[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.''

                          ____________________