawaii, but
could reach the rest of the United States, depending on the size of its
payload. Meanwhile, North Korea has gone ahead actively pursuing
nuclear weapons.
It is no small matter that the same regime that launched this missile
has simultaneously allowed hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to
perish from famine. That shows the regime's desperation to develop this
capability and should raise concerns here about their willingness to
use it. Unfortunately, today we have no capability to defeat the threat
from missile threat.
Secretary Cohen has called the launch in North Korea another strong
indicator that the United States in fact will face a rogue nation
missile threat to our homeland against which we will have to defend the
American people.
I congratulate my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their
efforts, and I urge my colleagues' support of this bill.
[[Page H1430]]
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of this legislation,
and I want to say at the outset that I commend my chairman the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) of the Committee on Military
Research and Development for his leadership in this area. I was very
pleased that this legislation passed the Committee on National Security
by a vote of 50-to-3.
This legislation is one that received a boost and a wakeup call this
last August when North Korea launched a missile containing a third
stage. We know from the reports of the intelligence community that
North Korea is working on a missile that has the capability and will
have the capability of reaching the continental United States. In July,
the Commission to assess the ballistic missile threat to the United
States, the Rumsfeld Commission, concluded that rogue nations like
Iran, Iraq and North Korea are moving much faster than we had
previously known in the development of intercontinental ballistic
missile capability.
The risk of inaction is unacceptable. One thing that we have always
done as Americans is stood strong in terms of making America the
strongest nation in the world. It is unacceptable to know that within a
short period of years, the Second Congressional District of Texas could
be 32 minutes away from the delivery of an intercontinental ballistic
missile from North Korea. The time for action is now.
The development of a missile system, a defensive missile system will
take many years. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has
wisely in this bill simply stated, ``It shall be the policy of the
United States to deploy a missile defense system.'' The timing, the
technology, the cost is left yet to be determined. Now is the time for
action. The price of peace and security is high, but the cost of
inaction and the cost of vulnerability is much higher.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership in this
legislation.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), a member of our committee.
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4. As a
cosponsor of H.R. 4, I want to give my colleagues the reasons why I
support this important legislation.
First, the threat to the United States of a ballistic missile strike
is real, according to the findings of the bipartisan Rumsfeld
Commission, and the President's own Secretary of Defense said that the
ballistic missile threat is real and growing.
Second, we are on the way to developing a technology for national
ballistic missile defense. This legislation does not say what
technology is to be used or implemented. Current technology relies on
mature ground-based methods. All we need to do is to have the political
will and courage to perfect this technology so that it be counter a
limited ballistic missile strike.
Third, we can afford to do this. The current budget picture shows
that for $10 billion we can implement a national ballistic missile
defense which would counter a limited strike. I think this is a small
price to pay to help ensure that Americans sleep better at night.
Fourth, we are no longer bound by the 1972 ABM Treaty. When this
treaty was signed, it was signed with the former Soviet Union. That
union no longer exists, making the agreement moot. However, let us
assume for the moment that the ABM Treaty was still in effect. The
treaty was signed to deter both countries from implementing a ballistic
missile defense on the premise that if both countries were defenseless
to a major ballistic missile attack, neither country would strike. All
we are asking for in this bill is to make it the policy of the United
States to counter a limited missile attack from a rogue state. We still
will not have the defenses to protect us from Russia's 7,000 strong
nuclear arsenal, even though I would argue that ought to be our policy.
These are just some of my reasons for supporting this bill.
However, the most important reason why I am supporting this bill is
because today's world is more hostile than it was 20 years ago. Twenty
years ago, we knew who our enemies were and containment was possible.
Today, with the end of the Cold War, former Soviet nuclear scientists
market their skills to rogue nations so that they can survive. North
Korea has demonstrated that they have long-range missile capability
which threatens the U.S. territory, and of course Iran.
These are not safe times, and for those who would argue that a nation
would be stupid or insane to launch a missile at the last remaining
superpower, I say to them, do you want to make that bet on behalf of
the American people?
No, Mr. Speaker, the vote we cast today sends a clear message to
those rogue nations who would do our people harm. I cast this vote for
the people of the 44th Congressional District, for my family, and my
country.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time. At the outset let me say how much respect I have for the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), and my friend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence).
I have, in light of their support of this proposal, examined my
position, which has been in opposition over this during the years that
I have been in the Congress, and I have not been able to bring myself
to support this, having reviewed the literature on this leading up to
our debate today.
A national missile defense system, an impenetrable shield, a marginal
line in the sky. Well, the simple fact is, any anti-missile shield can
be overwhelmed even if it works perfectly, which we do not know that it
does work perfectly. In fact, all the evidence speaks to the contrary.
The latest testing that we have on this indicates the success ratio is
very, very marginal. But even if it works perfectly, we design it to
shoot down 10 missiles simultaneously and an enemy can render it
useless by launching 20. If we design it to shoot down 100 missiles,
then they will launch 200.
{time} 1515
In the end, spending tens of billions of dollars to build a missile
defense shield makes about as much sense to me as erecting a chain link
fence to keep mosquitos out of one's backyard.
But today we are being asked to sign a blank check for a Star Wars
system that could cost tens of billions of dollars according to the
Congressional Budget Office. My colleagues on this side of the aisle
primarily have said and argued that we need this, but, yet, we cannot
afford in the budget debate that we will have in just a few days on
this floor $5 billion to fix our national schools. They say we cannot
afford to help seniors pay for costly prescription drugs.
They even go so far as to say that we cannot afford to buy weapons,
weapon-grade plutonium from the Soviet Union to keep it from falling in
the hands of terrorist or rogue states. I want to repeat that again
because I think that is terribly important. In next week's supplemental
appropriation that we will bring to the floor, the Republicans plan to
cut funding to buy up to 50 tons of plutonium from the Russian's
nuclear stockpile.
So I ask my colleagues, does it make more sense to prevent the spread
of this material now while it is still on the ground rather than to
wait for it to be turned into missiles and then to spend billions of
dollars trying to catch it while it is hurdling through the sky? I
think not.
We ought to redesign, make sure our computers work well, take care of
the Y2K computer bug problem first and then deal with this in the
future. I hope my colleagues will vote against this.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I am proud of what the
Congress is doing this week. Like the balanced budget agreement, like
the first tax cuts in 16 years, like the real welfare reform, like all
the other elements in the contract with America, we are here once again
taking the lead
[[Page H1431]]
on an important issue. Only this one may be the most important issue of
them all.
Some happy day in the future, when we are all elderly and retired, we
will find ourselves tucking a grandchild in for the night. Unlike our
own generation, when we were young, that child will be going to sleep
in his bed safe from any foreign attack because this Congress made the
decision to deploy a national missile defense.
We are going to be able to smile and say to that child, ``we gave you
a defense that defends.'' The best anyone could give us was the advice
to duck and cover.
But missile defense is about more than making American children safe
in their beds. I believe it will advance the cause of freedom around
the world. It will do so by taking away one of the most horrible props
that modern dictatorships use to intimidate their own people, the
terror weapon.
Missiles today are prestige items. Any dictator that owns them can
appear more powerful and enduring. If he cannot win the affection of
his own people, his missiles can at least instill in them a measure of
respect.
A dictator knows that, by making the world quake before his ability
to attack foreign cities, his own people will look on him with fear and
awe. He also knows that he and his regime can thrive in the atmosphere
of international tension that he himself creates.
In this way, having a crude but invincible missile can help a
dictator maintain control over his own people, even if he threatens far
away American civilians.
If our goal is to transform dictatorships into democracies, we must
deny them the ability to build effective terror weapons. Once they
realize they cannot get respect by threatening acts of war, they may
choose to win respect in the old fashioned way, through the simple
dignity that any government earns when it is freely elected by its own
people.
Mr. Speaker, radical rogue regimes are the greatest threat to our
security today. Whether they are driven by insane ideologies or ethnic
rage, they share intense anti-Americanism. Mr. Speaker, they hate us.
They hate us not only for our success and our power, but even more so
for our democracy. They know that our ideals of freedom and individual
rights are poison to their petty little tyrannies.
These regimes are nasty enough when armed with car bombs. Imagine
them armed with nuclear-tipped ICBMs.
As I said during last week's Kosovo debate, we need an entirely new
policy for dealing with these pariahs. The administration's approach of
containment, engagement, arms control and negotiation is not working.
Like the Reagan doctrine of the 1980s, we need a policy dedicated to
replacing these regimes with democratic alternatives.
Missile defense, because it takes away a prop dictators can use to
survive, is part of that policy. That is one reason I support it today.
Mr. Speaker, just as that grandchild in our future should sleep
soundly in the knowledge that American technology has made him safe
from these evil threats, the otherwise intimidated citizens of
tyrannical regimes should take heart as well. They should know that,
thanks to America, the military delusions of their misguided leader are
as obsolete as their political theories. From this, these oppressed
people can take courage to resist and to seek their own freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, a
question.
Mr. Speaker, this is the budget resolution that the Budget Committee
passed out yesterday. It provides $205 billion less than the President
requested. It is essentially flat from 2004 to 2009, the very period
and years when this system will be purchased and deployed. How can we
pay for it with a cut like that?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I appreciate these
numbers. I studied them. While on the surface our numbers may seem
smaller than the President's, I take greater confidence in our budget
committee's numbers because they are real.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
(Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
While developing a national defense system should be a priority, we
need to ensure that any potential system is dependable, reliable, and
fiscally responsible. More importantly, we need to also step up our
investment in nuclear nonproliferation programs.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to stop a ballistic missile attack is to
stop the missiles from being developed and deployed in the first place.
We need a balanced approach to protect American families. We need
increased investment in nonproliferation programs like nuclear cities
and IPP to prevent attack and investment in systems like national
missile defense to ensure our survival if prevention programs fail.
I will vote for this legislation. But before we spend billions of
dollars of American taxpayer money to deploy it, we must have proof
that it is going to work.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, just on the budget issue, we
really ought to deal with it. My colleague made a good point here. Let
me also add, and my colleague is well aware that over the past 4 years,
it was this Congress, this Republican Congress, who gave the Defense
Department over $20 billion more than the President asked for because
of the gross underfunding of the budget.
It is easy for a President to project a massive increase when he is
no longer in office. After he has decimated defense spending for a
continuing period of 6 years, it is easy for him to say, well, when I
am out of office, we are going to increase the top number by a
significant margin. He is not going to be here to be held accountable.
The fact is that this Congress, and I might add, in a strong
bipartisan vote, Democrats were adamant in supporting our position,
increase the defense budget over the past 4 years by almost $25 billion
more than this administration requested.
Now that is not pie in the sky pipe dreams after the President is out
of office. That is, in fact, what we did.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding
me this time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I brought with me a potential terrorist weapon of mass
destruction delivery device. It might be classified. Close your eyes.
Here it is. A briefcase like this was brought into a hearing by a
biological weapons expert in the Rayburn Building, full of aerosol
canisters, capable of deploying anthrax, killing everybody on Capitol
Hill, many people in Washington, through security 2 weeks ago.
There are other probable terrorist or rogue state delivery devices.
If it is a nuclear threat, it will probably be a truck coming across
the Mexican border, maybe like the two tons of cocaine that come across
every day in trucks. Or it might be a ratty old freighter that is
registered anonymously in a Third World country like Panama under a
flag of convenience that steams into New York Harbor with a stolen
hydrogen bomb.
The question is: Will the future leader of the rogue state assure the
annihilation of his or her people for all time by launching a single or
even a dozen or two dozen missiles at the United States of America?
Within 30 seconds, we know where the missile came from, and they are
targeted within 3 minutes by the most massive nuclear force on earth.
They will be destroyed.
That is the power of our proven defense, the ability to withstand the
attack of any aggressor and respond with awesome force. It worked
against the Soviet Union for 30 years with thousands of hydrogen bombs.
It certainly will deter the pathetic tiny unproven arsenals of North
Korea and other
[[Page H1432]]
rogue states. Do not waste billions on fantasy protection. Vote no.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, a bill
that declares as our policy the deployment of a national missile
defense. Without national security, there can be no Social Security or
education opportunity.
I want to commend my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike,
many of whom I serve with on the Committee on National Security, for
their commitment to the strong national missile defense and for
bringing it to the attention of the American people. They have pressed
forward over the last 7 years and remain scorned by an administration
message that preys on our Nation's false sense of security. Today my
colleagues' efforts are about to pay off as we establish a policy to
defend our Nation and her people from a missile attack.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the very telling vote taken on
missile defense in the Senate yesterday. Ninety-seven Senators
supported this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me as odd is that this same body, no
different in political composition, failed to reach cloture on missile
defense legislation a mere 6 months ago. Mr. Speaker, why the sudden
change? What are we to believe?
Has the threat to our national security grown so ominous in 6 months
that the left and the administration believe the moment is right to
embrace a policy of national missile defense? Or has the President been
playing politics with the security of the American people?
Mr. Speaker, from one end of my district to the other, my
constituents are concerned with our national defense, and they know
there is no function in the Federal Government more important than
ensuring our Nation's security.
I am pleased that the President and his allies have joined us in a
policy that assures all Americans and American generations to come that
they can sleep safer under a blanket of missile defense. Mr. Speaker,
the administration's actions speak louder than words. Delays in the
past have been irresponsible. Delays in the future are simply dishonest
and unacceptable.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned today that Congress is being asked to
make a significant policy change, committing billions of dollars to
unproven technology at a time when there are a legion of serious
questions that have been raised about many aspects of our defense
preparedness and national security.
We live in a dangerous world beset with economic, social, political,
and religious unrest. We are the most powerful Nation in the world and
the most technologically advanced. Yet we simply cannot do everything.
Security for Americans at home and abroad and keeping peace around
the world involves making difficult choices. Rushing through this
proposal, one whose costs and consequences are understood by no one,
and is not integrated with all our other military and foreign policy
needs, is not a policy I can support.
{time} 1530
This bill hardly seems the right thing to do in terms of using our
defense dollars in the most effective way possible, and I urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor, this Member rises in
support of the resolution. If this Member can bring any special
relevance to the debate it is probably through my focus on missile
development and threats from and for Asia through my chairmanship of
the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on
International Relations, and through the background gained as a member
of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/
Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, chaired by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
The latter puts limits on what I can say here today, but it surely
reinforces my support for the resolution. However, I support this
measure because the threats from a limited missile attack are here,
now, very real, and potentially very disastrous for our citizens, who
are right now undefended against this threat.
Contrary to what over 70 percent of the American people believe, we
and our forces abroad do not have defense capabilities against even a
single ballistic missile. Let me say it again, this U.S. does not have
defense capabilities against a single ballistic missile.
Is an NMD technologically possible? Yes, it clearly will be
technologically feasible. Just 3 days ago, in the skies over New
Mexico, the U.S. Army successfully, in effect, hit a bullet with a
bullet.
This NMD proposal is not about a rehash of former President Ronald
Reagan's Strategic Defense proposal, a nation-wide ballistic missile
defense system proposal that some insisted on negatively labeling as
``Star Wars.'' This defense system would offer protection against an
accidental or unauthorized ICBM launch or against a limited ICBM attack
by a rogue nation.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that the
third stage of the North Korean Taepo Dong missile launched on August
31, 1998, travelled over 3,000 miles. Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a major
source of U.S. oil, is within that range. The Washington Times reported
that a newer missile under development, the Taepo Dong-2, will have a
range greater than 6,000 miles and could be deployed soon after the
turn of the century. Several hundred thousand of the nine million
people living in Los Angeles, California SMA, for example, are within
that range and would die.
Mr. Speaker, we are all well aware of the bottom line in the Rumsfeld
Commission Report and recent North Korean missile tests. The
possibility of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), North
Korea, using an ICBM to threaten U.S. interests is real. Parts of
Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. allies in the Pacific are vulnerable, now.
Today, we need to be concerned about what a North Korean ICBM, armed
with just a conventional warhead, would do to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a
major source of U.S. oil. The 48 contiguous states of the U.S. will
also become vulnerable to this threat by 2002. By 2002, our concern
will be about what a North Korean ICBM, armed with a weapon of mass
destruction--nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon--would do to
hundreds of thousands of people among, for example, the nine million
people living in Los Angeles SMA. It is only a matter of time until
that vulnerability exists unless we act and even if we act now and
technological hurdles are handled, there will be years of unprotected
vulnerability.
For those of you who still question the threat, this Member would
remind you that Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen has confirmed
that North Korea had demonstrated that it has achieved long-range
missile delivery system capability and that it appears that North Korea
is not complying with the freeze imposed on its nuclear weapons
development program. He also acknowledged that Russia's aging and
sporadically maintained missile systems create the nightmarish
possibility of an accidental launch. Former Commander in Chief of all
U.S. forces in the Pacific, Admiral Joseph Prueher, has confirmed that
North Korea is developing a capability that could potentially reach the
western-most reaches of the U.S. with an ICBM. Former Secretary of
Defense William Perry, the President's special advisor on North Korea,
states that North Korea is moving forward with its nuclear weapons
program. Japan's Defense Agency believes North Korea has already
deployed some of at least 30 medium-range ballistic missiles. It is
only a matter of time.
Some of you will argue that a National Missile Defense (NMD) system
will do nothing to deter less traceable means of delivering a weapon of
mass destruction, such as a suitcase or truck bomb. While that may be
true, our law enforcement agencies serve admirably as our defense
against and deterrent of close-in terrorist attacks. Contrary to what
over 70% of Americans believe, we do NOT have defense capabilities
against even a single ballistic missile. Let me say that, again. The
U.S. does NOT have defense capabilities against even a single ballistic
missile. There is no secret, silver bullet in our arsenal that will
stop an ICBM, and there is no alternative to NMD to effectively deal
with a limited ICBM threat.
[[Page H1433]]
NMD, like its anthithesis--ICBMs, is less about launching than it is
about basic deterrence. It removes from the negotiating table what
might otherwise be a trump card that could lead to extortion, if not
outright blackmail, by a rouge nation. NMD counters this eventuality.
As a world leader, we owe this to our allies. To the rogues we owe
nothing.
Hoping, or expecting, that a ``disarmament solution'' or
``containment'' will eliminate or protect us against the emergingly
diverse missile threat just isn't realistic; it holds out a very
dangerous false hope. The world and technology are not standing still,
and no amount of ``hoping'' on our part will make it so. There are no
indigenous ballistic missile development programs. In fact, there is
substantial cooperation among developing countries, themselves. Even if
all the help from the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, and Asia were ended,
developing countries would still move forward toward ballistic missile
capability. The West, alone, is educating nearly 100,000 foreign
graduate students, most of them in technical fields. In the process, we
are educating cadres of essentially all the countries of the world;
some of them surely do have the increased capacity to develop ballistic
missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence collecting is
getting more difficult and intelligence compromises continue to occur.
We must recognize that we will not be successful in plugging every hole
and we cannot ignore the reality that increasingly sophisticated threat
will confront us in the 21st century.
We are in an environment, potentially, of little or no warning.
Meanwhile, the Administration has reluctantly begun to acknowledge the
threat while simultaneously throwing down obstacles, such as the Anti-
Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and changing their 3 plus 3 policy to a
3 plus 5 policy. NMD deployment might occur in 2005, even in the face
of claims that the threat will extend beyond Alaska and Hawaii to the
48 contiguous United States as early as 2002 (three years before the
possibility of NMD deployment).
To those that say that NMD is destabilizing, unannounced missile
launches, especially those with aggressive trajectories, are even more
destabilizing. Further launches will be further destabilizing, long
before the Administration's current 2005 projected NMD deployment date.
This Member is not advocating blindly stepping up the time line,
would that be possible. In fact, there are significant hurdles to
overcome, just from a technological perspective. Hitting a missile
traveling at about 15,000 miles per hour, or somewhere between three to
five miles per second, is certainly am impressive challenge. However,
this Member certainly believes that the technical difficulties can be
overcome. Many of the impossibilities of the past have yielded to
imagination and innovation. The academic critics are not entertaining
practical solutions to their willing despair, not because they are
unable to but, because they do not want to and because it is not being
demanded of them. To those that question the technological feasibility
of this effort, this Member would remind them of the following from the
late President John F. Kennedy:
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other
things, not only because they are easy, but because they are
hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure
the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge
is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to
postpone, and one which we intend to win. . . .
Iran, with more than 66 million people and the proud heritage of the
Persian Empire that once ruled everything from Libya to India, today is
using its oil wealth to build a new center of power in the Middle East.
Teheran has been boasting for two years that it already has the most
powerful missile force in the Middle East.
Last July, the Rumsfeld Commission concluded that the extraordinary
level of resources Iran is using to develop its own ballistic missiles
poses a substantial and immediate danger to the U.S., its vital
interests and its allies. The Rumsfeld Commission reported that Iran is
making ``very rapid progress'' on the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic
missile. That was July 15, 1998. One week later, on July 22, 1998, Iran
conducted a flight test of the Shabab-3, continuing an ambitious
missile development program that was initiated and pursued during
Iran's war with Iraq during the years 1980 to 1988. Not waiting for
more tests, President Mohammed Khatami ordered 15 Shabab-3s to be
produced by the end of March 1999. The mobile launchers are ready and
Iranian soldiers have been training for months to deploy the missile,
which is expected to become operational this year. Iran's next missile,
the Shabab-4, which is modeled on the Russian SS-4 intermediate-range
ballistic missile, is projected to have a range of 1,300 miles,
reaching southern and central Europe. U.S. and Israeli officials
estimate that, with continuing help from entities in Russia and China,
the Shabab-4 could be in service by 2001. Work also is under way on a
long-range missile that with a nuclear warhead could be a serious
threat to Western Europe and the United States. The Rumsfeld Commission
noted that advance warning of such a missile may be zero.
Iran has chemical weapons, is conducting research in biologicals, and
is pursuing a very aggressive nuclear weapons program that is close to
success. The Rumsfeld Commission reported that, because of significant
gaps in our human intelligence efforts, the U.S. is unlikely to know
whether Iran possesses nuclear weapons until after the fact. This is
reminiscent of the surprise nuclear detonations that occurred in India
and Pakistan. Iran is expected to be the next declared nuclear state.
Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, has warned that
Russia is backsliding on commitments to the U.S. to curb the transfer
of advanced missile technology to Iran. Especially over the past six
months, Russia has continued to assist the Iranian missile effort in
areas ranging from training to testing to components. Iran's ability to
take advantage of its existing ballistic missile infrastructure to
develop more sophisticated and longer-range missiles is being aided by
the crucial roles being played by Russia, China, and North Korea.
Would Iran resort to extortion? This Member need only remind you of
the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-80.
While Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji scoffed at some Western reports
claiming a major economic crisis is brewing in China, he acknowledged
that the East Asian recession had affected China more seriously than
expected. Former Commander in Chief of all U.S. forces in the Pacific,
Admiral Joseph Prueher acknowledges that China, with its shaky economy,
growing unemployment and burgeoning military might, has problems.
Prueher views China's latest crackdowns on dissidents as symptoms of
weakness rather than strength.
During the March 1996 Taiwan straits crisis, China fired short range
missiles north and south of Taiwan. In late 1998, China's army
conducted military exercises with simulated missile firings against
Taiwan and also, for the first time, conducted mock attacks on U.S.
troops in the region. With respect to the most recent overt threat to
Taiwan, the Chinese protest is disingenuous on its face. The Chinese
Government knows that we should no more apologize for the theoretical
consideration of including Taiwan in plans for missile defense than we
did for including South Korea in similar plans. Our having agreed in
principle that Tawiwan might someday rejoin China does not mean that we
would ever allow such a unification to be coerced.
Taiwan claims that China has deployed more than 100 additional
ballistic missiles in PRC provinces close to the Straits of Taiwan.
This would more than triple the number of missiles previously
positioned in that area. China must understand that the use of
``coercion,'' missile rattling, to bring Taiwan and PRC together will
not work. Likewise, the U.S. is sensitive to concerns that a ``shield''
might embolden Taiwan to avoid serious negotiations with the PRC. At
this time, there are no firm U.S. plans to provide Taiwan with a full-
scale missile defense system of its own, but we must not be intimidated
from actively considering a Taiwanese inquiry or request under the
threatening circumstances developing across the Taiwan Straits.
Mr. Speaker, the North Korean missile launch adds credence to
allegations that China has not done everything in its power to
discourage North Korean effort to develop weapons of mass destruction
and ballistic missile capability. When we complain, China criticizes
our concern. Nevertheless, China, more than any other country, can
exert more influence over North Korea to dissuade it from further
development of these weapons. China's own recent aggressiveness toward
Taiwan and its apparent ineffectiveness in discouraging North Korean
nuclear and missile development programs have not only raised our
legitimate concerns but also sent alarms around the world. Our friends
and allies recognize the reality of the threat from and for the Asia
Pacific region.
Controversially, President Clinton's comments that the Administration
views China as a strategic partner in the Asia Pacific region is
particularly unsettling. If Chinese moves are left unchecked, the
possibilities of misperceptions regarding American intentions--even by
China itself--will multiply. These kinds of misperceptions can cause
wars, as when, many suggest, during a January 1950 speech to the
National Press Club, Secretary of State Dean Acheson unwittingly
encouraged the attack that began the Korean War by failing to specify
that South Korea was inside the American zone of interest. Contrary to
internal issues like human rights and gray areas like assisting
Pakistan, Chinese bases in the Paracels and the Spratlys are clearly
matters with international implications. The United States should lose
no time in examining China's expansion of its installations on
[[Page H1434]]
these islands and, if appropriate, questioning Chinese intentions. The
Administration should keep in mind that the consequence of not
confronting China expansionism today is very likely to lead to a far
more dangerous world in the years to come.
China's own recent aggressiveness and its apparent ineffective
efforts to discourage North Korean nuclear and missile development
programs have sent alarms around the world. This Member can personally
attest that, everyday, in the Taiwanese media, there is discussion of
the need for ballistic missile protection. These concerns are a ground
swell from the Taiwanese citizens in the streets and from the media,
not generated entirely, by any means, by the Taiwanese Government.
Taiwanese demands for U.S. ballistic missile defense assistance are
directly attributable to China's reluctance to influence North Korea.
They also trace to recent allegations about Chinese espionage
successes, to Chinese military construction activity in the South China
Sea, and, as reported in the New York Times, China's actions to
dramatically increase the number of short-range ballistic missiles
along the country's coastline near Taiwan. With respect to increased
interest in ballistic missile defense systems in Japan, Taiwan, and the
Republic of Korea, which the Chinese threaten, China has no one to
blame but itself.
The greatest threat to peace and security in Asia is Kim Jong-Il's
DPRK, North Korea. North Korea remains the country most likely to
engage in bloody extortion or to involve the U.S. in a large-scale
regional war over the near term. Kim Jong-il's regime's foremost
concern is self preservation. He appears to have increased his reliance
on the military and draconian security measures to maintain his
position and control of the populace. If he is willing to do this to
his own people, how can you doubt that he would not hesitate to resort
to extreme measures, even against South Korean, Japanese, or U.S.
citizens?
Gen. John Tilelli, Commander in Chief of the United Nations Command
and of the U.S. Forces in Korea, concurs with the CIA Director's recent
remarks to the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``. . . concern for
North Korea can hardly be overstated and that . . . in nearly all
respects, the situation there has become more volatile and
unpredictable.'' In his view, the Kim regime will sacrifice everything
to keep itself in power. We remain in a situation wherein Kim Jong-il
could decide at any moment his prospects are so bleak that his best
chance for survival is to use his military rather than risk losing that
capability, forever.
The North Korean military--the fifth largest in the world--is the
embodiment of North Korea's national identity. Without the military,
the regime is simply not viable. Over the last four decades the
leadership has specifically designed and tailored the size,
organization, equipment, and combat capabilities of the military to
support attainment of their reunification goal. With military
expenditures at 25% of GDP, the North Korean People's Army includes an
air force of over 860 combat jet aircraft, a navy of more than 800
ships, over 1 million active duty soldiers, over five million reserve
troops, a huge artillery force, tremendous special operations
capabilities, hundreds of theater ballistic missiles, (primarily
Scuds), and weapons of mass destruction.
How does the DPRK reconcile widespread famine with ``gross'' levels
of spending to support the lavish lifestyle of the DPRK leadership and
defense? Its citizens don't matter, except as pawns of the leadership
and the military.
The greatest threat is the possibility that the Kim regime will
couple its ballistic missile program with an unchecked nuclear program.
The possibility of a successful North Korea nuclear break-out strategy
is too dangerous to risk. Unchecked, the Kim regime's missile program
will ultimately threaten U.S. vital interests in other parts of the
world as North Korea sells its only viable export to hostile nations.
It is believed that Pakistan has already been a customer, purchasing
missile know-how from North Korea for its medium-range Ghauri missile,
which was test fired for the first time last year. The Ghauri has been
described as closely resembling the North Korean Nodong missile.
We will not pay tribute to the modern-day Barbary pirates in North
Korea. The Clinton Administration has fallen into the dangerous pattern
of accepting the extortion demands made during the negotiations with
the North Koreans. Despite the gravity of the situation, this Member is
forced to conclude that the Administration's response to the military
threats of the North Koreans to extort money, humanitarian aid or other
concessions is a shameful, un-American violation of this country's
principles. Unfortunately, North Korea has learned that irresponsible
behavior and confrontation results in U.S. humanitarian aid and other
benefits. That rogue country is now the largest recipient of U.S. aid
in Asia.
Fueled by its own paranoia and fear, the DPRK claims that a
``passive'' NMD is a sign of U.S. movement toward a goal of ``global
domination.'' This Member would say to the DPRK that, simply by virtue
of being the only superpower, much of what the U.S. does ends up being
perceived as dominating, even though the U.S. has no such intentions.
If there are concerns about global intentions, this Member believes
they should be focused on the DPRK. The DPRK Korean's People's Army
gathered in late February to renew their loyalty to Kim Jong-il by
declaring an oath that ``under the leadership of the supreme Commander
Kim Jong-il they would . . . make the glorious Kim Jong-il era shine
all over the world with arms.'' This followed an event earlier in the
month where DPRK citizens were told they should defend Kim with their
lives and ``prepare themselves to be heroes through human bomb attacks
and soldiers ready for suicidal explosion.'' The Clinton Administration
is perpetuating, if not aiding and abetting, a regime that is clearly
hostile. We went down this path in the late 1930s, reaching that path's
bitter end on December 7th, 1941. This Member expects that we would not
be so naive, again.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion this Member supports H.R. 4 for several
reasons. First, H.R. 4 signals the Department of Defense (DoD) and
those involved in the ballistic missile defense program that they
should pursue NMD, in earnest. It raises the relative importance of NMD
among the many DoD projects, enabling higher prioritization of
resources and increasing the focus on research, development, test and
evaluation activity.
Another factor influencing this Member's support for NMD is that
there is no higher responsibility placed upon Congress by the U.S.
Constitution than providing for the defense of the United States, its
territory, and its citizens. The possibility of a small-scale missile
attack upon the people and territory of the United States is real, and
significant. The lack of any U.S. capability to defend against such an
attack is equally real, and significant. With regard to a limited
intercontinental ballistic missile attack, the U.S. is defenseless!
Maintaining the defenseless status quo can only lead to one place, and
is not acceptable.
This legislation neither imposes deadlines, for either development or
deployment, nor alters the position of the Administration. It does
nothing to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty or to alter
the foundation of the U.S. policy--dissuasion, denial, deterrence, and
defense--regarding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In
fact, it leaves open the possibility to develop a complementary NMD/ABM
relationship, as well as the potential to explore cooperative missile
defense and non-proliferation efforts with Russia. Yet, this bill
provides a clear and necessary policy and announces America's resolve,
to develop its missile defense capabilities, to America's friends and
foes, alike.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, today I will vote for H.R. 4, which declares that it is
the policy of this country to deploy a national missile defense system.
I am concerned that this bill is too narrow and could have been much
better.
I believe, in declaring this national policy, we must also consider
the following: Secretary Cohen has stated that a national missile
defense deployment might require modifications in the ABM Treaty. Such
a modification may upset our delicate diplomatic balance with the
Russians, who have already indicated opposition to such a move.
We must be in a position to continue negotiations with Moscow to cut
our nuclear arsenals, and amendment to the ABM Treaty would threaten
that effort.
A national missile defense policy must also not undermine or
compromise the military preparedness of our troops or the planned
deployment of theater missile defense systems by redirecting much
needed resources.
Mr. Speaker, this body should have had an opportunity to debate those
issues. We must have sufficient defense for our borders. As North Korea
and Iran expand their capabilities, we must be prepared, but we must
not let the steps we take, designed to bolster the security of this
country, undermine the delicate international security balance at the
same time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it should be the policy of this country to
deploy a national missile defense. This bill should have gone farther
to address these additional concerns. The safety and security of this
country depends, in large part, on how well we are prepared to deal
with decentralized military power as well as with a number of
[[Page H1435]]
rogue states. A policy supporting a national missile defense is a step
in the right direction.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, we have no ballistic missile defense system.
The administration opposed it; vetoed it.
Before World War II, many people were stuck in a similar mindset.
Leaders in England and elsewhere did not want to develop advanced
weaponry. One leader stood alone, though, pushing for England to
develop its technology, including radar, in the cause of national
defense. His efforts encountered much resistance. Many said that there
could be no defense against air power. There was some outright
opposition from those who favored disarmament, including Prime Minister
Stanley Baldwin, as a way of dealing with Germany.
Well, history has told us that the dark days England soon suffered
through would have been much darker if England had not had Winston
Churchill and had not developed radar. Radar, which Churchill
tirelessly pushed, was critical to winning the battle of Britain.
Sometimes it is not easy exercising foresight and taking preemptive
action, but I cannot think of a more pressing issue for this Congress
to address than defending our Nation against the emerging threat of
ballistic missiles.
I commend the authors and especially our chairman for this important
resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4 because the legislation
fails to acknowledge that the choice to deploy a national missile
defense system is an extraordinarily complex one. It must be based on
effectiveness, threat, cost and other efforts to reduce threats to this
country.
Some say a national missile defense system should be deployed as soon
as possible, no matter what the consequences are. There are others who
say that a national missile defense should never be deployed, no matter
what the threat is. All I am saying here is that the system should be
deployed only if it is proven to work, if the threat truly warrants it,
if the cost does not undermine our ability to train and equip our
troops, and if it does not prevent further reductions in offensive
nuclear weapons arsenals.
Some of the proponents today here are saying we have to decide now,
and they have cited other weapon systems. But with other weapon systems
we test them before we fly them. We test them before we buy them.
This is not just my view. This is the view of the our Nation's top
military leaders. In speaking earlier today, I mentioned General
Shelton and Secretary of Defense Cohen. Let me quote General Lester
Lyles, who is the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization. He said at the time of a deployment decision we will also
assess the threat, the affordability of the system, and the potential
impact on treaty and strategic arms reduction negotiations.
Congress trusts the Joint Chiefs on readiness, we trust them on troop
pay, so why do we not trust them on national missile defense?
H.R. 4 is only 15 words long. We can vote for these 15 words and feel
good, but the promise is a hollow, empty one. Fifteen words cannot
solve the immense technological challenge of hitting a bullet with a
bullet. Fifteen words cannot make hit-to-kill technology hit the target
more than 26 percent of the time and only 13 percent of the time in
outer space.
The era of budget deficits is over, and so must be the era of
avoiding tough choices. We must be honest with the public on what it
will take to deploy a national missile defense. How much will it cost
to test, build and operate over a period of years? Will it improve our
security or lead to a dangerous new arms race? Will it work?
I had an amendment that recognized these important considerations,
but it was denied by the Committee on Rules. Some Members here today
have said the only thing standing between today and deployment is
political will. One Member said the problem is political footdragging.
I disagree. The problem is more than that. It is technology, it is
physics, it is money, it is the real world.
I am under no illusion about what the outcome of this debate will be
today, but I ask Members to think about this decision; think about at
the end of the day whether these 15 words will do anything to solve the
immense technical challenges of national missile defense. We cannot
afford this bill. I urge Members to vote ``no''.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of establishing a
national missile defense system.
We live in a new foreign policy world where uncertainty instead of
order reigns. That uncertainty has been exacerbated by the
mismanagement of our foreign affairs by this Administration.
The Clinton Administration has failed to develop and implement a
comprehensive, long-term strategy of advancing American interests. The
lack of such a policy has allowed the world's tyrants to increase their
military capabilities, especially in the area of developing the ability
to deliver offensive ballistic missiles against our nation, against our
interests, and against our allies.
It is foolish to think our nation can stand pat on our ability to
defend our nation and our interests against such threats.
Refusing to develop a missile defense for our nation would not be a
mistake, it would be malfeasance of office.
We have been elected to protect our citizens and our nation. Passing
H.R. 4 will begin the process of developing the proper missile defense
system.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Fort Worth, Texas (Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, there is an old axiom that says it is good
to be forewarned and forearmed because preparation is half the battle.
Today, as America stands at the threshold of a new millennium, we must
prepare ourselves for a new century, new challenges, and, yes, new
dangers.
Today, America stands as the world's lone superpower; victorious in
two world wars, several regional conflicts and a Cold War. Yes, America
is winning the battles, but the war has yet to be won; the war against
terrorism, the war to keep America safe from attack in an increasingly
unsafe world. It is a war we cannot afford to lose.
The single most important step we can take to ensure our national
security is to make a full commitment to ballistic missile defense. So
long as there is one nuclear weapon anywhere in the world, America must
be prepared to defend herself.
H.R. 4 takes an important step in the struggle to keep America safe
and secure. This legislation simply states that it will be the policy
of the United States to develop and deploy a missile defense system as
soon as possible. No more delays, no more demagogueing.
Fifteen years ago, critics told Ronald Reagan that a ballistic
missile defense was not possible. Every time someone would tell
President Reagan we were years away from having technology, he would
say, let us get started.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, we should update ourselves; update
ourselves on the facts, update ourselves on the arguments. Conditions
change. The Rumsfeld Commission report, which was a bipartisan report,
tells us of the threat. We had a very thorough briefing this morning in
this room.
The North Korean missile launch across Japan this last August is a
fact that we need to consider. Current intelligence estimates from the
intelligence community of our country tell us that we need to update
our thoughts. That is why the arguments of today must be updated. We
are not giving this debate in yesteryear.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will not
increase missile defense costs a penny, it will not compel a national
missile defense architecture that is incompatible with the ABM Treaty,
it does not mandate a deployment date or condition. We must, we must,
pass this bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
[[Page H1436]]
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in the last 3 days I have
attended two really historic events.
For the first time in our history, Members of the Congress, and I was
privileged to be one of them, went to Russia to brief members of the
Duma there. We briefed them on the emerging missile threat and we took
with us three of the top members of the commission.
Just this morning I attended another really historic event. For only
the third time in the last two decades we had a classified briefing in
this chamber. Again, it was on the emerging ballistic missile threat.
For too long our citizens have been unprotected, totally unprotected.
Even a single intercontinental ballistic missile could not be shot
down. We cannot leave our people unprotected any longer. It is
incumbent on us that we proceed with all due haste to develop a
ballistic missile defense system that many of our people think we now
have in place, and which, as a matter of fact, the Russians do have in
place such a system, fairly robust system, that will protect about 70
percent of their people.
It is high time we get on with the task of protecting our people. I
rise in strong support of this bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting situation we find
ourselves in. A closed rule with no opportunity for amendment, a bill
that is barely several lines, and a policy that is ready to jeopardize
a consistent process of containing a threat which has 6,000 to 8,000
missiles that could rain down upon the United States, jeopardizing ABM,
jeopardizing START, in order to prepare for potentially a threat if the
North Koreans could develop a missile that could get to our shores.
Now, I think we ought to prepare for that. Estimates vary. We have
spent $77 billion, we have gone through Brilliant Pebbles, we have gone
through a number of different machinations. We do not have anything
that works. So rather than a policy and an honest debate, we come here
today to ram through a line, giving no opportunity for amendment, with
a statement, as the Russians today consider START treaties, consider
reduction, not theoretical or potential weapons against the United
States, but as they consider reducing the number of actual warheads
pointed at the United States.
Russia today is a partner in that reduction. I do not know what
happens 1 year or 2 down the line in a Russia that has been so rocked
by economic calamity. Let us not forget the main issue here. Six
thousand to eight thousand warheads in the former Soviet Union and
Russia, and possibly, maybe, maybe in 1 year, maybe in 2 years, we will
have a technology that maybe will be able to prevent it. And for that,
we may jeopardize cutting a deal with the Russians.
I think this is a grave mistake. Give us a chance to amend this, to
include that we stay within the guidelines of the treaties that we have
signed. If the Russians were here today violating treaties they had
signed, every Member would be in this well objecting.
On the other hand, we have language here today the people feel, well,
the Russians will have to learn. We may learn the wrong lesson from
this action.
{time} 1545
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, most Americans think that
we have the ability to defend ourselves against incoming missiles.
America has no ballistic missile defense capability. None. Today we
take the right first step to address that extraordinary vulnerability.
I just want to take a minute to thank my colleagues, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence), and that band of dedicated Members who over many years now
have focused on America's need for a missile defense system. It is too
bad they were not heard sooner.
Now rogue nations do have intercontinental missile capability. Easy-
to-have chemical warhead capability. Not hard for some to reach
biological warhead capability. And soon it will be nuclear. Too bad we
did not hear sooner.
I urge strong support for this legislation.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me say that exactly the point is that we do not have a capable
national missile defense, one that works. We do not have that. And
everybody readily admits it is not the lack of money and not for lack
of will. We have spent billions and billions of dollars on research and
development and testing to get to the point where we still do not have
a system that works.
It is not in the best interest of the national security of this
country to prematurely deploy or make a decision to deploy a system. It
does not work. There is no prospect that it will work any time soon.
There is no prospect that a high-speed missile at a high altitude is
going to be hit by another item, or bullet, as they call it.
The fact of the matter is that to decide to deploy now, as opposed to
decide to continue to research and test until we know we have something
that works, sends the wrong message. We should be about
nonproliferation. We should be about making sure that Russia decreases
the amount of missiles that it has. We should be about bringing other
people into the nonproliferation regime and making sure that we defend
our country, we have no national security interest, and ignorant
children, unhealthy families, or seniors having an undignified
retirement.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to commend the
chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the ranking
member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) for their long-standing work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the threat for ballistic missiles is clear and present.
The current administration has finally admitted that the United States
is facing a very current, very real threat. However, waiting too long
to deploy a missile defense system poses a risk to the American people
that is unacceptable.
How many ballistic missiles, either with or without biological,
chemical or nuclear warheads, have to be targeted at American cities or
American forces overseas before we take action?
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill which commits
the United States to deploying a national missile defense system. Given
the demonstrated threat here and now, I do not believe that we should
delay the deployment of a missile defense system any longer than
necessary. We must do all we can to protect America from ballistic
missile threat, and this bill puts us on the right track.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding.
I rise to oppose H.R. 4. The national missile defense as proposed
would not be effective. It would be costly to deploy and easily
circumvented.
My colleagues, we do not have to read much history to be reminded of
the Maginot Line, the so-called impenetrable wall that has become the
symbol of misguided defense policy.
The proposed missile defense system probably would not work as
designed, and wishing will not overcome physics. It could be confused
with decoys. It could be bypassed with suitcase bombs and pickup trucks
and sea-launched missiles. It would be billions of dollars down the
drain. But it is not just a diversion of precious resources that we are
told are not available for health
[[Page H1437]]
care, for smaller class sizes, for modern school facilities, for
securing open space for taking care of America's veterans.
No, it is worse than a waste. Simple strategic analysis will tell us
that provocative yet permeable defenses are destabilizing and they lead
to reduced security. In fact, the more technically affected the system
turned out to be, the worse the idea would be because of its increase
in instability and the damage done to our efforts to reduce Russia's
weapons.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution. I also commend the chairman and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and others who have worked so hard to bring
this to the floor.
During these and other debates in Congress, essentially what we are
doing is establishing priorities. Make no mistake, the number-one
priority of this Congress should be to maintain our national security
and a strong defense.
Today there is an emerging ballistic missile threat to our Nation,
and, in plain English, too many nations will soon have the ability to
reach our shores with weapons of mass destruction.
We must stand firm and we must stand united to defend ourselves in
face of this real threat. To do otherwise simply will be to ignore
history, to misunderstand the nature of tyrants, to play a game and a
major role I believe in weakening our national security.
Right now, America cannot defend itself against a ballistic missile
attack. This resolution, while long overdue, is right for a safe and
secure America. I urge its strong support.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam
(Mr. Underwood).
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I emphatically support H.R. 4 as offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The bill is simple in its articulation that Congress take the lead on
this important issue and declare it to be the policy of the United
States to deploy a national missile defense.
As a member of the Committee on Armed Services and the sole
representative of the people of Guam, our fellow American citizens who
are today directly threatened by missiles in East Asia, I am
continually aware of the dangers faced in our uncertain global
environment. The U.S. does not currently have a system in place to
defeat any inbound ICBM or, for that matter, defend a strategic theater
against such a threat.
We know only too well the potential for destruction these weapons
hold. This last August, when North Korea sent a three-stage Taepo Dong
I over the Japanese homeland, a wakeup call was heard loud and clear
here in Washington. Finally, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and
I introduced a resolution condemning this event. For many years, our
intelligence community underplayed this event. And thanks to the work
of the Rumsfeld Commission, we now have indeed confirmed some of our
worst fears.
Mr. Speaker, the threat against our Nation from missiles is here
today, and the people of Guam today are at risk from the wrath of rogue
states and the accidental launch. This bill is sound in that it will
allow our Nation to seriously confront this issue in terms of policy as
well as in our laboratories.
The development of a national missile defense does not violate the
ABM Treaty because the system envisioned cannot deflect against a
massive strategic attack of thousands of missiles. The national missile
defense is meant to protect the national homeland against accidental
launch or a limited attack by a rogue nation. This is the system I
support.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4 because it cuts to the core of the
issue. It honestly recognizes that there is a threat facing our Nation,
States, and territories today and we are finally going to do something
about it. On behalf of the people of Guam, I support this bill for the
safety and defense of all Americans.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I come before my colleagues in support of
H.R. 4 this afternoon and thank the chairman of the committee and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the work they have done on
this bill.
No one wants a nuclear version of the shocking surprise attack that
America suffered on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor. I am glad, then,
that on a daily basis the administration is moving closer to support
for deployment of a national missile defense system. We use the words
like ``limited'' and ``rogue'' nations. However, there is no official
list of so-called ``rogue'' nations.
Any deployment plan that does not protect us against all known
current weapons is a roll of the dice with our national security. If we
are serious about deployment, here is one litmus test. We must start
testing major systems frequently, three or four times a year. Slipping
into a schedule of once every 9 to 12 months is not acceptable.
Let us give our program managers the funding and political freedom to
try and fail and then try again quickly. We must get serious about
this. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for
yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the National
Missile Defense Act.
First of all, contrary to public opinion polls, we are completely
defenseless against a missile attack in this country. It is not good
news that we bring to the American people, but the American people
deserve to know where the rubber really meets the road on this issue.
We have absolutely no system in place, and the public must be aware of
this. Now, these same polls show that that same American public
believes that our first dollar should go to defend against a missile
attack.
Secondly, contrary to what President Clinton said in his speech
before this Congress 2 years ago, in which he wrongfully stated that no
missiles were pointed at our children, our Nation is indeed in danger
of ballistic missile attack.
A recent report, the executive summary of the Rumsfeld Commission,
has confirmed that this threat is ``broader, more mature and evolving
more rapidly than reported. . .'' and moreover that the United States
would have ``little or no warning'' to counter a missile attack.
Even the President's Secretary of Defense William Cohen has publicly
stated that ``the ballistic missile threat is real and is growing.''
Finally, contrary to arguments on the Floor today, a ballistic
missile defense system is not a budget buster. The cost to deploy
initial missile defense capability will amount to less than the amount
that we have spent on peacekeeping deployments over the past six years.
Moreover, considering the real risk of mass destruction and loss of
life that we would eliminate, the cost for a missile defense system is
small.
Mr. Speaker, in the current reality, it is unconscionable to continue
without a declarative national policy calling for the deployment of a
missile defense system. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of
this critical legislation.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sam Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the President keeps vetoing
missile defense systems as unwarranted. He says a missile defense
system would waste billions of dollars.
It is the duty of this Congress and the President to provide
protection against rogue nations who have delivery systems and nuclear
weapons, and
[[Page H1438]]
it is not a waste of money. What most Americans do not know is that we
have no defense. Right now we cannot even stop one incoming missile.
North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq are true threats today. How many more
missiles need to be pointed at our cities, our homes, and our families
before the administration decides the threat is real?
Mr. Speaker, every American must be protected from the threat of
missile attacks. They have the right to feel safe. That is what freedom
means. That is what America is all about. And it is the duty of this
Congress to protect our country. That is why we must pass this
legislation.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the National Missile
Defense Act. In the past, our Nation relied on its oceans to protect it
from threats from Europe or Asia. In the more recent past, we relied on
the strategy of mutually assured destruction to prevent missile threats
from the Soviet Union. Neither of these deterrent options are available
today.
{time} 1600
Today, a number of rogue terrorist states are working to build
intercontinental missiles that will be able to reach America's
heartland from the farthest reaches of the earth. As more and more
nations like Iraq and North Korea rush to develop the capability of
launching not only nuclear but chemical and biological weapons into
America's heartland, it is imperative that we develop a defense against
them. We avoided nuclear war with the Soviet Union through a policy of
deterrence. But the world knows that we have no deterrent today. We
spent billions developing and researching a national missile defense
system. It is time to stop studying the problem and begin deploying the
system.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, national missile defense is essential,
especially after the Communist Chinese have availed themselves of
America's most deadly nuclear weapons secrets and, of course, upgraded
their rockets with American technology. Yet this administration still
labels the Communist Chinese as our strategic partners and continues
its closely held policy, its plan, for extensive military exchanges
with Communist China. Even after their espionage ring was at long last
revealed, the Peoples's Liberation Army delegation is still scheduled
to go to Sandia nuclear weapons laboratory. Despite the opposition of
the United States Army, a Chinese military delegation will observe
their training exercises of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 82nd
Airborne Division.
The Communist Chinese are engaged in an unprecedented modernization
of their military and a missile buildup. There are those who would
leave us defenseless to the Communist Chinese and turn a blind eye to
this threat. This administration cannot be trusted to protect the
United States. We must act and do it here in Congress.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4,
because the threat of a missile attack against the United States is
real, it exists today, and it will grow in the future. It is crucial
that we defend Americans in their homes, children in their schools, men
and women at their workplaces against a ballistic missile attack.
H.R. 4 is a vital first step toward protecting our own citizens here
at home, but in addition to the commitment to deploy, we need to deploy
as soon as technologically possible. There is no other legitimate
reason to delay deployment.
The administration and some of my colleagues have proffered only very
weak objections. They cite obsolete and irrelevant treaties. They
question whether there even is a threat in the face of obvious threats.
Some worry that the cost of a missile defense system might crimp other
programs as though we should spend money on the program of the day
rather than protecting American lives.
Mr. Speaker, the threat is real, the time is now, we must commit to
deployment as soon as technologically possible. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this bill and to continue to take the steps necessary
so that we in fact deploy a system to protect Americans in our
homeland.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our Top Gun, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), someone who knows something
about missiles.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, why is this important now? In 1995, they
found out there was a mole in our national labs. He had been operating
during Carter, during Ronald Reagan and George Bush and also Bill
Clinton. In 1996, the President was told of this. Nothing has happened.
The mole was just arrested last week. That is a national security
threat.
Even worse, the White House, against the insistence of the National
Security Agency, DOD and DOE, let China have three capabilities which
are very important to this country and others as well. One was missile
boost capability. North Korea and the nations that proliferate like
China and Russia give this to Iran, Iraq and North Korea. They can now
reach the United States. The second is MIRV. The Chinese stole small
nuclear capability, and now they can put it on the tip of a missile in
multiple launch. Targeting is also very deadly. They can hit the fourth
apartment on 332nd Street in New York City now.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4, cosponsored by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Like many of my colleagues, I support this bill
both for what it says and for what it does not say. This bill does not
say when a national missile defense system must be deployed nor how a
national missile defense system would be deployed nor where it would be
deployed. The gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from South
Carolina have very intelligently left those decisions for the future.
Some critics of deploying this system argue that the technology is
not proven. National missile defense will use the same hit-to-kill
technology, the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet which was
proven on Monday as one of DOD's hit-to-kill missile defense programs,
the PAC-3, successfully showed that this technology can work. The PAC-3
interceptor successfully destroyed its target over White Sands Missile
Range last Monday.
I hope the President signs this bipartisan bill. We need to send a
strong message to our citizens, to our troops, to our allies and
especially to our enemies that we are serious about national missile
defense.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of thank-yous to go
around: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) and all the people who forged this bipartisan bill. There
is a wave of bipartisanship sweeping the Congress for our military. It
is long overdue. It is something to be proud of. It is something to
congratulate each other over. The President is going to sign the bill.
This is what the American people want, addressing real needs and real
threats. It is a real threat to this country.
Other speakers have spoken of threats in terms of terrorist activity.
They are real, too. We need to do more. We have cut our military by 40
percent in personnel and equipment. We need to do more to counter those
threats. But this is a real threat.
Another threat is having quality men and women manning these systems.
We have done a lot to deter people from staying in the military. We can
come together in pay and benefits in a bipartisan fashion to make sure
that not only we have a missile defense system but we have the quality
people that we need to maintain these systems in the next century. That
is the challenge for
[[Page H1439]]
this Congress. Let us rise to the occasion. I hope there is more of
this over time where we come together to make sure America is strong.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me quickly close by giving everyone the reasons that
I support this bill. First of all, it allows us to realize a return on
the investment of more than $50 billion that we have already sunk in
ballistic missile defense.
Secondly, it supports ground-based interceptors, the best candidate.
They are treaty compliant and they fit very easily into the
infrastructure of radars that we have already got that will need to be
upgraded that are basically already installed, and also into the
infrastructure of space-based sensors, SBIRS Low and SBIRS High, that
we are going to build, anyway, and deploy because they are a complement
to theater missile defenses. They help them acquire and track their
targets better.
Thirdly, it will focus our efforts on completing the one form of
strategic defense that can be developed and deployed in the short run.
In doing this, in making this investment, we will be making an
investment on technologies that are common to theater missile defense
which are also kinetic-kill interceptors like the interceptor we will
be building. It will also promote the THAAD and the Navy's Upper Tier.
Finally, if it is proven capable, these ground-based interceptors
will give us a defense against rogue attacks and accidental attacks. I
think that is a threat that exists and is emerging and possibly
expanding. It will give us also a working system that we can learn from
and build upon. But I want to stress ``if proven capable.'' It has not
been done yet. NMD, national missile defense, needs to be put to the
test, rigorous testing, made to prove that it can hold this country
harmless against a limited missile attack. If it can do that, then I
think it is worth buying. If it cannot, I would emphasize there is
nothing in this bill that requires us to develop and deploy a system
that will not protect us.
I would say one final thing, because yesterday we marked up the
budget resolution in the House Committee on the Budget. Next week it
will be on the floor. This system will not come cheap. It does have the
advantage of being an incremental investment on top of a huge
investment we have already made, but I am really dubious that the
budget resolution coming to the floor next week has enough room to
accommodate the cost of this system and at the same time buy an F-22
and a Joint Strike Fighter and V-22 and the Comanche and all the other
procurement items that will be coming to fruition at the same time that
this bill would call for deployment of a ballistic missile defense
system.
On the evening of March 23, 1983, President Reagan went on television
to marshal support for his defense budget. His words would be
forgotten, except for a question he popped at the end:
What if . . . people could live secure in the knowledge
that their security did not rest on the threat of instant
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, but that we could
intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before
they reach our own soil or that of our allies?
Reagan answered that question by launching the Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI), and with it, a charged debate. The arguments ended
over the old perennials of the cold war--the MX, ASATs, the B-2--years
ago, but the argument over missile defense smolders still. Unlike any
other system, missile defense has become a political totem. Its
advocates not only disagree with its opponents; but thinking they can
score politically, they accuse them of leaving the country vulnerable
to missile attack. They diminish the fact that deterrence worked for
all of the cold war, and act as if missile defenses are available to
shield the whole country from attack, when this capability is far from
proven and may never be attained. On the other hand, opponents accuse
advocates of firing up a new arms race. They give little credit to the
advantages of defending ourselves from attack and moving away from
massive retaliation and mutual destruction, and complementing
deterrence with defense.
Today, the House starts the missile defense debate again, this time
with a resolution notable for its brevity. It consists of a single
sentence stating: ``That it is the policy of the United States to
deploy a national missile defense.''
The United States has deployed a national missile defense system. We
spent $15 billion (in today's money) building Sprint and Spartan and
setting up Safeguard at Grand Forks, ND, only to shut the system down
in 1976. Even then, the Pentagon did not quit spending on missile
defense. In the year Reagan launched SDI, the Pentagon put $991 million
in its budget for missile defense, and that sum was budgeted to rise
annually to $2.7 billion by 1988. Most of it was for terminal defenses
to protect MX missile silos.
After the mid-1980's the defense budget barely kept up with
inflation. But with Reagan promoting it, SDI kept on increasing, rising
so fast that within 4 years of his speech, SDI was the largest item in
the defense budget. At $4 billion a year, SDI got almost as much as the
Army's entire account for research and development.
Sixteen years have passed, the Defense Department has spent almost
$50 billion on ballistic missile defense, and it has yet to field a
strategic defense system. By anybody's reckoning, this is real
money. It's hard to claim, with this much spent, that the absence of
any deployed system is due to a lack of commitment. The problem is more
a lack of focus than funding--plus the fact that the task is tougher
than Reagan ever realized.
Early on, the architects of strategic defense decided that it had to
be layered. The system had to take out some missiles to the boost
phase, as they rose from their launch pads; some re-entry vehicles in
the mid-course, as they traveled through space; and the remainder in
the atmosphere as they descended to their targets. So, the Pentagon
sank money into a family of systems: the High Endo-atmospheric Defense
Interceptor (HEDI); the Exo-atmospheric Re-entry Vehicle Interceptor
System (ERIS); and two boost-phase interceptors, one known as the
Space-Based Kinetic-Kill Vehicle (SBKKV), the next more cleverly called
``Brilliant Pebbles.'' All of these were ``kinetic killers,'' designed
to collide with their targets. But since intercepting a target moving 7
kilometers per second is a challenge and subject to countermeasures,
SDI supported directed energy as an alternative. In fact, SDI was at
one time funding at least five different lasers, ground-based and
space-based.
Missile defense demands earlier acquisition and better tracking of
targets and a means of discriminating real targets from decoys. So, SDI
put money in popup infra-red sensors known as the Ground-Based
Surveillance and Tracking System (GSTS) and space-based infra-red
sensors known as the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS) and now
known as Space-Based Infrared Sensors (SBIRS) Low. It even tried
interactive discriminators as esoteric as a neutral particle beam,
based in space.
Not all of these pursuits were blind alleys, and by no means was all
of the money wasted. The ERIS, for example, was by-passed for a better
interceptor. But the projectile built by the Army for the ERIS was
adopted by the Navy for its theater missile interceptor. By the same
token, the Army's theater missile interceptor has a sapphire window,
developed for the HEDI as a heat-resistant aperture to see within the
atmosphere, where friction produces terrific heat.
After the gulf war, SDIO evolved into BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization), and its charter was broadened to include theater defense
as well. With billions of dollars spent on research, BMDO began to
assess what was feasible. Laser systems were deemed futuristic, too far
over the horizon. Ground-based laser beams were hard to propagate
through the atmosphere without distortion, and space-based lasers were
hard to power and protect from attack. Boost-phase interceptors
orbiting in space were also vulnerable to attack, technically
challenging, and expensive to deploy, given the number needed for
enough always to be on station. Even if all these problems were
overcome, boost-phase interceptors could be outrun by missiles with
fast-burn boosters, like Russia's SS-24, a mobile missile with a
booster burn-out time of 180 seconds.
Emphasis shifted, therefore, to the ground-based systems. Since
interdiction in the atmosphere is hard to do, the endo-atmospheric
interceptor was sidetracked, and the whole mission devolved to mid-
course interceptors. These have the merit of being treaty-compliant and
technically mature, and are clearly the best candidate to go first. But
no one should think they answer Ronald Reagan's dream. The first
problem they face are counter-measures in the form of decoys, chaff,
and re-entry vehicles (RV's) enveloped in balloons, which lure the
interceptors off course. The next is a limiting condition SDIO
acknowledged in a 1992 report. Because of the radiation, heat, and
electromagnetic effects generated when RV's are destroyed and exploded,
SDIO decided that it could not postulate the take-out of more than 200
re-entry vehicles by mid-course interceptors. If our country were
attacked by an adversary with an arsenal as large and sophisticated as
Russia's, the first wave could easily include more than 200 warheads,
and even with a smaller attack, the same problem could thwart tracking
with infrared sensors and radar.
[[Page H1440]]
H.R. 4 says that it is our policy to deploy a national missile
defense. Although not identified, the mid-course interceptor is the
clear candidate for this mission. This is not a system, however, that
will ``render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete,'' in the words of
President Reagan. If we have learned anything over past sixteen years,
we have learned that a leak-proof defense is so difficult, it may never
be attained. H.R. 4 calls for a ``national missile defense,'' and the
committee report makes it clear that this means system to protect us
against limited strikes. By ``limited'' strikes, the committee report
means that the objective system should take out up to 20 oncoming
warheads. This is the near-term goal, and even it is not ready to
deploy.
There is legitimate concern about how Russia may react to this push
for deployment. In truth, the system this bill anticipates will not
defend us against a concerted attack by a nation with an arsenal as
large and diverse as Russia's, not in the near future anyway. If it can
be shown to work, it should defend us against rogue or accidental
strikes and some unauthorized strikes, and Russia should have no
objection to that.
This level of missile defense seems to be within our reach, but it is
not yet within our grasp. Secretary Cohen has just added $6.6 billion
to BMD recently and put his support behind national missile defense
(NMD), but he warned that the technology is ``challenging'' and
``highly risky.'' Look at our experience so far with theater missile
defense (TMD) systems. They are not comparable one-to-one to NMD, but
when the Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) is 0-
5 in testing, and the Navy's Upper Tier is 0-4, we should be wary of
just presuming that a ground-based interceptor can travel thousands of
miles into the exo-atmosphere and hit an RV four feet long.
The merit to me in this one-sentence bill is not what it says
but what it does not say. It recognizes that the technology of missile
defense has yet to be tested and proven, and it does not presume to say
what will be deployed, when it will be deployed, or where it will be
deployed.
This bill does not mandate a date certain for deployment. There is no
threat now that requires us to rush development and testing or to
settle for a substandard system just to say we have deployed something.
In 1991, the Senate imposed on us in conference a ``Missile Defense
Act'' which made it a national ``goal'' to deploy a missile defense
system by 1996. It is now 1999, and nothing has been deployed, which
shows the folly of legislating deployment dates.
This bill also does not mention the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty. Everyone knows that we are developing ground-based interceptors
that are treaty-compliant. This bill does not specify the number of
interceptors or where they will be deployed, and it does not need to--
not yet. We will not enhance our security by pushing NMD so hard that
we derail Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II and doom START
III. Unlike past bills, H.R. 4 also does not tell the Administration
what it must negotiate with the Russians, and it should not. For now,
compliance with the ABM Treaty is necessary to ratifying START II and
negotiating START III. If we are concerned about the spread of nuclear
weapons, or the risk of unauthorized or accidental attack, or the cost
of maintaining our strategic forces at START I levels, both treaties
are important--probably a lot more important to our near-term security
than a limited missile defense system. The treaties are important also
to the long-run role of the missile defense, because nuclear warheads
in the United States and Russia must be lowered to a couple of thousand
on each side if national missile defense is ever to become an effective
complement to deterrence.
If this bill's attraction is its brevity, it's fair to ask, ``What
purpose is served by passing it?'' I know some think this bill is to
stiffen the resolve of the Clinton administration, but I don't think
that's necessary. The Clinton administration has put a billion dollars
a year into developing a ground-based system, and for the last several
years, Congress has generally acquiesced in that level of spending.
This year the President's budget includes funds for deploying an NMD
which amount to a plus-up to $6.6 billion or a total of $10.5 billion
over FY 1999-FY 2005. That sounds like a system taking shape to me, and
that's one of the reasons I support deployment as our objective. At
this level of effort, we should be thinking about a deployable system,
and not more viewgraphs to go on the shelf.
If anything, it may be the House that needs to check its resolve.
Yesterday, the House Budget Committee reported a Budget Resolution that
takes $205 billion out of the President's defense budget for the years
2004-2009. This is the very time period when the system this bill
supports will be ready to deploy, along with a host of others: the
Army's THAAD, the Navy's Upper Tier, PAC-3, the F-22, the F-18 E & F,
the Comanche, the V-22, and the JSF. You cannot load on to this full
plate ballistic missile defense--ground-based interceptors, SBIRs Low
and SBIRs High, radar upgrades, and BMCCC--and pay the billions it will
cost with a defense budget that's flat-funded for six years, from 2004-
2009.
I think there is an emerging threat and there are good reasons for
developing ballistic missile defenses, but let's not fool ourselves.
Like all weapon systems, missile defense will not come cheap, and when
the time comes to buy it, rhetoric won't pay the bills.
In summary, here are my reasons for supporting this bill:
(1) It allows us to realize a return on the investment of nearly $50
billion made already on ballistic missile defense.
(2) It supports ground-based interceptors that are treaty-complaint
and fit easily into an infrastructure of ground-based radars that are
already installed and space-based sensors (SBIR's Low and High) that
are already being developed for targeting theater missile interceptors
defenses and tactical intelligence.
(3) It focuses BMDO on completing the one form of strategic defense
that can be developed and deployed in the short-run, and further
develops technologies on a continuum with theater missile defense
systems, particularly THAAD and Navy Upper Tier.
(4) If proven capable, ground-based interceptors will give us some
defense against rogue and accidental attacks and a working system to
learn from and build upon. The best way to find if midcourse
interceptors can discriminate decoys from real RV's is to build and
test the actual interceptors and the target and guidance systems.
(5) Finally, I support this bill in the hope that we can put BMD on a
bipartisan footing. TMD enjoys bipartisan support; NMD has been a bone
of contention. Now that the technology is taking shape and showing
promise, NMD needs to stand the test of any weapons system. It ought to
be put to rigorous testing, and made to prove that it can hold this
country harmless against a limited missile attack. If strategic defense
can prove its mettle, I think we should buy it and deploy it. If it
can't, nothing in this bill requires us to buy a dud.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), coauthor of this bill who is
mainly responsible for us being here today.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to
applaud the level of debate today on this issue and thank Members from
both sides for their diligence in focusing on this issue. I want to
applaud the integrity of the opponents of this issue. And I want to
point out the difference between the opponents in this body who stood
up and focused on their opposition and the opponents in the other body
who twice stopped a similar bill from getting up to a vote and then had
the audacity to change and vote for it on the Senate floor yesterday.
So I applaud the opponents who have a logical and philosophical
difference with what we have done here and I applaud them for taking
the steps to oppose it, even though I disagree with them.
I do take issue with those who say that we do not care about human
concerns. Mr. Speaker, I am a teacher. I spent 7 years teaching in the
public schools of Pennsylvania and for 3 of those years I ran a chapter
1 program serving those children with educational and economic
deprivations. I support education. I support human services and needs.
But what do we tell, Mr. Speaker, the families of those 28 young
Americans who came home in body bags? They were hit by a missile. Do we
tell them that we are not going to pursue a defense? Do we tell them
that there is some other more important priority after they volunteered
to serve our Nation?
We have no choice but to pursue missile defense, Mr. Speaker, because
that is the weapon of choice by rogue nations. I do take issue with
those who say that we are trying to harm our strategic relationship
with Russia. For the last 20 years since graduating from college with a
degree in Russian studies, I have focused on Russia. I have been there
18 years and I have been focusing on ways to provide more economic
stability with that nation. That is not a reason for us to deny
protection for our people. We need to provide this system to protect
Americans. It is time for us to vote. Not to provide cover for Members.
If Members support the President's policy of waiting a year and then
deciding whether or not he should deploy,
[[Page H1441]]
vote against this bill. But if they feel as we do, it is time based
upon the threat and based upon the changing world to move in a new
direction, where instead of threatening each other with long-range
missiles, we begin developing a new relationship where we defend
ourselves and our people and our troops. I happen to think as a teacher
and a person very concerned about human issues that that is the right
thing to do as we approach the new millennium.
I ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and support this
bill to provide protection for our people.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Missile
Defense Bill. I think we all agree that this is a vitally important
issue to the American people. That is why I am disappointed by the
Republican Leadership's decision to deny any member the basic right of
introducing an amendment to this bill so we may have a full and open
debate.
For example, the closed rule under which we are debating this bill
blocks the amendment from my good friend from Maine, Representative
Allen. The Allen amendment proposes ideas I believe my Republican
colleagues would support. The Allen amendment specifies that the United
States deploy a National Missile Defense that is operationally
effective and that a National Missile Defense System not jeopardize
other efforts to reduce threats to the United States. If we can not
agree on these points, then I fear we are farther apart then I
imagined.
The future of this country depends on a strong economy and a strong
military. Neither is possible without an educated populace. That means
that everyday, we have to make difficult decisions about where we spend
our money and that we must be wise when deciding such matters.
Therefore, we must not rush to deploy any missile defense system that
will not guarantee our protection.
This debate involves many complex issues. Lest some of my colleagues
have forgotten, one of our potentially most significant foreign
relations accomplishments over the last 30 years was our agreement with
the former Soviet Union to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenals. I
am talking about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the START II and
III nuclear arms reduction proposals. And I say they are potentially
significant because I worry that if we pass the current version of H.R.
4, we would be in violation of the ABM Treaty and force the Russian
Duma to fail to ratify START II. Additionally, as far as Russia is
concerned, do we really want to put pressure on a country trying to
stabilize its fragile economy by tempting it to respond to our actions.
I agree with my colleagues who believe that a new threat to our
security has emerged and that we have a responsibility to address that
threat. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know as well as
anyone that the potential for a rogue state to strike our shores may
exist in the near future. However, it would be irresponsible for us to
rush to meet that potential threat by spending money on something that
one, is not even technologically possible and two, even if it were
possible, would not end the threat.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need a missile defense. If we need anything,
we need a strong non-proliferation policy. If my colleagues only want a
missile defense, then they will have the chance to vote for that today.
However, if they truly want to protect the American people, then they
will only settle for something that also attempts to stop other, more
realistic, threats to our safety, such as cruise missiles or smuggled
bombs. The missile defense systems being considered do not adequately
address these possibilities. The remarks of Secretary Cohen are very
poignant here. The Secretary acknowledged that the Joint Chiefs of
Staff worry more about a suitcase bomb going off in one of our cities
and that very few countries would launch an Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile aimed at the United States, knowing that they would face
virtual elimination.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 4.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I support of H.R. 4 and would like to
discuss one of the most important issues currently facing our nation.
Many rogue states have already proven their ability to attack the
United States via long-range missile capability or nuclear-weapons
program and others are known to be close to obtaining this capability.
The United States cannot fully prevent other nations from obtaining
missile technology, allowing them the capability to launch missiles
that may reach our borders. During their recent dispute with Taiwan,
China threatened to bomb Los Angeles; North Korea recently launched a
three-stage rocket over Japan; and a published CIA report determined
that they will soon have the technology to reach the west coast of the
United States. Knowing that the Chinese have the capability to attack
my district in California, and that the North Koreans are not far
behind, compounded by the fact that we have nothing to protect us from
attack, strikes fear into the hearts of my constituents and me.
For the Clinton Administration to have delayed making a National
Missile Defense System a top priority is a tragic mistake. To rely on
the ABM Treaty, an archaic, outdated agreement with a country that does
not even exist any longer, shows that our nation's security needs are a
low priority for this Administration.
Our federal government is responsible for the general defense of our
nation. The post-Cold War world is littered with dangerous, rogue
nations that either possess or are pushing toward development of
nuclear weapons. North Korea and China have already illustrated the
capability to threaten the U.S., but they will not be the last. If we
have one Saddam or bin Laden with nuclear missile capability, they
could kill millions of American citizens under our current defense
security posture.
Right now, Mr. Chairman, we can insure that this nightmare never
becomes reality. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
will support this important bill and make it a priority to deploy a
national missile defense system. It is my personal belief that such a
system should play to our technological strengths and should include a
sea-based element. Sea-based anti-missile systems would provide
flexibility to protect our forces around the world as well as the 50
states.
Further, we must have the courage to modify, or even scrap, the ABM
Treaty when it is in our supreme national interest to do so. Mr.
Chairman, defense is never provocative and weakness is never wise. We
must pursue a national missile defense immediately.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is very
simple and straightforward. H.R. 4 states that it is the policy of the
United States to deploy a national missile defense system. Most
Americans would be puzzled by this, because it is a widely held
misconception that we have an anti-ballistic missile defense system in
place to protect the United States from any incoming missile; either an
accidental launch from Russia, or an intended launch from China or any
number of rogue nations.
Yes, we spent $40 billion in the 1980's for research and development
of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). However, liberal naysayers
and the media criticized the program for being a threat to the former
Soviet Union, while trivializing and demonizing the program as ``Star
Wars.'' Once the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, the
collective wisdom of liberal policy makers convinced the public that
such a missile defense system was no longer needed; the program was
allowed to fade into a meager research effort.
Unfortunately, here we are today still facing a formidable nuclear
weapons arsenal of more than 7,000 warheads in the former Soviet Union.
Moreover, the development of a ballistic missile capability in China,
coupled by the intent of North Korea, Iran and Pakistan to briskly
pursue advanced ICBM programs places the United States and the world at
great risk. In addition, rogue states led by Iraq, Libya and Syria are
pursuing ambitious ballistic weapons programs of their own. These
sobering realities were again presented to each of us this morning by
the threat analysis of the Rumsfeld Commission.
However, President Clinton is opposed to this bill. According to the
Statement of Administration policy, the Clinton Administration opposed
this resolution for two reasons; they oppose the commitment to deploy a
missile defense system and they are concerned about violating the Anti
Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. I cannot understand this
Administration's reluctance to fully defend the American people, nor
their concerns about complying with a treaty that we made with a
country that no longer exists.
Mr. Speaker, it's high time that the policy of the United States is
to fully defend our nation from all threats, including incoming
ballistic missiles. We are very close to achieving the technological
challenge and capability of a ``hitting a bullet with a bullet.'' We
must not allow the Administration's reluctance to get in the way of
protecting Americans; let's support this legislation.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to American families.
Tonight, as you sleep, we cannot adequately protect you and your
children from a ballistic missile attack from rogue nations, let alone
Russia or China.
We simply must protect American families. It is our duty--that is why
we are here today. Deploying a national missile defense to protect
American families simply makes sense.
The Administration's current arms control strategy has failed
miserably, while rogue nations progress in developing long-ranges
missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads.
In addition to the established nuclear powers of China and Russia,
the Administration
[[Page H1442]]
has tried, and failed, to prevent Russia from aiding Iran's progress in
missile technology and guideane systems. The Administration has failed,
too, in Iraq and North Korea. India and Pakistan have established
themselves as members of the nuclear club, and Cuba is now being helped
by Russia with its own reactor.
According to the Rumsfeld Commission, rogue nation like North Korea
and Iran will be able to inflict major destruction on the U.S. within
about five years of a decision to acquire such a capability. Further,
rogues can import technology from Russia and China and greatly decrease
acquisition times and increase secrecy.
Today, rogue nations don't need to develop weapons of mass
destruction, the merely need to purchase it.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the rogue nation threat, the
Administration continues to downplay the threat, delay funding and
deployment of a national missile defense, and risk the life of every
American. This is unacceptable.
It is time for the Administration and Congress to make preserving our
security and our freedom a priority. It makes no sense at all to grant
Russia or China a say in our policy to defend ourselves.
We have the technology, designs, and intelligence. All we need is the
straight forward policy, and we can begin to deliver on our
constitutional duty to adequately defend American families.
We can no longer afford to follow the Administration's policy of
mutual assured destruction. Rather, we must have a policy of defending
American families.
Vote for H.R. 4 today, and support a policy that will provide for
deployment of a national missile defense.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing a matter of
national security and national protection. H.R. 4, calls for the prompt
deployment of a national missile defense system. This legislation is
long overdue.
According to a congressional advisory panel report from July of 1998,
missile threats are widely and drastically underestimated. Our enemies
are working aggressively to develop ballistic missile systems capable
of carrying weapons of mass destruction. Iran, North Korea, China, and
others are all developing missile systems for one purpose: to target
the United States. We cannot afford to let this threat go unchecked.
Mr. Speaker, nothing is worth more than the safety of our citizens.
Yet our critics claim that development of a national missile defense
system is too costly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cost
to deploy an initial National Missile Defense capability will amount to
less than the amount the United States has spent on peacekeeping
deployments over the past 6 years.
In 1995, President Clinton vetoed legislation similar to that which
we are debating today. In his veto message, the President called the
deployment of a national missile defense ``unwarranted.'' Today, the
President has indicated that he will sign our legislation. I am
relieved that the President has finally agreed with my Republican
colleagues and I on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which should need little debate. I urge
my colleagues to support a national missile defense and vote in favor
of H.R. 4.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, when John F. Kennedy committed our Nation to
sending a man to the moon by the end of the 1960s, he was not ambiguous
and he did not hedge. He committed this Nation to a hard-to-reach goal
with the knowledge that American ingenuity and hard work could get the
job done. He was right then and we are right now to set this goal
before us.
The spread of ballistic missile technology--combined with the spread
of chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear technology--to nations
openly hostile to the United States and our allies has introduced a new
threat and new dimension to American security.
The spread of this threatening technology has occurred at a rate
faster than was predicted just recently by our intelligence community.
This fact requires an immediate response to protect our Nation sooner
rather than later.
The technology underpinning a national missile defense system is
unproven today. Much work remains to be done before a working system
can be deployed. However, unless we treat this threat and our response
seriously and proceed with a firm commitment to deployment, we will
leave ourselves vulnerable to our most dangerous and unpredictable
enemies.
Protection from this threat must be treated with the highest degree
of seriousness. National missile defense must be undertaken in
conjunction with other defense needs. Failure to commit to the
deployment of this protection for our Nation will mean that it is
undertaken with too little funding and too little attention to deploy a
missile defense system in time to respond to existing and emerging
threats.
Our first priority must be to ensure the protection of our Nation and
our armed forces defending American interests abroad. Some have said
that this system might not stop all attacks. Should our response be to
provide no protection? Of course not. I do not agree with that response
and neither should you. Vote for H.R. 4 and protect our citizens from
the actions of irresponsible nations.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should
wholeheartedly support House Concurrent Resolution 42, a resolution to
support the sense of Congress that the President is authorized to
deploy U.S. troops as a part of a NATO peacekeeping operation to
implement a peace agreement in Kosovo.
I am very disappointed in Congress' reluctance to commit an American
contingent of 4,000 troops to serve as peacekeepers in an attempt to
stabilize the region. At the same time members of Congress are debating
the U.S. position, American negotiators are in France struggling to
negotiate a settlement palatable to both sides. Although I do believe
that an open debate about troop deployment in Kosovo before the
American public is necessary, now is not the appropriate time to carry
on such debate, given the extreme fragility of the peace process.
Indisputably, peace in the region is in the best interests of the
United States. Noncompliance with our obligation to the organization
and lack of support for our European allies, may in turn lead them to
forgo the peace process as well, a move that will negatively affect our
relationship with Europe, as well as future joint military endeavors.
Although NATO was originally established for the purpose of deterring
Soviet aggression in Europe, the Alliance is still a necessary vehicle
to neutralize aggressors on the continent. This is especially true in
the context of leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, whose political
ambitions have the potential to disrupt regional political, social, and
economic harmony. Indeed, even though political changes brought about
by the end of the cold war have altered NATO's original purpose, the
organization still plays a meaningful role in the region by promoting
political, social, and economic ties among European nations. Certainly,
the United States, as a major participant in the organization, has a
strategic and humanitarian interest in preventing the conflict from
spinning out of control.
Undeniably, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that if the
situation is left untended, the conflict in Kosovo will draw in
Albanians from four surrounding regions--Macedonia, Montenegro,
northern Greece and Albania--further destabilizing the region,
increasing the number of refugees, infecting Greek-Turkish relations,
and souring relations between member countries of NATO. One cannot
profess concern about the future of NATO and the stability of Southern
Europe, while standing idly by, declining to react to this alarming
state of affairs.
If members of the KLA eventually accept the terms laid out by
European and American negotiators, I believe without reserve that
America should participate by contributing peacekeeping troops. Since
the deal calls for the Europeans to commit 25,000 troops, and the U.S.
only 4,000, it is they who are assuming the majority of the
responsibility, which, in and of itself, is in the best interests of
our country. The U.S. is, and must remain, an influential player in
Europe, and therefore cannot remain entirely aloof from taking on a
major role in the brokering of a deal between the warring parties.
Unquestionably, the contribution of 4,000 troops is within the means
and the interests of the United States.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
legislation that will push the United States down a slippery slope and
lock us into an automatic deployment of a national missile defense
system. This system is a highly speculative policy with regards to cost
and effectiveness. The best defense is a smart defense. The U.S. needs
not just smart weapons, but smart soldiers. This decision contributes
to neither. H.R. 4 will siphon off important resources that should
focus on ensuring that our troops have the equipment and the training
they need to maintain our security. The advocates for ``Star Wars'' or
strategic defense initiatives can change the names, but not the facts!
What kind of message are we relaying to our constituents back home?
Congress should not be in the business of writing a blank check for yet
another version of ``Star Wars.'' A pipe dream which commits to
spending over $100 billion without any assurance of success and
evidence that such action will erode effective disarmament and weapons
agreements such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). Today,
their is a long agenda of real needs. Too many schools are crumbling
down and overcrowded, much environmental cleanup is needed, veterans
are in need of adequate health care and the future of the Social
Security and Medicare Insurance are crying for attention. Investments
in our people today must surely take priority over such questionable
spending policies that is intended by this
[[Page H1443]]
version of the national missile defense measure.
Why rush to give blanket authority for deployment of a national
missile defense at an unspecified cost? The United States has already
spent over $120 billion on missile defense research and development,
including $67 billion since President Ronald Reagan's ``Star Wars''
initiative. Recent systems tests have failed 14 out of 18 times and
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General John Shelton recently stated
that the United States does not yet have the technology to field a
national missile defense. In addition, the Clinton Administration
recently proposed spending $10.5 billion over the next five years to
step-up research of a workable system. Furthermore, many scientists
inside and outside of the government testify that any system, no matter
the sophistication, would be relatively easy for an enemy to circumvent
at far less cost. And worse yet, this initiative would lead to a
renewed qualitative arms race to defeat such a national missile defense
system.
Nonetheless, H.R. 4, a 15-word measure, would give blanket
endorsement by the House, mandating automatic missile defense
deployment without regard to taxpayers, regardless of its impact on
global stability and regardless of whether or not it actually would be
effective. This bill will provide a false sense and illusion of
security and waste important tax dollars that could better serve people
programs or even real defense needs.
Clearly, this 15-word bill would fundamentally undermine
international arms control and disarmament agreements which have
effectively preserved and advanced U.S. and global security over the
past three decades. Furthermore, this bill sends the wrong message to
Russia and other nations at a crucial time. It would seriously damage
relations with Russia, violate the ABM, jeopardize the ratification of
the START II Treaty by the Russian Duma and undermine decades of
efforts to advance national and international security through arms
control and disarmament agreements. This could stimulate an escalating
nuclear arms race with China which would view such a deployment as a
threat to its current limited nuclear deterrent. An end to Russian
nuclear disarmament, the decommissioning and disassembly of nuclear
weapons and a nuclear arms race with China and others would undermine
U.S. security far more than the alleged threat from rogue nations such
as North Korea or Iran. H.R. 4 will reverse the ongoing successful arms
reductions initiatives and in fact reverse U.S. policy that has been in
place for 4 decades.
Mr. Chairman, during this debate I've heard many, too many different
explanations of what these 15 words mean, I guess that they mean
whatever an individual may claim, but I've no doubt that this action
will be interpreted as the green light to spend hundreds of billions of
dollars to in fact move forward beyond the $10 billion that is already
planned by the Clinton administration. This is not a benign matter, it
is the renewal of a path to policy well traveled. An engraved invite to
develop, spend and undercut existing treaty agreements. The wrong
policy path.
The recent threats we face from North Korea and other rogue nations
do not require the deployment of a national missile defense system. The
United States has faced the threat from long-range missiles for 40
years. We should continue to do what we can to control the spread of
this technology and to gain agreements, such as the nuclear power
accords achieved with North Korea in the last 4 years. But, it is much
easier for a terrorist group or rogue nation to smuggle nuclear devices
or biological weapons across our borders than to develop huge ballistic
missiles under the watchful eye of our satellite systems. Locking-in
deployment does nothing about the real threats we face today. A missile
defense looks up at the sky for missiles when we should be looking on
the ground for terrorists in a panel truck.
Technology for a national defense system is actually more
sophisticated, not less than some other forms, because of the shortened
timeframe, low trajectory, and limited ability to detect such weapons
deployment and activation.
This total initiative seems to cast Congress and this issue into a
political ploy more designed for emotion than rational decision making.
Frankly, the spread of knowledge of weapons of mass destruction is in
fact the real world that we must live with. The United States of
America has, in many instances, been the source of that knowledge.
Isn't it time to stop or at least slow down the merry-go-round? Maybe
it is time to review the film, ``Dr. Strangelove.'' As many of you
know, this film addresses the consequences and results of actions such
as this. The basic problem is changing mindsets and attitudes to
realize that we share vulnerability, not to pretend and falsely promise
what cannot be achieved. We live in a interdependent world. The path to
more security is found in addressing the problems, not pretending that
we can build a wall around the United States and be isolated and
impervious to events and developments in other nations.
I urge all members to vote no on H.R. 4.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, the development of a national missile defense
is vital and I support this resolution. The bottom line is that this is
a natural evolution for our defense.
Once upon a time, our ancestors built walls of stone to defend
themselves from swords and arrows. As military weapons have evolved, so
must our defenses. While some in this chamber raise legal, treaty-
oriented objections to this bill, we know that the reality of our age
is that a missile attack on U.S. soil by some rogue nations may soon be
technically achievable and perhaps politically desirable.
We don't have to go far back in time to understand this. We all know
that the single bloodiest moment for American servicemen and women in
the Gulf War was the moment an Iraqi Scud landed on the barracks
occupied by our forces.
If anyone doubts that a despotic leader would take an opportunistic
chance to launch a missile attack at American soil--even as merely a
demonstration strike or as a symbolic strike, consider the SCUD missile
attacks on Israel. While there was clearly no military advantage to be
gained through that action, Sadam Hussein launched those attacks to
prove that he could, and to see if it would rouse support from other
nations.
Given those circumstances, we have no choice but to embrace the
policy declared in this bill and move forward with the development of a
national missile defense system.
This is not a threat that will pass. The Rumsfield Commission has
opened our eyes to the reality that this is not a situation we can
postpone. The responsible action at this moment in history is to rally
the political support necessary to make a national missile defensive
system available to protect the American people as soon as possible.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, in May, George Lucas will release the next
Star Wars sequel. I can hardly wait to see it. Apparently I am not
alone, since today we'll vote on our own sequel to Star Wars. Unlike
Mr. Lucas an 20th Century Fox who can be confident it will be a hit and
a money maker, all we know is that our Star Wars sequel will cost a lot
of money--$50 billion and counting. As for whether it will be a hit,
hit-to-kill technology is nowhere near feasible.
Now when 20th Century Fox makes a big, expensive movie they usually
go with a proven formula for success. When they gamble, they may end up
with Waterworld or Ishtar. The United States cannot afford an expensive
flop.
When 20th Century Fox isn't sure they have a hit, they bring in focus
groups and maybe edit or reshoot some footage. It usually won't cost
too much. We won't have that option.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, a bill that would make it the
policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense
system. I do not know if it should be the policy of the United States
to deploy such a system. I think few of us do. Because we have not had
a national debate yet.
We don't know what it will cost.
We don't know what the impact will be on our future nuclear arms
reduction negotiations with the Russians.
We don't know the impact on Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
And we don't know if it will work.
We need a national debate on a national missile defense. A couple of
hours today will not engage the American people in this important
debate.
I wish the majority had allowed a genuine floor debate ion the Allen
Amendment to establish the criteria for deployment. If the House is
going to establish this policy, we need to have clear deployment
criteria. We should not take this step until National Missile Defense:
(1) has been demonstrated to be operationally effective against the
most significant threat identified at the time of such deployment (and
for a reasonable period of time thereafter);
(2) does not diminish the overall national security of the United
States by jeopardizing other efforts to reduce threats to the United
States, including negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces; and
(3) is affordable and does not compromise the ability of the
uniformed service chiefs and the commanders of the regional unified
commands to meet their requirements for operational readiness, quality
of life of the troops, programmed modernization of weapons systems, and
the deployment of planned theater missile defenses.
We are doing the American people no favor by rushing this bill
through the Congress so that we can say we're addressing the perceived
threat. Let's take our time, get it right, and use our constituents'
tax money wisely.
That will make our Star Wars the kind of blockbuster that every
American will want to see.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express support for H.R.
4, and I will vote
[[Page H1444]]
in favor of this legislation. We certainly should not fail to explore
the possibilities of protecting the United States from missile attack
from enemies across the globe.
But, we must also make a realistic assessment of the threats we face
and consider how we can best use our resources. While the threat of a
hostile missile attack exists, the far greater threat comes from
terrorism, whether domestic or international, and whether sponsored by
rogue individuals, organizations or states. The weapons of mass
destruction I most fear are not intercontinental ballistic missiles
traveling through the stratosphere, but those coming across our land
and sea ports and delivered by an aerosol can, suitcase or panel truck.
To protect against such asymmetrical threats we must devote
appropriate resources to Customs, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and even the Coast Guard. These agencies are our nation's
first line of defense along our borders and major ports of entry. More
personnel and better technology are needed if we want to defend against
terrorists trying to smuggle into the United States weapons of mass
destruction. We want more commerce with our neighbors and international
trading partners, yet we do not provide adequate resources to the very
agencies tasked with managing the trade.
Just this week federal authorities, including the INS, arrested 15
people on charges of operating an immigration fraud ring that helped
members of an alleged Iranian terrorist group enter the United States
illegally. Several years ago, a cargo ship owned by a Chinese shipping
company and destined for the United States was boarded off the
California coast and a cache of firearms was discovered. With current
resources and technology are we able to stop an illegal weapons or
known dangerous persons from entering the United States?
The administration has included in its budget $10.5 billion for
fiscal years 1999 through 2005 for national missile defense. I say in
addition to this money we devote more resources to those dedicated
individuals on our nation's borders and ports of entry who manage our
international trade and face potential threats everyday.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, each day, Members of this House debate how
to save Social Security and Medicaid. How to cut taxes. How to stay
within mandated spending caps. All to make sure that we only spend tax
money on things we need--and things that work.
Now comes the missile defense bill. Before casting this vote, let's
review what we know--and what we don't know--about this proposal.
We do know that we already have a national missile defense--the
threat of swift and disproportionate retaliation with our own nuclear
weapons.
We don't know if an anti-ballistic system will work--which is why
almost no-one will attest to its reliability. Even the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs has said that ``we do not yet have the technology to field
a national missile defense.''
We do know that an anti-ballistic system cannot defend against the
most probable form of attack. The likeliest 21st-century enemies will
use cheap, hard-to-trace methods to kill Americans, like gassing
subways or poisoning reservoirs.
We do know it would be expensive. We've already spent $120 billion,
and estimates now approach $200 billion more.
But we don't know where this money will come from. Do we sacrifice
veterans' benefits, or home health care? Education or environmental
protection?
We do know that this bill undermines years of progress with the one
country whose missiles actually pose a threat--Russia. For decades,
we've negotiated to reduce Russia's nuclear arsenal. The Russian
parliament is considering deeper cuts. But Russia sees an American
missile defense as a direct threat to its own deterrent and a reason to
abandon nuclear arms reductions.
We don't know if Russia can even maintain its current force level
without an accident--Besides setting back years of diplomacy, this bill
could actually increase the risk of an accidental launch as Russia
tries to manage a missile force with its crumbling infrastructure.
We do know that this bill could begin a new arms race. Other nations
may feel so threatened that they will seek to develop weapons to
counteract our missile defense.
In short, we are asked today to authorize enormous sums of public
money to nullify years of arms control. To risk re-igniting the arms
race. All for a defense system that may not work. To protect us from a
threat that may not materialize.
It doesn't take New England frugality to recognize that we can do
better, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against H.R. 4, a
bill committing the United States to deploy a national missile defense
system as a matter of national policy.
I will not repeat the arguments against passing the bill, since such
arguments have little impact on most Members. Frankly, leaders on both
sides are supporting the bill largely because they think that it is a
good political strategy or that failure to do so may be used against
them in the next election. These are not ignoble motives. In fact,
concern for our national defense is a very noble motive, and I deeply
respect those of my colleagues who express this concern.
However, during the 1960's and 1970's when similar arguments were
made to deploy an ABM system, or to escalate the Vietnam war,
Presidents and their advisors made the same supportive arguments aware
that they could not be justified. They reversed themselves, recanting
their former words only when the American people came to understand the
unwinnability of a ground war in Asia in a situation where no vital
U.S. interests were at stake and the futility of a missile arms race,
either offensive or defensive, against the U.S.S.R. In the face of
great odds both the United States and the U.S.S.R. moved toward arms
control and reduction and toward cooperation in a growing number of
economic and political areas.
I am confident that the leaders of the nations of the world have
passed the era of even considering nuclear war as a viable option. For
a rogue nation or a terrorist group to deliver a nuclear device by
means of a ballistic missile, whose launch point can be precisely
detected, amounts to national suicide, even if it were to evade the
proposed U.S. missile defense system.
Our efforts today should be focused on eliminating the causes of war,
of which the largest is economic inequality and endemic poverty around
the world. A small fraction of the cost of the missile defense system
would give us a good start on such a program.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, and
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to recommit. H.R. 4
is a bill whose time has not come. It is a bill whose time, arguably,
may never come. As General Hugh Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said in February of this year, ``The simple fact is
that we do not yet have the technology to field a national missile
defense. We have, in fact, put some $40 billion into the program over
the last 10 years. But today we do not technologically have a bullet
that can hit a bullet.'' General Shelton, testifying only 44 days ago
before the House Armed Services about this issue, continues: ``The
technology to hit a bullet with a bullet remains elusive.''
Yet today the House is considering legislation that presumes this
technology does exist, when it in fact does not. H.R. 4 presumes this
missile defense system can be developed and deployed, when in fact
after tens of billion dollars in research, in General Shelton's words,
it ``remains elusive.'' If General Shelton's summation is not simple
enough, I offer an analogy which easily explains my opposition to H.R.
4: the cart should not be put before the horse. The decision to deploy
a National Missile Defense system should not be made until there is a
clear capability to address a potential national security threat.
How many times has a defense technology been rushed to the field in a
spectacular shower of funding from Congress, only to be declared
obsolete on the day when the last bolt is tightened or just as a system
is declared ``fully operational''? With all the good intentions of this
Congress to take steps to preserve national security, there are too
many questions regarding the readiness of this technology to consider
beginning deployment of a National Missile Defense.
Let our research scientists, engineers and military commanders finish
their job, first. If there is a national security threat that can be
addressed with a proven national missile defense technology, bring that
evidence before Congress, and then let's decide whether or not it makes
sense to deploy such a system. But until then, I urge my colleagues to
not get ahead of the horse.
Equally as troubling to me is the fact that H.R. 4 in its brevity
fails to recognize the arms control gains we have made under the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty. The deployment of a system as prematurely
proposed by this bill may in fact put us in noncompliance with this
treaty, a treaty that has slowed arms development for nearly 30 years.
I worry that this bill could send the wrong message to Russia and
China, who might likely see it as a signal to start the arms race
again. It might also be viewed by other nations as an invitation to
join in.
As H.R. 4 is silent on these issues, it provides an oversimplistic
policy for an extremely complex, interdependent group of concerns. The
15-word, one sentence policy statement in H.R. 4 grossly trivializes
the importance of this issue of national defense. Without serious
consideration of the full ramifications of this policy, and without the
opportunity to amend this bill to do justice to this national security
issue, I cannot support this bill.
[[Page H1445]]
Mr. DICKS. I rise in support of H.R. 4 the Weldon-Spratt National
Missile Defense bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill and urge my
colleagues to support it. At the same time, I strongly support the
amendment offered by Tom Allen, which was not allowed on the floor,
which clarifies that we will not deploy a system unless we know that it
works. The Allen amendment also makes clear that the readiness and
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) of our troops is our top priority. We may
have an opportunity to vote for this sensible alternative as a motion
to recommit, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Even as we pass this bill we need to come clean with the American
people. We have not been able to make National Missile Defense work,
and at this time, we don't have a system to deploy. We are developing
this system as fast as we can, in fact, we may be pushing the
technology too hard. But significant challenges remain. We have
experienced a series of failures with our medium-range THAAD system. If
we can't even do THAAD, how are we going to do National Missile
Defense, where the targets are much faster and much more sophisticated?
The Army successful tested the shorter range PAC-3 missile defense
system this week. And we all hope that THAAD will bet back on track
with a successful test next month. But we shouldn't kid ourselves here.
We have a long way to go to get a National Missile Defense system.
Fortunately we have good people working on the problem.
We should also be honest with the American people on what we are
talking about deploying. This will not be the leak proof missile
defense shield that Ronald Reagan dreamed of when he founded the
Strategic Defense Initiative. We are no closer to achieving a leak
proof defense against Russian missiles today than we were in 1983.
Instead, we are developing a system designed to deal with the limited
and relatively unsophisticated threats presented by countries like Iran
and North Korea. I believe developing a defense against these threats
is necessary and appropriate. And by voting for H.R. 4, Congress will
signal its intent to deploy such a system if it works.
But it will not change the fact that Russia, the old Soviet Union,
maintains thousands of nuclear weapons, which they can launch against
the United States at will. And for this reason, I cannot support those
who advocate abandoning the ABM treaty which has been the cornerstone
of strategic arms reduction. Deploying a National Missile Defense
system will improve our national security, but nothing can compare to
the importance of implementing START II, and negotiating a START III
agreement with Russia. We should not abandon the ABM treaty in our
haste to protect against the North Koreans of the world.
Missile defense has proved to be a tough nut to crack. We have been
trying to deploy a workable national missile defense system since the
1960's and have spent tens of billions of dollars, without success.
This bill today signals that Congress is deadly serious about solving
this problem. But it will not change the fact that national missile
defense is difficult. And it should not push us to abandon arms
reduction with the Russians.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 4, the
National Missile Defense Act, and to thank my colleagues Curt Weldon,
John Spratt, and Chairman Floyd Spence for their leadership on this
issue. It is important that the House consider this bill today in an
effort to educate America as to why this issue is so important to our
future.
Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that the security of the American
people is the primary and most important responsibility of the Federal
Government. In recent years we have learned that one of the biggest
threats facing that security is the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and more importantly the dissemination of sensitive missile
technology into the hands of our potential advisories.
Recent polls indicate that many Americans think our military forces
can currently shoot down any missile fired at the United States. Well,
Mr. Chairman, as the debate has pointed out here today, this is not the
case. The United States does not have a missile defense system today
and we won't have a missile defense system tomorrow unless this
Congress acts responsibility to direct our military to develop one.
H.R. 4 is the first step towards beginning this process.
If there is one thing I have learned since being elected to Congress
is that many nations, large and small, are developing their own weapons
of mass destruction and are moving ahead with potential use. Just last
year, two new countries entered the nuclear arms race. Pakistan and
India. And, many more nations much less friendly towards the United
States continue to pursue the ability to launch weapons of mass
destruction.
As this technology spreads throughout the world, the need for a
national missile defense is increased. The United States can not sit by
and wait for the next country or terrorist organization to threaten the
United States. We must be proactive and develop our own system to
combat that threat.
According to the bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission the ballistic missile
threat to the United States ``is broader, more mature and evolving more
rapidly than reported in estimates and reports of the intelligence
community.'' Even more alarming is that the simple fact that the United
States may have ``little or no warning'' before a ballistic missile
threat materializes. To quote Secretary Cohen, ``the ballistic missile
threat is real and is growing.''
As a member of the National Security Appropriations Committee, I have
learned first hand that we must act now. The cost to deploy an initial
National Missile Defense should not deter us from our responsibility.
It has been estimated that, in reality, this initial step will amount
to less than the amount the United States has spent on peacekeeping
deployments over the past six years. A national missile defense is an
investment worth making. If we can spend over $11 billion on a
``peacekeeping'' mission in Bosnia over the past four years, we can
surely establish a proper missile defense.
In closing Mr. Speaker, the ballistic missile threat to the United
States is real. It is not 5 years away. Congress needs to move forward
and deploy a National Missile Defense system to provide the fundamental
security that Americans deserve. H.R. 4 provides that framework and I
urge all my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. From
the end of World War II to the end of the cold war and the fall of the
Berlin Wall, our generation has been witness to some of the greatest
social changes and upheavals in history. We no longer face a world
fenced off by two superpower nations. Today we are a global community
facing a new and real threat from small rogue nations and their ability
to launch an attack directly on American soil.
I support this proposal because I want to protect my three young
children. However, my support comes with certain reservations. If we
can stand together to support this proposal to protect our children, we
must also stand together and enact legislation to provide our children
with access to technology in the classrooms, as well as the training
and education in our public schools to ensure they remain competitive
in the new digital economy. As the 21st Century approaches we are
facing the uncharted territory of the information age. We must do all
we can for this next generation of Americans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). All time for debate has
expired.
The bill is considered read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 120, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Allen
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Allen moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
That it is the policy of the United States to deploy a
ground-based national missile defense, with funding subject
to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual
appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense, that--
(1) has been demonstrated to be operationally effective
against the threat as defined as of the time of such
deployment and as projected for a reasonable period of time
thereafter;
(2) does not diminish the overall national security of the
United States by jeopardizing other efforts to reduce threats
to the United States, including negotiated reductions in
Russian nuclear forces; and
(3) is affordable and does not compromise the ability of
the uniformed service chiefs and the commanders of the
regional unified commands to meet their requirements for
operational readiness, quality of life of the troops,
programmed modernization of weapons systems, and the
deployment of planned theater missile defenses.
{time} 1615
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to
recommit.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending both the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
[[Page H1446]]
Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the work
they have done on this issue. This is a case where there are some of us
who respect and admire their expertise in this area but do disagree on
the substance of the policy, that it is the right one for this country.
It is certainly true that the threat that has evolved with rogue
nations is different from what it was perceived to be a number of years
ago, and it is appropriate to consider the responses to that. But I
would point out that couple of facts.
One is that even the system that is being proposed today is a very
limited defense system that would only deal, as a practical matter,
with the threat from rogue nations and not provide the broader security
that perhaps some believe.
But the objection that I have primarily is this:
This system has not been tested. We do not know whether or not it
will work, and I believe that the decision to deploy should follow and
not proceed; the testing, that would show whether or not we have a
viable system here.
The motion to recommit has three parts. The motion provides that it
is the policy of the United States to deploy a ground-based national
missile defense that, number one, has been demonstrated to be
operationally effective against the threat as perceived at the time we
come to a decision on deployment. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon) said the President's policy, and he is correct, is to deploy
some time next year after we have had some tests. Let me first mention
a couple of things:
We need to know we should not commit to deploying a national missile
defense until we know it works. This is extraordinarily difficult
technology, hitting a bullet with a bullet. The first intercept test
will be held in the summer of 1999, this year, but the first fully
integrated test of the entire system will not be held until the winter
of 2001. That is a long time off, and a lot can happen during that
time. Missile defense has been a program where we have run the risk of
rushing to rush ahead with the system before it is fully tested. There
are new tests that have been added which are appropriate, but we still,
I think, need to wait and to see how the test works before we move
ahead with the decision to deploy.
The second part of the motion provides that the motion to the
committee would provide that the system would not be deployed if it
would diminish the overall national security of the United States by
jeopardizing other efforts to reduce threats to the United States
including negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. We really
need to make sure that we handle this matter appropriately so that the
great threat of all of the nuclear weapons still available in Russia
are managed and controlled and that we do not do anything to jeopardize
our ability to deal with that task.
The third part of the motion is that the system must be affordable
and not compromise readiness quality of life, weapons modernization,
and exceedingly importantly, theater missile defenses needed to protect
our troops and our war ships that are forward deployed. The costs are,
as my colleagues know, subject to great debate, but last year in June
the GAO estimated the cost of 18 to 28 billion to develop, produce,
deploy and operate a national missile defense system through 2006. The
truth is we really do not know how big a cost we have, but it is in the
amount of billions and billions of dollars.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would say it is my hope that colleagues
will want more detail, want more testing, want more understanding, that
they will support the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to
recommit, and I would just like to remind our colleagues that our
Nation must maintain a defensive posture, but not at any cost.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have pleaded for increased funding for
spare parts, training, troop and quality of life initiatives . . . not
deployment of a national missile defense.
And if we look at the requests from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, those
requests are that this Congress funds spare parts, training of troops
and quality of life initiatives.
As my colleagues know, this Congress has not yet supported the
bailout funds for the disaster in Central America, and I was just there
a week ago, and I want to remind this Congress that 21 nations
responded to that, including ours, but we have not sent one dime of
assistance, Mr. Speaker. No missile defense system will ever protect
this country from a nation in poverty.
We have not yet saved social security, we have not reduced class
size, we have not provided for health care for all Americans, Mr.
Speaker. In our zeal to protect our democracy we were actually
jeopardizing our democracy by failing to protect our domestic
tranquility.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I began my remarks today by pointing out the
frustrations I have in trying to protect our people, the frustrations
of having to fight our own people to protect our own people. That
frustration has carried over today on the floor of this House. We have
people who resist the temptation to protect our own people. We are
trying to drag people, screaming and yelling, to that point where they
will have to protect our own people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to my
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). What he does not tell
our colleagues is that we have spent $19 billion in contingency funds
out of our defense budget for deployments that were never budgeted for
over the past 6 years. Nineteen billion dollars, all over the world, $9
billion in Bosnia; all of that money came out of a defense budget that
was already shrinking. So, we have made a commitment.
We should oppose the Allen motion to recommit. H.R. 4 is a simple,
straightforward bill with bipartisan support; the Allen motion is not.
It is complicated, it is hard to understand. H.R. 4 does not mandate a
system architecture which is why the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) and I worked together. His amendment would, in fact, say we
must have a ground-based system. It precludes a system that perhaps one
day could use our AEGIS technology. H.R. 4 addresses the serious
threats we face today, not unknown threats that may emerge down the
road. We cannot predict what they will be. Operational effectiveness
should be key in determining. The Allen motion mandates operational
effectiveness prior to establishing a policy. Mr. Speaker, that is
ridiculous. If we had done that, we would not have the Poseidon
program, we would not have Trident, we would not have the AIM-9 side
winder, we would not have AMRAAM, we would not have the Hawk. What a
ridiculous way to try to fund defense needs by saying we are going to
have the operational effectiveness prior to establishing a policy.
The Allen motion also could give Russia a veto over our own NMD
policy. No foreign Nation should have the ability to have a veto over
us. If an arms control agreement gets in the way, then we have got to
renegotiate that treaty or we have got to do what is best for our
people, not allow another Nation to hold us hostage.
H.R. 4 establishes and indeed is a high priority, it is got
bipartisan support, and it is time for us to vote on this issue, to cut
through the rhetoric; yes, if my colleagues are in favor, no, if they
are not. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Allen substitute and to
vote in favor of H.R. 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 152,
nays 269, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[[Page H1447]]
[Roll No. 58]
YEAS--152
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Stabenow
Strickland
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--269
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Spratt
NOT VOTING--11
Boehner
Burton
Buyer
Clyburn
Coburn
Doolittle
McCarthy (MO)
McKeon
Myrick
Stark
Stupak
{time} 1642
Messrs. BISHOP, TAUZIN, CONDIT, EHLERS and Ms. LEE changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. PALLONE, KIND, RAHALL, OWENS AND MS. KILPATRICK AND MS. EDDIE
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 58 on the Allen
motion to recommit with instructions, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, due to District Business, I missed rollcall
No. 58. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on passage of
the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 317,
nays 105, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
YEAS--317
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
[[Page H1448]]
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--105
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holt
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Strickland
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Boehner
Burton
Buyer
Clyburn
Coburn
McCarthy (MO)
McKeon
Meehan
Myrick
Ortiz
Stark
Stupak
{time} 1701
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. McKeon. Mr. Speaker, due to district business, I missed rollcall
No. 59. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 59 on H.R. 4, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________