[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 74 (Thursday, May 20, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H3426-H3437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DECLARATION OF POLICY OF UNITED STATES CONCERNING NATIONAL MISSILE 
                           DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 179

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4) 
     to declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy 
     a national missile defense, with a Senate amendment thereto, 
     and to consider in the House a motion offered by the chairman 
     of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to concur 
     in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion 
     shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion.

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
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 rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 4, Declaration of Policy of the United 
States Concerning National Missile Defense Deployment with a Senate 
amendment.
  The rule is twofold. First, it makes in order a motion to concur in 
the Senate amendment in the House. Second, the rule provides 1 hour of 
debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 is a straightforward bill, declaring that it is 
the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense 
system as soon as it is technologically possible and to seek continued 
negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1957, during a speech here in Washington, D.C., 
General Omar Bradley warned that we are now speeding inexorably towards 
a day when even the ingenuity of our scientists may be unable to save 
us from the consequences of a single rash act or a lone reckless hand 
upon the switch of an uninterceptible missile.
  Forty-two years later, General Bradley is still right, not because we 
may be unable to stop an incoming missile, but because we cannot.
  Not long ago, this House approved the national missile defense 
program by a margin of 317 to 105, a ratio of better than three to one. 
I am urging my colleagues to demonstrate their overwhelming support for 
this rule and its underlying bill once again.
  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.
  The argument that rogue nations need more than a decade to obtain 
ballistic missile capability is both technically irresponsible and 
politically naive. The threat is real. The threat is here. The threat 
is now.
  Even worse, most Americans do not realize that we have absolutely no 
defense, none at all, against a missile attack. We have been lulled 
into a false sense of security, unaware that nations across the globe 
are currently developing ballistic missiles which pose an immediate 
threat to our security.
  In fact, just last year, Iran launched a medium-range ballistic 
missile with the help of North Korea and Russia.
  We can protect ourselves from missiles of these potentially hostile 
nations. Deployment of a national mission defense system would cost 
less than our last six military peacekeeping missions.
  Let us pass this rule and pass this declaration of policy and protect 
our Nation and its people from the threat of a missile attack.
  I would like to commend the Committee on Armed Services, 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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, while I support the Senate amendments to H.R. 
4, I rise in opposition to the rule. I oppose the rule because of the 
process or the lack thereof.
  The Democratic members of the House Committee on Armed Services were 
totally bypassed on this bill; and that, Mr. Speaker, is reason enough 
to oppose the rule. The process is really incomprehensible, Mr. 
Speaker, since the Senate amendment to the House-passed version of the 
bill states very simply that it is the policy of the United States to 
deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective national 
defense missile system that will protect the territory of the United 
States from missile attack.
  That simple statement of policy is the distillation of what has been 
acrimonious public debate for over 15 years. What has changed, Mr. 
Speaker? I think most of the Members of this body can agree that what 
this bill calls for is not the Reagan Star Wars of the 1980s. Indeed, 
the Senate amendment wisely adds language that subjects any missile 
defense system to the annual appropriations process which, in this era 
of fiscal restraint, places real constraints on any proposed missile 
defense system.
  In addition, H.R. 4 does not mandate one system over another, nor 
does it mandate a date for deployment. In its simplicity, this bill 
acknowledges that the United States might well find itself subject to 
an attack that we should be prepared to defend against, but that we 
should do so within the context of the technological and financial 
realities of 1999.
  Mr. Speaker, few of us in this body can deny that the world has 
become, since the end of the Cold War, an even more dangerous place 
than we might have imagined. There are rogue nations and factions that 
seek to harm, if not destroy, the United States.
  This bill is an attempt to move forward the debate on the issue of 
the national missile defense without the acrimony that has accompanied 
the discussions on this subject in the past. H.R. 4 provides us with a 
good start, and I am hopeful that it will help us move to a resolution 
to a thorny, but incredibly important, issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow 1 hour of debate on the Senate 
amendments, a time limit that might have, given the importance of this 
matter, been extended to allow all Members who are interested in this 
matter an opportunity to speak.
  In spite of the fact that the House has conducted very little 
business in the past few weeks, the Republican majority continually 
fails to give matters of great importance adequate time to be fully 
aired on the floor. I would hope that when we return from the Memorial 
Day recess, one that has now been extended through an entire week, the 
Republican leadership will consider a schedule that gives important 
legislation more time to be debated by the elected Members of this 
body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is the House leading expert on missile 
defense.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule and in support of the underlying Senate amendments, but I am not 
happy with the legislation.
  I am not happy because, when we brought this bill up in the House, we

[[Page H3427]]

had a clear and distinct debate. As the original author of H.R. 4, I 
made the point known to every Member of this body that this would be a 
vote for the President's policy or against the President's policy.
  If my colleagues are supportive of holding this decision off for a 
year so it could be made during the middle of a Presidential election, 
then they should have opposed the House bill. And 102 brave Democrats 
and two brave Republicans did that. They opposed the bill.
  But I said, if in spite of the President's letter of opposition on 
the morning of the vote, if my colleagues were for moving forward now 
to make that decision, then they should vote for the bill. And 214 
Republicans did, joined by 103 Democrats, for a veto-proof margin. It 
was a clear and distinct point of opposition against this 
administration's policy. No mistake about it.
  Then we saw the White House and Bob Bell try to suspend what we had 
just done, try to tell us that it really did not mean what we said it 
was. In fact, the Senate on the floor of debates agreed to two 
amendments. These amendments mean nothing. They mean nothing. They are 
simply cover for liberal Democrats who do not support missile defense 
to have a way to cover their you know whats.
  One of them says that any missile defense program should be subject 
to the authorization and appropriation process. Well, duh. Everything 
we do in this Congress is subject to the authorization and 
appropriation process. Are we so naive as to think that somehow we pull 
manna from heaven and we bring dollars to the table and that is what 
funds programs? That amendment means nothing. It has no bearing on this 
bill or what we are doing here.
  The second amendment says that we should continue to negotiate 
reductions in arms. Who disagrees with that? The irony is that the 
Senate put an amendment on that only refers to reductions in Russian 
arms. What happens, Mr. Speaker, if the Russians regard this as only 
being an attempt to get them to reduce their arms while the U.S. is not 
paralleling that process? The amendments unfortunately passed, and we 
could do nothing about that.
  The Senate having the rules, they had forced us to take a bill that I 
am not happy with. But it does move the process forward, and I would 
say to my colleagues, in the full debate, we will have a colloquy that 
will be joined by the chairman of the full committee that will be 
joined by the majority leader and the Speaker who will clarify on the 
Record what this bill means by this body.

                              {time}  1415

  If the White House chooses to run for Congress, than they can 
interpret our bills. If Bob Bell chooses to step down and run for a 
House seat, he can change or he can then interpret our bills. But, 
short of that, nobody can interpret our legislation except for us. We 
are the ones who drafted the bill. We are the ones who passed the bill. 
We are the ones who passed the clean bill of this House, only to be 
amended by extraneous and irrelevant amendments on the Senate side.
  I will be asking my colleagues today to vote ``yes.'' But clearly, 
during our debate and discussion we will clarify the record time and 
again to show that there is a clear and distinct difference between the 
position of this administration and the position that 317 Members of 
Congress supported.
  I am outraged that right after we passed this bill President Clinton 
would send me a letter that says this: ``Next year we will determine 
whether or not to deploy for the first time a limited national missile 
defense against these threats.'' That is the letter.
  That is not what this bill says. It does not say, Mr. President, next 
year. It says today we will pass this conference report, we will move 
forward, and we will do it in direct contradiction to what this 
administration is trying to spin.
  And when the White House has its signing ceremony, I do not know 
whether I will be invited or not, but if I am, I will clearly make the 
case that it is a clear policy difference between this White House and 
their attempt to spin what we did that they could not defeat in this 
body. We could have overridden the veto because we had 103 Democrats 
agree with this, along with 214 Republicans, and this was at a time 
when the White House issued a statement in opposition to our bill.
  These amendments mean nothing. All of us agree that an authorization 
and appropriation processes must be followed. All of us want to see 
reductions in arms by both Russia and America. Unfortunately, the 
Senate amendment only says Russia, which could be read as 
destabilizing.
  The point is, the crux and the actual content of this bill is simple. 
Today we are saying in the Congress of the United States that it is 
time to deploy a national missile defense capability.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want my good friend and colleague from 
Pennsylvania to know that I was one of the Democrats who voted for his 
resolution. But I must say, we held a hearing in the defense 
appropriations subcommittee, now called the Subcommittee on National 
Security Appropriations, this year. Lieutenant General Lester Lyles 
came over and briefed our committee. And, frankly, we are not doing 
very well in developing this technology. We have got serious problems.
  I personally believe that if we look at missile defense, that the 
number one priority when we deploy our troops is to have a capable 
theater missile defense system. We need to focus on that first. And of 
course, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania well knows, we have had five 
failures of the THAAD system, which is fundamental to having a credible 
theater missile defense system. We have the Patriot 3, the PAC-3 
program, which is doing quite well.
  Now, if we cannot do theater missile defense, no matter how loudly we 
yell, we are not going to command a national missile defense system 
into being. Now, General Lyles has testified before our subcommittee 
that it is going to be at least 2005 before we have done the testing 
that is necessary to have any confidence that we would have a credible 
limited system.
  So I think the language in this resolution that says let us be honest 
with ourselves, we cannot be in denial here, that we are going to do 
this, I voted to do it when it is technologically feasible. If the 
science is not there, if the engineering is not there, if the 
technology is not there, we cannot just wish it into existence.
  And so I hope that my colleagues will think about this issue. This is 
one of the most important national security issues that we face. None 
of us likes the idea of being vulnerable to any country's potential for 
using a ballistic missile. But think about it. We had the whole era of 
the Cold War when the Russians had thousands of warheads aimed at the 
United States and we had thousands of warheads aimed at them. What did 
that produce? That produced deterrence. We knew that if either one of 
us struck the other that we would open up the possibility for a 
catastrophic war that would destroy both countries, and so we were 
deterred.
  And today the United States has more offensive capability than any 
other country in the world and more credible and more capable offensive 
capability. And I believe that any country that thought about launching 
an attack against the United States would have to be out of their mind, 
because they would know that we would know where the missile launched 
from and we could have the potential to respond with overwhelming 
force. I think deterrence still is a valid doctrine that we should not 
forget about as we work towards getting a national missile defense 
system in place.
  So I think the language of the Senate improves and makes more 
credible this resolution that we previously voted on. And I think my 
view is that I want this technology to work.
  One of the companies from my State is in charge of trying to 
integrate this and make it work. But we cannot tell the American people 
that there is something out there that will work until we can 
demonstrate it, and we have not been able to demonstrate THAAD. We have 
not been able to demonstrate a comprehensive theater missile defense 
system.
  And so I think we ought to be very sober about any of these 
exhortations that we are hearing about from people

[[Page H3428]]

here who want to wish this into existence.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let us focus the debate on 
the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague just spoke and made some 
points. First of all, he said the THAAD program has had five failures. 
What he did not properly explain is that of the five failures that 
occurred, none of them, none of them involved hit-to-kill. The five 
failures that occurred were caused by quality control problems of the 
Lockheed Martin contractor, and we in the Congress took the lead to 
force them to begin to pay for those failures.
  We have never had a test yet to actually get to hit-to-kill, but in 
fact the THAAD program has accomplished 28 of 30 milestones. That is a 
tremendous success. So to characterize the THAAD program as a failure 
does a terrible disservice to those people who are working on that 
program because the facts do not bear that.
  Second, the gentleman made the point that this is a terrible 
technology challenge. Well, it is. And he pointed out that a company in 
his area, Boeing, is a lead system integrator. What the gentleman did 
not mention is that the head of this program, Dr. Peller, in 
congressional testimony said the challenge to build the Space Station 
was more difficult than to build a national missile defense. Now, that 
is the top official of the company that comes from the district of the 
gentleman.
  The third is deterrence, that we somehow can rely on the deterrence 
of the 1980s. That may have been true. I do not want to trust North 
Korea not to fire that Taepo-Dong 1 at one of our cities. And I would 
say to my good friend and colleague, 28 young Americans, half of them 
from my State, came back from Desert Storm in body bags because we 
could not defend against a low-complexity missile that wiped them out.
  I agree with the gentleman, theater missile defense is our top 
priority; and I use my votes and my voice to help accomplish that. But 
we cannot ignore the threat to our country by saying North Korea will 
avoid attacking us because of deterrence.
  And finally, this is what offends me. I will make a prediction on the 
floor today. The reason why the White House is spinning this the way 
they are is because next year, in the middle of the presidential 
campaign, Vice President Gore will announce that we are going to deploy 
NMD. That is an absolute travesty and an outrage for this country.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to say to my colleagues, 
we want a national missile defense system against a limited attack. I 
think that is a wise thing to do.
  I am just saying to everyone here today, after having General Lyles 
come before our committee and after going through each of the 
technologies in place, I have to report to my colleagues that General 
Lyles says 2005 is the earliest we would have a capability, and that 
capability has not yet been demonstrated. We have not been able to do 
what it takes to put it in place. It does not exist. And we cannot just 
create something out of whole cloth.
  Now, let us make it work. Let us be sober. Let us be realistic and 
honest with the House and the American people. Let us wait and do this 
when it is technologically feasible. We cannot do it, anyway. I mean, 
we cannot wish this into existence. So I urge everybody, including my 
colleague from the State of Washington, to be sober.
  I can remember when these people came in from my own State and they 
told and told me in 1983 that this technology was in hand. Edward 
Teller came and told us that the technology was in hand. It is now 
1999, we have spent billions, and it is not in hand. This is a hard 
problem.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. SKELETON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to speak on 
the rule. I am compelled to do so because I speak today about the 
process, about the process that brings us to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I 
speak not as a Democrat but as a Member of this House and as a member 
of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Just over 2 months ago, the House and the Senate passed H.R. 4 and S. 
257, respectively, similar legislation, declaring it the policy of the 
United States to deploy a national missile defense. But since then, Mr. 
Speaker, the process has been hijacked.
  There was no conference committee between the House and the Senate. 
As a result, differences in the two measures have not been reconciled 
as normally they are reconciled. Rather, we are being asked to concur 
in the exclusive work of the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. 
That is not right.
  Implied in this fact is the notion that the Senate has a patent on 
all the knowledge and all the insight on this particular matter. And, 
of course, I reject that because we in this body, in our committee, 
have been very, very active on this issue.
  And, therefore, I am disappointed that the views of the House 
Members, both Democrats and Republicans, have not been afforded regular 
order consideration in the matter that is before us today. I think the 
process that brings us here today is not only unfortunate but it is 
unnecessary.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how appropriate the timing of this debate. 
As we speak, folks are lined up around the block across America to see 
the new Star Wars movie. And what better time than right now, with the 
refrain of that great Star Wars theme music, the opening day of ``The 
Phantom Menace,'' for us to be taking up this proposal.
  Just like the original movie, this bill puts a tractor beam in the 
Capitol dome and aims it right at the wallets of the American taxpayer 
to support this defective system. This Star Wars scheme is a 
technological failure. It has failed one test after another, again and 
again. An accelerated program to test it has been described as ``a rush 
to failure'' by former Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welsh.
  I am reminded of Han Solo's admonition to Luke Skywalker: ``Jumping 
through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy.'' Well, hitting a 
bullet with a bullet, hitting in fact many bullets, with bullets 
raining down over the entire continental United States at 15,000 miles 
an hour, and doing it accurately and reliably, is not like dusting 
crops, either. And yet here we are, year after year, having demands to 
throw more good money after bad.
  I disagree with my colleague from Washington State about this 
measure, but he is right about one thing. Wishing is not going to make 
it so. The first law of Disney Wish and make it so, does not apply 
here; rather it is the laws of physics and thermodynamics that control 
weather this can be accomplished.

                              {time}  1430

  Just 3 days ago, we acted in this Congress on spare parts and 
training and readiness. As Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Skelton said 
recently, the massive amount of experiments on these kind of Star Wars 
programs drain resources from personnel and readiness accounts. If 
there is a readiness problem, it is a problem that this Republican 
Congress created in preferring pork over readiness. We are diverting 
these kind of precious resources away from our true military and 
nonmilitary needs because we have people here who keep coming up year 
after year asking us to throw an infinite amount of taxpayer money at a 
problem that has real physical limitations.
  I agree fully with my colleague from Texas, Mr. Frost, about the 
substance of this resolution, about the important meaning of the Senate 
amendments. But the effect I disagree with him on, because it is clear 
that the Star Wars advocates are using this measure to boost their 
cause. The missile defense that is being advocated, even if it worked, 
would not defend us from the real threats we face from terrorism, with 
bombings at the World Trade Center, with gas attacks like that that 
occurred in a Japanese subway.
  If we really want to do something to address our security, the 
Congress

[[Page H3429]]

ought simply to read the National Research Council of the National 
Academy of Science report this week about the threat, the very real 
threat that we have from the potential or diversion of Russian nuclear 
materials. Our Energy Department had to spend $600,000 in emergency 
funds last year because guards at some of these facilities in Russia 
had no winter uniforms for outside patrols and left without paychecks 
searching for food. That is a real security threat that should concern 
every one of us. We are not doing very much about it.
  Implementing the START II nuclear missile reduction treaty would 
eliminate 3,000 Russian nuclear warheads, in fact, that this fantasy 
proposes to deal with in outer space. Such implementation would do a 
great deal more to assure the security and safety of American families 
than this proposal. We should be giving that our highest national 
security priority. Instead of diverting attention from this vital 
objective, this Congress should be encouraging a START III to have 
further reduction in nuclear armaments around the world and truly 
protect our freedom.
  What so many in this House fail to recognize is that national 
security is measured in terms other than simply how many bombs, bullets 
and missiles we possess. It is measured in economic strength, in 
productivity and in the success of our efforts to reduce threats from 
abroad. I urge the House to consider defense programs that meet our 
true security needs and reject this proposal.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I believe in ballistic missile defense if it 
is feasible, but we have yet to prove that it is feasible. I was the 
principal cosponsor of H.R. 4 because I thought we needed a focus to 
our ballistic missile defense program. I thought we needed to make a 
decision that we would go forward with the objective of fielding a 
system, a system that worked and would afford us at least limited 
protection against an accidental strike in this country. But I was 
honest to acknowledge on the House floor that we are not there yet. We 
have not proven the capability of this system. However, having spent 
$50 billion over the last 15 years, I thought it was time to bring 
those efforts to fruition, to build a workable system if we can as 
opposed to putting more viewgraphs on the shelf.
  H.R. 4 was an effort to reach some kind of bipartisan consensus on a 
very basic proposition, that the focus of our efforts in ballistic 
missile defense would be to deploy a system. We passed that bill here 
with a hefty margin. We sent it to the other body, they struck 
everything in it, adopted a completely different bill and now they send 
it back to us in a process that is a breach of procedure, bypassing the 
procedures that are long established and that are intended to achieve a 
consensus between both Houses. Normally when we pass a bill and send it 
to the Senate and they pass a different bill, there is a conference to 
hammer out the differences, a conference to establish a record as to 
why the compromises in language were made to the extent that these are 
made. There is no record here. We have had no conference. We are 
bypassing the traditional procedure. For what reason I do not know. 
This is no way to legislate. It is also no way to build bipartisan 
consensus on something that has been sort of a political totem.
  As I have said before, we do not debate ballistic missile defense the 
way we debated the MX or the B-2 or other major systems. This system is 
so charged with political significance that it is a totally different 
kind of debate. One of the things we will not have as a result of this 
procedure is a record, a record to explain the legislative history of 
what some truly ambiguous and unclear language in this particular bill 
actually means.
  This bill calls for billions of dollars to be spent to deploy a 
national missile defense system, quote, as soon as it is 
technologically feasible, or possible. What does this mean? I am 
concerned that it could mean that as soon as we have got the technology 
or think we have it in hand, we are supposed to rush to deployment, 
even though we might end up with a suboptimal or a substandard system. 
I am concerned that it may mean before we have adequately tested, we 
will move to deployment. That is not an idle concern.
  Yesterday in the defense authorization bill markup, an amendment was 
added which allowed the director of this program and the Secretary of 
Defense to begin deployment before this system was fully tested, a 
dispensation that is granted to very few defense programs. It could 
mean that we will deploy even though it is extravagantly expensive, far 
more expensive than the protection it would allow us. It could mean any 
number of different things. We do not know. There is no legislative 
history. We have not been able in the House to have the opportunity to 
give meaning to that particular phrase.
  The bill specifies that this national missile system must be capable 
of affording us a limited defense, or defense against a limited 
ballistic missile attack. What does ``limited'' mean? Is it an 
unauthorized attack, an accidental attack, or an attack by, say, one 
submarine which could mean easily more than 100 warheads? Very, very 
critical to have that definition pinned down.
  In our bill, we had legislative history. We said it was an accidental 
attack. We limited the scope of the effectiveness of the system. Here 
they talk about a limited attack. That could range from 5 warheads to 
200 warheads. It is not clear at all. We have no opportunity to make it 
clear.
  Furthermore, the timing of this bill, the timing of the previous 
bill, disturbed me. I know it disturbed the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon), too. Because this bill is misperceived by the Russians. I 
said that on the floor, I said it in committee. The Russians see this 
bill as somehow a potential or anticipatory breach of the ABM treaty. I 
think that is unfounded.
  I think what we are trying to move towards is a system where we can 
rely upon our defenses so that we do not have to rely so much upon the 
threat of a retaliatory strike. I think that would be an improvement in 
deterrence and an improvement in the stability in the world. The 
Russians do not see it that way yet. They see us moving away from the 
ABM treaty. This language in this bill is not bound to give them 
comfort and encouragement, because this bill says that in addition to 
deploying defenses in this country, we should also seek to negotiate 
reductions in Russian nuclear weapons. I agree that we should be 
negotiating with the Russians. We should have done START II. We should 
have pressed them to ratify it long before now. But they perceive START 
II as being tilted against them.
  Now we are saying in this bill, ``We're going to build defenses and 
we want you to build down your missile systems,'' which suggests that 
we want complete superiority here. It is not the formulation for a 
successful bargain. It is not the kind of message we need to send the 
Russians, particularly at a time when we are leaning on them and 
Chernomyrdin is today in Belgrade trying to cut a deal with us. It is 
just ill-timed. I will probably vote for this bill because I believe in 
ballistic missile defense and I do not want to muddle that message on 
my part but I am very, very disappointed in the process and procedure 
it is taking.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is important that we take a look at reminding ourselves as we 
debate this rule that the national missile defense program, the vote 
most recently held in this House, was 317-105, better than a 3 to 1 
ratio of the Members of this great body in support of a national 
missile defense program. Number two, on some of the questions with the 
rule, I would remind all of my colleagues that at the Committee on 
Rules yesterday, it was a voice vote on the rule approval that we have 
before us today.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must go back to my opening remarks, that most 
Americans do not realize that we have absolutely no defense, none at 
all, against a missile attack. We have been lulled into a false sense 
of security, unaware that nations across the globe are currently 
developing ballistic missiles which pose an immediate threat to our 
security. Mr. Speaker, today is the day to act. I urge passage of this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H3430]]

  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I offer a 
motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4) to 
declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a national 
missile defense.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will designate the 
motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:
  Mr. Spence moves to concur in the Senate amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Missile Defense Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as 
     is technologically possible an effective National Missile 
     Defense system capable of defending the territory of the 
     United States against limited ballistic missile attack 
     (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with 
     funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations 
     and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile 
     Defense.

     SEC. 3. POLICY ON REDUCTION OF RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FORCES.

       It is the policy of the United States to seek continued 
     negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1995, Norway launched a weather rocket that was 
mistaken by sensors in Russia for a launch of an ICBM from one of our 
nuclear submarines. They were in a final countdown in the process of 
preparing to launch a missile attack against us, and only minutes away 
when they finally discovered the mistake and called off the launch. We 
were that close to being faced with nuclear warfare.
  Mr. Speaker, most people in this country do not realize we have no 
defense against that type of an attack nor do we have a defense against 
even one missile launched accidentally from somewhere else in the world 
today. There are literally thousands of these missiles abroad in the 
world today. The threat of ballistic missile attack is real and it is 
here today.
  Last summer, an independent study by the bipartisan Rumsfeld 
Commission unanimously concluded that the ballistic missile threat to 
our country is broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than 
anticipated, and that the United States may have little or no warning 
of a ballistic missile attack. With each passing day, our Nation's 
vulnerability to missile attack grows. Rogue nations like North Korea, 
Libya, Iran and Iraq are working aggressively to acquire the capability 
to strike the American homeland with ballistic missiles carrying 
weapons of mass destruction. Russia and China already possess this 
capability. I am confident that the more than 200 Members who attended 
the Rumsfeld Commission extraordinary classified briefing here on this 
House floor back in March have a much greater appreciation of the need 
to move forward with missile defenses and of the reason why we need to 
make the kind of commitment that we are making in this bill.

                              {time}  1445

  Let me briefly make a few points:
  First, contrary to intelligence estimates that predicted the 
ballistic missile threat was more than a decade away, the missile 
threat to our country is real, as I have said before, and it is here 
today.
  Second, technology has matured to the point where moving forward and 
deploying a national missile defense system is feasible. There will 
always be test failures, there will always be technological challenges, 
but Americans have never shied away from a challenge and certainly 
never in the face of a threat that gets worse every day.
  Third, the cost of a national missile defense system, by the 
administration's own estimates, will comprise less than 1 percent of 
the overall defense budget and less than 2 percent of our military 
modernization budget over the next 5 years. Because to deploy an 
initial national missile defense capability will amount to less than 
the amount our country has spent on peacekeeping developments, 
deploying missiles in the past 6 years, this strikes me as a small 
price and a sound investment.
  Mr. Speaker, national missile defense is necessary, feasible and 
affordable, but in spite of the growing consensus that the threat is 
real and the technology is maturing, the administration has steadfastly 
refused to commit to actually deploy a national missile defense. H.R. 4 
addresses the administration's unexplainable lack of commitment in this 
regard and represents the Congress' bipartisan belief that all 
Americans should be protected against ballistic missiles.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to concur with the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 4, an act to declare it the policy of the 
United States to deploy national missile defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Missouri, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on National Security, 
that I concur with him and that we should pass this, and I am not at 
all upset about what the Senate did. I think putting in the phrase 
``when technologically feasible'' means that we have to have something 
to deploy. And I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the 
committee but I must tell my colleagues, when we brought over the 
people who were running this program and we went through each of the 
various possibilities, they have said basically that at this point we 
do not have something to deploy. Now, we just cannot make it up. Either 
it is deployable or it is not. Either we have tested it and we know it 
will work or it will not.
  So I urge everyone here that we should stay with our commitment to 
keep working on this problem, but to start deploying something that we 
have not tested is an absolute recipe for failure.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I hope that 
we get a national missile defense, but let us not waste money trying to 
deploy something that we have not yet demonstrated, and I think theater 
missile defense should be our first priority. I appreciate the 
gentleman having yielded to me.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to continue very, very briefly, and then I will yield to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  At today's motion I would like to, and I hope we all understand that 
the technology needed to develop an ICBM capable of delivering a 
warhead of mass destruction against large portions of these United 
States is today, in the hands of at least one so-called rogue actor 
nation. Worse, much of the needed technology has already been 
demonstrated, and now I 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, the time the administration says is needed to deploy a suitable 
limited national missile defense system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Sisisky).
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4, and I ask my colleagues 
to support it.
  As some of as my colleagues know, I changed my mind about the way we 
need to approach ballistic missile defense. I always believed we needed 
BMD, but over the last year I changed my mind about when we needed it, 
and that was because of the report of the Commission to Assess 
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. This was a bipartisan 
commission charged to assess the nature and magnitude of existing and 
emerging ballistic missile threats to the United States.

[[Page H3431]]

  The report and testimony of the commission made two things clear. 
First, the ballistic missile threat to the United States may be coming 
faster than previously estimated. Second, the threat to our friends, 
allies and troops overseas already exists.
  That is why I cosponsored this bill, and that is why Congress 
overwhelmingly decided to go on record in support of ballistic missile 
defense.
  Now I think there are legitimate grounds to be unhappy with the 
procedure we are using today. I think everyone on our side agrees that 
accepting a Senate amendment without benefit of a conference is not the 
best way to do this, and those of us in the House would have liked to 
sit down with Members of the other body to talk about what they mean by 
phrases like ``technologically feasible.'' And for another thing, it 
fails to recognize tireless contributions and leadership of Members on 
our side, such as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but it does make the point 
by putting Congress on record that it is the policy of the United 
States to deploy an effective missile defense.
  On balance, Mr. Speaker, I think this language sends a message that 
is vital to national security, and I urge this body to support it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairman and the ranking member for their support, and let me again 
clarify some points here.
  First of all, none of us are mandating that something be deployed 
before it is ready, none of us. We are not that naive to put a date 
certain on requiring that something be done by a certain time, and no 
one should misinterpret this legislation as requiring that.
  What we are saying is that we are making a clear and distinct policy 
change here as a Nation. For the first time we are saying publicly that 
it is the policy of this country to deploy a limited national missile 
defense system against those rogue threats that we see emerging.
  We took great efforts in this process to bring the Russians in, to 
show them that this was not aimed against them. In fact, a number of 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle traveled with us to Moscow 
the week before the vote with the former CIA Director of the Clinton 
administration, Jim Woolsey, with the former Secretary of Defense and 
White House Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld, and with the former Deputy 
Secretary of State, Bill Schneider, and we took the time to give the 
Russian leadership the briefing as to the emerging threats and 
convinced them that this was not being done to score some type of 
strategic advantage over Russia. This was being done because in today's 
world North Korea is not a stable nation that deterrents will work 
with. In today's world the Chinese now have at least 18 long-range 
ICBMs. We know that Iran and Iraq both have medium-range missiles and 
are developing long-range capabilities.
  So, Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons we are making a clear and 
distinct policy change that will occur when the President signs this 
bill. And the key thing that I want to keep stressing is, one, that 
when the President signs this bill, that is the change in policy of 
this government, that we are deploying a national missile defense 
system as soon as that technology is available, not before it is 
available, not prematurely, but as soon as it is available. We do not 
recommend the technology. We do not say land-based over sea-based. We 
do not say one site over three sites. We say as soon as available and 
as soon as it is ready, we deploy it.
  That is a clear and marked difference over the policy that exists 
today, and for the White House to try to spin what we are doing is 
totally wrong. And I want the record to clearly show that this Congress 
and the other body are on record as interpreting our own bill, and 
there should be no one in the White House in future years who will try 
to spin what it is we are trying to accomplish today.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
our distinguished chairman for the record. I rise to engage in a 
colloquy with the chairman.
  There has been some misconception concerning this national missile 
defense bill. The purpose of this bill is very simply to establish a 
U.S. policy, the deployment of a national missile defense, as soon as 
technologically possible. In the chairman's view, does this bill commit 
the United States to deploy a national missile defense?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, it does.
  The intent of this bill is straightforward and unequivocal. However, 
I understand that in a May 7 letter the President indicated, and I 
quote, the legislation makes clear that no decision on deployment has 
been made, unquote. Following the Senate passage of S. 257 earlier this 
year, the Secretary of State even sent a cable to our embassies 
articulating this same opinion.
  I do not understand how anyone could look at this legislation 
objectively and arrive at the same conclusion as the President and the 
Secretary of State. This bill makes it clear that the Nation is 
committed and is committing to the deployment of a national missile 
defense.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record both 
the White House letter as well as the State Department cable so that 
everyone can see what type of spin the administration is trying to 
place on this bill.
                                                  The White House,
                                          Washington, May 7, 1999.
     Hon. Curt Weldon,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Weldon: Thank you for your letter on 
     National Missile Defense (NMD). We are committed to meeting 
     the growing danger that outlaw nations may develop and field 
     long-range missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass 
     destruction against the United States and our allies.
       Next year, we will determine whether to deploy for the 
     first time a limited national missile defense against these 
     threats. This decision will be made when we review the 
     results of flight tests and other developmental efforts, 
     consider cost estimates, and evaluate the threat. In making 
     our determination, we will also review progress in achieving 
     our arms control objectives, including negotiating any 
     amendments to the ABM Treaty that may be required to 
     accommodate a possible NMD deployment.
       I am pleased that the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, 
     included in its NMD legislation two amendments that 
     significantly changed the original bill, which I strongly 
     opposed. By specifying that any NMD deployment must be 
     subject to the authorization and appropriations process, the 
     legislation makes clear that no decision on deployment has 
     been made. By putting the Senate on record as continuing to 
     support negotiated reductions in strategic nuclear arms, the 
     bill also reaffirms that our missile defense policy must take 
     into account our arms control objectives.
       We want to move ahead on the START III framework, which I 
     negotiated with President Yeltsin in 1997, to cut Russian and 
     U.S. arsenals 90 percent from Cold War levels, while 
     maintaining the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic 
     stability. The changes made in the NMD bill during Senate 
     debate ensure these crucial objectives will be taken into 
     account fully as we pursue our NMD program.
       Thank you again for writing on this important matter.
           Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
                                  ____



                    S. 257--National Missile Defense

       Background.--U.S. policy regarding ballistic missile 
     defense most recently was elaborated in reftels (n.b., 
     identical text to different addresses). During the March 
     floor debate on S. 257, the Cochran National Missile Defense 
     (NMD) bill, the Senate on a bipartisan basis adopted two very 
     important amendments that modified the original bill that had 
     been reported out of the Armed Services Committee on 
     essentially a party-line vote last month. The first amendment 
     makes clear that any deployment of a limited U.S. NMD system 
     must be subject to the authorization and appropriations 
     process, thereby underscoring that no deployment decision has 
     been made. The second amendment confirms that U.S. policy 
     with regard to the possible deployment of a limited NMD 
     system must take account of our objectives with regard to 
     arms control. With these improvements, the administration 
     informed Senate leaders that it would accept S. 257 as 
     amended if it reaches the President's desk in this form. On 
     March 17, the Senate passed S. 257 (as amended) in a rollcall 
     vote, 97-3.

[[Page H3432]]

       Posts are authorized to draw upon the materials contained 
     herein in addressing this matter. The text of S. 257, as 
     passed by the Senate is at paragraph 3. White House talking 
     points prepared by the National Security Council are at 
     paragraph 4. The text of a statement by the President, 
     released on March 17, is at paragraph 5.
       The text of S. 257 as passed by the Senate is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress Assembled,
       Section 1. Short title.
       This act may be cited as the National Missile Defense Act 
     of 1999''.
       Section 2. National Missile Defense Policy.
       It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as 
     is technologically possible an effective National Missile 
     Defense System capable of defending the territory of the 
     United States against limited ballistic missile attack 
     (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with 
     funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations 
     and the annual appropriation of funds for national missile 
     defense.
       Section 3. Policy on reduction of Russian nuclear forces.
       It is the policy of the United States to seek continued 
     negotiated reductions in Russian Nuclear Forces.
       Begin White House Points:
       The administration made clear its strong opposition to the 
     Cochran NMD bill as it emerged from the Armed Services 
     Committee last month. The Presidents senior national security 
     advisors recommended that the bill be vetoed were it to reach 
     the President's desk in that form.
       We are pleased that the Senate on two bipartisan votes, 
     adopted two very important amendments to the bill and thereby 
     significantly improved it.
       The first amendment makes clear that no decision has been 
     made to deploy a limited NMD system. It does so by specifying 
     that any such decision must necessarily be subject to the 
     annual authorization and appropriations process.
       The President has not proposed that any funds be authorized 
     or appropriated in the FY2000 Defense Department budget for 
     NMD deployment. Whether he requests such funds in FY 2000 
     (the first fiscal year in which the administration intends to 
     address the deployment question) will depend on the 
     administration's assessment of the four factors. Which it 
     believes must be taken into account in deciding whether to 
     field this system:
       (1) Has the threat materialized as quickly as we now expect 
     it will;
       (2) Has the technology been demonstrated to be 
     operationally effective;
       (3) Is the system affordable; and
       (4) What are the implications of going forward with NMD 
     deployment for our objectives with regard to achieving 
     further reductions in strategic nuclear arms under START II 
     and START III?
       The second amendment makes clear that in pursuing our 
     policy with regard to the deployment of a limited NMD, we 
     must also take into account our objectives with regard to 
     securing continued negotiated reductions in Russian and U.S. 
     nuclear forces.
       Through START II and START III, the United States can 
     realize the removal of up to an additional 8,000 Russian and 
     U.S. strategic nuclear warheads. These treaties are clearly 
     in our national security interests.
       At the Helsinki Summit, Presidents-Clinton and 
     Yeltsin declared that the ABM Treaty is of fundamental 
     significance to the attainment of our objectives for START 
     II and START III.
       In this context, it is crucial that the United States 
     negotiate in good faith any amendments to the AMB Treaty that 
     may be necessary to accommodate any U.S. limited NMD system.
       The second Senate amendment affirms the Senate's 
     recognition that the arms control dimension of the NMD 
     deployment question must be taken into account.
       As a result of these two amendments, the administration 
     will accept S. 257 if it reaches the President's desk in its 
     current form.
       If asked--does this mean that the administration will hold 
     NMD hostage to the ABM Treaty?
       The administration has articulated its strong commitment to 
     the ABM Treaty, which it regards as a cornerstone of 
     strategic stability. At the same time, the administration has 
     also made clear that it will not give Russia--or any other 
     state--a veto over any missile defense deployment decision 
     that it believes is vital to our national security interests.


                       statement by the president

       I am pleased that the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, 
     included in its National Missile Defense (NMD) legislation 
     two amendments that significantly change the original bill, 
     which I strongly opposed. By specifying that any NMD 
     deployment must be subject to the authorization and 
     appropriations process, the legislation now makes clear that 
     no decision on deployment has been made. By putting the 
     Senate on record as continuing to support negotiated 
     reductions in strategic nuclear arms, the bill reaffirms that 
     our missile defense policy must take into account our arms 
     control objectives.
       We are committed to meeting the growing danger that outlaw 
     nations will develop and deploy long-range missiles that 
     could deliver weapons of mass destruction against us and our 
     allies. Next year, we will, for the first time, determine 
     whether to deploy a limited national missile defense against 
     these threats, when we review the results of flight tests and 
     other developmental efforts, consider cost estimates, and 
     evaluate the threat. In making our determination, we will 
     also review progress in achieving our arms control 
     objectives, including negotiating any amendments to the Arm 
     Treaty that may be required to accommodate a possible NMD 
     deployment.
       This week, the Russian Duma took an encouraging step toward 
     obtaining final approval of START II. We want to move ahead 
     on the START III framework, which I negotiated with President 
     Yeltsin in 1997, to cut Russian and U.S. arsenals 80 percent 
     from cold war levels, while maintaining the Arm Treaty as a 
     cornerstone of strategic stability. The changes made in the 
     NMD bill during Senate debate ensure these crucial objectives 
     will be fully taken into account as we pursue our NMD 
     Program.

  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from South Carolina. We 
cannot have a policy to deploy without a commitment to deploy.
  In his letter the President also said, and I quote, next year we will 
determine whether to deploy a limited national missile defense, 
unquote. However, when the President signs this bill into law, he will 
be committing the U.S. to deploy. When the President signs this bill, 
he is also committing the Nation to deploy a national missile defense 
system as soon as technologically possible. The law is the law.
  I would also like to ask the gentleman from South Carolina if the 
President is correct in his view that subjecting a national missile 
defense program to the authorization and appropriation process can 
somehow be interpreted as meaning the decision on deployment has not 
yet been made.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, such an interpretation is not correct. The 
bill's language neither states nor implies anything of the sort. In 
fact, all Department of Defense programs are subject to authorization 
and appropriation.
  This is a matter of current law in both Titles 10 and 31 of the U.S. 
Code. It is a constitutional requirement. Every weapon system we have 
deployed, bombers, missiles, tanks, fighters, ships and so on, goes 
through the authorization and the appropriation process. Deployment of 
these systems is simply the manifestation of policies that have been 
agreed upon to meet national security requirements.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. As the original author of this 
legislation, I fully agree. The administration has now recognized the 
threat, as evidenced by the CIA, and when the President signs this 
bill, he will be committing the Nation to the deployment of a national 
missile defense to meet that threat.
  I would also state that in signing this bill the President is 
indicating a commitment to use the funds he has budgeted for national 
missile defense only for the execution of the policy he enacts and 
endorses by signing this legislation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. The President 
has budgeted $10.5 billion through fiscal year 2005 to support national 
missile defense deployment. When the President signs this bill, I 
believe it also reflects a commitment that these funds will be used to 
resolve the programmatic issues, to establish the technological 
feasibility of a national missile defense and, finally, to deploy a 
national missile defense system.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the chairman believe that this bill 
in any way conditions deployment of a national missile defense system 
on further arms reductions with the Russians?
  Mr. SPENCE. I do not. The section of this bill dealing with the arms 
reduction with the Russians is consistent with the current arms control 
policy and only reflects Congress' support for continued negotiations. 
There is no explicit or implicit linkage in H.R. 4 between achieving 
arms control reductions and the commitment to deploy national missile 
defense.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I agree with the chairman. Russia, or any 
other country, does not now have nor will it ever have a veto over our 
Nation's deployment of a national missile defense to protect our 
citizens.
  Mr. SPENCE. I thank my friend and colleague for his strong interest 
in clarifying the record on this important legislation.

[[Page H3433]]

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying 
amendments and the underlying bill as well. I thank and congratulate 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, and in 
particular my colleagues the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) 
and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their efforts in 
this behalf.
  At a time of multiplying chaos in the world, this bill gives us a 
measure of certainty. The sources of chaos are technological as new 
weapons systems and new instruments of terrorism proliferate every day. 
The sources of chaos are political as new states are imposed upon 
ancient religious and ethnic rivalries. The only thing that is certain 
in our political evaluation is that there will be more chaos in the 
years to come. The certainty that is behind this bill is that we are 
making a decision for certain as a Congress that it will be the policy 
of this country to deploy and defend ourselves in the very best way we 
can with a national missile defense system.
  The arguments against this bill are diplomatic, economic and 
strategic. I find each of the arguments lacking. The diplomatic 
argument against this bill is that it will somehow destabilize the 
world.
  I think the greatest source of destabilization is the risks that an 
accidental or rogue launch could plunge the nuclear powers of the world 
into an irreversible course of mutual destruction. I think a viable 
defense system is an instrument of stability, not instability.
  For those who raise economic objections to this bill, yes, it is 
expensive. Yes, every dollar of taxpayers' money that we spend must be 
spent carefully, but it is important to understand the narrow scope of 
the expenditure that is before us. In this year's budget, for example, 
about one nickel out of every $100 that we spend as a government will 
be dedicated to this purpose. One nickel out of every $100 is, in my 
judgment, a prudent and sound investment for the defense of the 
country.
  For those who raise strategic objections, I would simply say that 
every strategic instrument that is possible to be at our disposal 
should be so.
  Will this succeed today technologically? Of course not, but we cannot 
succeed technologically, we cannot reach the goal technologically until 
we have the goal.
  When President Kennedy in the early sixties said we would get to the 
Moon as the first country in the world that would do so, it was 
impossible technologically at that time, but because he set that goal 
and we followed it as a country we set in means the creative resources 
of the country and we did achieve it. I believe the same thing will and 
can happen here.
  It is for those reasons that I would urge both Republican and 
Democratic colleagues to support this piece of legislation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, just a few days after Congress first enacted this 
legislation, or acted on this legislation, the State Department sent an 
internal cable to our embassies abroad instructing them to explain away 
the President's support for the bill.
  That cable, which Mr. Weldon just placed in the Record, told these 
embassies to say, in effect, even though Congress has passed and the 
President has endorsed legislation committing America to deploy a 
national missile defense, do not worry because the President intends to 
use loopholes to deny that commitment.
  In this way, the Clinton State Department sought to comfort foreign 
governments who feared that we might render their offensive missile 
programs harmless and obsolete.
  Just what are the alleged loopholes the President was to seize upon? 
Because the bill says that funds for missile defense are subject to 
annual appropriations and authorization, the President thinks he can 
sign it without really committing to protect our citizens from missile 
attack.
  This is, of course, ludicrous. The entire Defense Department is 
subject to annual appropriations. Much of the Federal Government is. 
Those words merely restate the obvious. They do not add or detract any 
significant meaning from the bill.
  When John F. Kennedy committed to America to land a man on the Moon 
in his decade, that commitment was no less real because the money for 
the space program had to be appropriated each year. Neither is this 
commitment.
  The President is seizing on this language to conceal that he and his 
party have been forced to flip-flop on missile defense. After over a 
decade spent opposing missile defense, they have been mugged by 
reality. The reality of a North Korean ICBM test, the Southwest Asia 
arms race, the Ayotollah's missile program, the theft of our nuclear 
secrets by Communist China, and the spread of missile technology around 
the globe.
  Once the cable to Moscow and Beijing and elsewhere came to light, we 
considered trying to rewrite the bill but then we realized, what would 
be the point. If the President and his aides can so absurdly 
misconstrue even the most innocuous language, then there are no words 
that might have fixed meaning for this administration. All we can do 
here is make our intentions and the meanings crystal clear.
  Let me do so. This bill commits the United States to deploy an 
effective national missile defense system as soon as is technologically 
possible. If the President disagrees with this position, if he truly 
believes that we should leave our citizens vulnerable to missile 
attack, he should show the character of a true leader and say so, 
without disassembling, without equivocation, without seizing on 
nonexistent loopholes. He should veto the bill.
  If, on the other hand, he signs the bill, we can, by rights, conclude 
that he agrees with the plain English meaning of the bill and that is 
that the United States is committed to deploy a national missile 
defense as soon as is technologically possible.
  I will close with this: The President's endorsement of this language, 
whatever his private feelings on it, is a tribute to the vast public 
support that now exists for national missile defense. It shows that the 
debate that Ronald Reagan started in 1983 has now been decisively won 
by those who believe that the American people need a defense that 
defends.
  I am very proud that today we are taking this important step to 
defend the American people from missile attack. I am very proud that in 
this age of high technology we can use that technology to give our 
children that which is better than what they have had, the technology 
of the 1950s of duck and cover.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. There were 
many reasons to vote against the original House bill, H.R. 4. There are 
even more reasons to vote against the bill as amended by the Senate.
  H.R. 4 provided that it is the policy of the United States to deploy 
a national missile defense. I opposed all 15 words of H.R. 4 because of 
what it did not say. It failed to acknowledge how much national missile 
defense would cost, whether it would undermine arms control and whether 
a national missile defense would actually work. On the other hand, the 
authors of H.R. 4, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), saw virtue in what it did 
not say.
  As I look at the Senate amendment, I think that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) have a point.
  The Senate's version says that it is the policy of the United States 
to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective national 
missile defense system. As soon as technologically possible, what does 
that mean? One test? Two tests? A really good simulation?

[[Page H3434]]

  There is a huge difference between technologically possible and 
technologically viable, or technologically reliable. We should not 
commit to deploy until a system is fully and successfully demonstrated. 
Rushing deployment leaves us vulnerable to failure.
  This bill may only be a national missile defense policy statement but 
it sets us on a slippery slope. Hit-to-kill technology has only 
succeeded in 5 of 19 intercept tests. Now to be sure, some of those 
failures are in the booster phase and people believe they can be 
corrected, but if we have another THAAD, which has failed on all six 
flight tests, we should not deploy NMD.
  For other major defense systems, we fly before we buy; but for NMD, 
however, we are buying before we fly, and that is not right.
  The U.S. should decide to deploy a national missile defense not today 
but only if it is tested rigorously and proven to work; only if it does 
not undermine overall U.S. national security, by jeopardizing mutual 
nuclear reductions and the ABM treaty, and only if it is needed as a 
cost effective defense available against nations with ballistic 
missiles.
  Let me provide some perspective on this Congress' approach to 
national security. This bill rushes to deploy an unproven national 
missile defense to defend against an ill-defined future threat. Yet 
this House recently refused to support the deployment of our men and 
women in uniform to save lives and bring peace to the Balkans.
  Madam Speaker, in the Middle Ages the king would command the 
alchemist to turn lead into gold but no amount of money or political 
will could turn lead into gold. Unlike alchemy, national missile 
defense may work some day but we cannot deny that there is more to 
national missile defense than wishing it into existence. Please defeat 
this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) has 19 minutes remaining and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4. I was 
pleased to be a cosponsor of the original legislation sponsored by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on 
Armed Services that I serve on.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his 
leadership, as well as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) 
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their work.
  This bill recognizes the reality of the world in which we live today, 
a world that is a much more dangerous place, a world in which we face 
threats from rogue nations like Iran and Iraq and North Korea. The 
threat of unauthorized, or intentional or unintentional ballistic 
missile attack is a very real one. This bill addresses that threat that 
we face.
  The people of our country do not realize that we are defenseless 
against a nuclear missile attack. They do not realize that a missile 
launched from North Korea would take a mere 23 minutes to reach the 
continental United States. In fact, it would take only 32 minutes for 
that missile to reach my home district in Texas. These figures are 
startling, but it does reinforce the fact that we must take steps today 
to defend ourselves against this threat.
  I join with the many colleagues in this House who are supporting this 
legislation today, because we believe that our country has no choice 
but to make this investment in our defense. This bill requires that the 
system be deployed only after it is determined to be technologically 
possible to implement such a system. That is the right way to proceed, 
and I am very confident that our military and the scientists of our 
country will have the ability to put such a system in place.
  We stand here today united in an effort to defend our country against 
threats that we have to face in today's world. I am confident that this 
bill will do the job, and I urge all of my colleagues to join in 
supporting H.R. 4.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  It is particularly ironic that we are having the debate this week 
with the release of the latest Star Wars movie. We might title this 
``Star Wars, the Phantom Solution,'' because that is what this is. This 
is a phantom solution. Hitting a bullet with a bullet in outer space to 
intercept a North Korean missile.
  Now, let us think about it a minute. North Korea has not yet built 
the missile, it has not been successfully tested, but they might build 
one or two and put warheads on them. Well, one thing that works in our 
arsenal of the antiballistic missile defense is the radar. We can track 
the warheads. Guess what? The second they shoot something at us, we 
will know. Guess what? We have thousands of nuclear warheads with which 
to retaliate if they have shot at us. Will they do that? No.
  This is not a real threat to the United States of America, single 
missiles launched that could be tracked back to their source. Any nut 
who is going to attack the United States with weapons of mass 
destruction is going to do it in an undetectable manner, and yet we are 
doing nothing to deal with bioterrorism, chemical terrorism, smuggled 
nuclear weapons, while we spend billions over here to make the defense 
contractors happy who have yet to conduct a successful defense test 
after spending nearly $50 billion.
  So what is the solution? Hurry up and deploy it. Deploy what? The 
phantom system against the phantom menace.
  This is real life; it is not a movie. We have to make tough choices. 
Are we going to defend America against real threats? Are we going to 
fund pay raises for the young men and women in the military? Or are we 
going to throw more billions after billions in a failed dream, a dream 
of Ronald Reagan which was put forward back in the 1980s, an 
impenetrable shield above the United States?
  We all know that even if this thing works, we can bring in a 
submarine and launch under it, or terrorists certainly can smuggle in a 
nuclear weapon. This does not defend the United States against real 
threats.
  I say to my colleagues, do not, do not do this. Do not destabilize 
the ABM Treaty. Do not waste our precious resources, and do not give 
people a false sense of security while we are letting real threats go 
unchallenged. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, it reminds me of the patent chief 
commenting about the invention of the telephone who said, who is 
kidding whom about this rip-off? Anybody that believes that two 
Americans will be able to speak through a wire across town is trying to 
steal your money.
  I say to my colleagues, I support this bill. I support this chairman, 
the ranking member, and I support the distinguished Members who are 
responsible for bringing it. We cannot protect America any longer with 
a Neighborhood Crime Watch, and I am not just concerned about rogue 
action.
  If my colleagues have seen the latest report of a classified Pentagon 
release, China has developed a super missile that has been labeled by 
the Pentagon ``invincible.'' Invincible. They have seen nothing like 
it. Now, what infuriates me is the report further goes on to say it is 
American tax dollars that built it, with a $60 billion trade surplus 
China enjoys now. But what really frosts me, the report goes on to say 
that the design of the invincible missile is basically the design that 
was stolen from America.
  We have a problem. We have a major problem. And to those naysayers, 
let me say this. Our number one duty is to secure the national 
security, to protect your citizens and my citizens, in your towns, in 
my town, in every town of the United States of America. And with all of 
the technology we have, I want to compliment the wisdom of the

[[Page H3435]]

leaders here, we can intercept their missile. Invincible, my ascot.
  Madam Speaker, I want to close out by saying the stealing of our 
secrets should be investigated, and let the chips fall where they may. 
I want to know how China got access to these secrets. Second of all, 
the President and Congress better come together and provide for an 
umbrella of security for this Nation. It may not be a total, 100 
percent fail-safe program, but by God, our military has done quite well 
on intercepting foreign missiles.
  Mr. SPENCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
chairman for yielding me this time.
  I just want to again clarify for the record that the gentleman who 
spoke earlier made the point that North Korea has not yet built a 
missile. Well, if the gentleman would go talk to George Tenet or Bob 
Walpole at the CIA, he could receive a classified briefing where they 
are now publicly saying that North Korea on August the 31st fired the 
Taepo Dong 1 missile. Maybe he does not believe the CIA, and that is 
something that I cannot comment on.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I was at the so-called classified 
briefing which was conducted by people who are consultants for defense 
contractors, and actually, subsequently it has turned out the test was 
not entirely successful, despite their protestations at that time.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the 
gentleman would talk to Bob Walpole, who is our CIA expert on strategic 
threats, the test itself shows that North Korea now, in the minds of 
our intelligence community, can, in fact fire a three-stage Taepo Dong 
1 missile with a light payload that would hit a city in the U.S.
  Now, what they say is it will not be accurate. They may aim for St. 
Louis and hit Dallas, but if one lives in Dallas, does it really matter 
that it is not accurate? The point is that the gentleman's CIA agents 
and his own administration have now said publicly that North Korea has 
the capability today.
  Second point, he mentioned that we are not dealing with other 
threats. Again, I would ask the gentleman, although since he has left 
the floor I cannot ask him personally, if he would comment on our past 
five defense authorization bills, because in each of those bills with 
the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), along with 
the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and 
Members on both sides of the aisle, we have plussed up funding in the 
area of weapons of mass destruction and cyber terrorism to a higher 
amount than the administration has ever requested.
  We did not do that one year, we did it all five years. We have given 
this administration money that they did not ask for to deal with the 
threats of a terrorist device, the threats of coming through our ports. 
We take that threat very seriously, and we are dealing with it. So when 
the gentleman says that we do not care or we are not concerned about 
other threats, he is totally misinformed or just has not gotten the 
latest brief.
  Let me say at this point I want to acknowledge the intellectual 
honesty of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). He came down to the 
well and in a very intellectually honest way opposed what we are doing. 
I respect him for that. I respect the other 105 Members of this body, 
104 Members, 102 Democrats and two Republicans, who voted against what 
we are doing, because intellectually they are being pure.
  What I really have a problem with are those Members in the other body 
who want to have cover; who have consistently opposed missile defense 
but then came up with nonsensical amendments to now say they are for 
missile defense. The gentlewoman from California, one of the Senators 
from California who has consistently opposed missile defense, with 
these amendments now says she can support this bill. That is 
outrageously simplistic and it is not being intellectually honest. I 
would rather have those Members do like the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen) and oppose the bill because they oppose the policy.
  We just disagree. Let me say this, Madam Speaker. We passed this bill 
overwhelmingly in the House. The Senate passed a bill that we are 
considering today overwhelmingly in the Senate. The President then came 
out and issued this letter that is now a part of the Record where he 
said we will make the decision in a year.
  Now, what is he saying? In a year we will decide whether or not the 
threat has changed. Well, Madam Speaker, his own CIA is saying the 
threat is here today. It is not going to change a year from now. It is 
already here. He is saying that we will have to evaluate the cost. He 
has already requested $10.5 billion in his five-year budget. So why 
would the President then want to wait a year after we are making a 
policy decision today?
  I hate to say this because this has been a totally bipartisan effort, 
and I applaud my colleagues on the other side for their leadership, 
because without that we probably would not be here today. But I can 
tell my colleagues why I think the President is saying postpone it for 
a year. He wants to give Vice President Gore a major campaign 
appearance where, in the middle of the spring of next year, he will 
hold a press conference and with all the gravity he can bring as the 
Vice President, he will say that we now have to deploy a national 
missile defense system.
  Well, I want to let the President know, if the President is 
listening, and I would say to my colleagues I want to let the President 
know through them that we see through that facade. We are not going to 
stand here today and pass this bill and make this change, and have the 
President or the Vice President plan some kind of a political event a 
year from now so that they can enhance their standing in the polls. 
This bill means that when this President signs it, the policy to deploy 
on behalf of this country is today.
  I thank my colleagues and the leadership in both parties for 
supporting this momentous piece of legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today in support of this bill, although somewhat reluctantly. 
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 4 and a longtime proponent of national 
missile defense, I want to be supportive of this bill. However, I have 
several concerns that I must express on the floor today.
  Like many of my colleagues, I supported this bill as originally 
drafted, both for what it said and for what it did not say. That bill 
did not say when a national missile defense system must be deployed, 
how a national missile defense system must be deployed, nor where a 
national missile defense system would be deployed. It did not include 
extra provisions that are not sufficiently defined, like 
``technologically possible.'' Our bill also did not include language 
that could upset our colleagues in the Duma, something that is very 
important to us as we move towards better relations with Russia.
  The Senate version which we are now being forced to take or leave 
today states that it is the policy of the United States to seek 
continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. I understand 
the need to continue negotiating with the Russians, because that is the 
issue with the reduction in nuclear forces. However, traditionally, 
negotiations have included both reductions between the Soviet Union and 
between the United States. The Senate language could be perceived by 
the Duma as an insult because it includes only a reduction in their 
forces and it does not address reductions in ours.
  Another concern is aimed directly at the other body as a whole. Many 
of us were under the impression that we would have the opportunity to 
go to conference with the Senate and work on a compromise between those 
two bills. Instead, the Senate simply chose to retain only our bill 
number and return the bill to us with their language.
  As I noted, I have been a long time supporter of national missile 
defense.

[[Page H3436]]

 Some critics of deploying a national missile defense system argue that 
the technology is not proven. National missile defense will use hit-to-
kill technology. It is like hitting a bullet with a bullet.
  Recently, another one of DOD's hit-to-kill missile defense programs, 
the PAC-3, showed that this technology can work. I repeat, this 
technology can and does work. The PAC-3 interceptor successfully 
destroyed the target over White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico this 
past March.
  I know that perfecting national missile defense technology will be 
more difficult than for the PAC-3. However, I just want to make sure 
that all of my colleagues in this House understand that the Army has 
proven the hit-to-kill concept.
  I also want to reiterate what my good friend Curt Weldon said 
earlier. THAAD is not a failure. Again, THAAD is not a failure. THAAD 
has accomplished 28 of its 30 milestones. Every time THAAD has failed 
to intercept the target missile, it has done so, but has shown that the 
failure was due to a low-tech problem. These problems with the THAAD 
have been quality control issues, not design defects.
  We need to show our support of national missile defense and move 
forward with a program as quickly as we can. As such, I will support 
this bill today and I also urge all of my colleagues to do so. It is 
vital to the security of this Nation that we move forward on this issue 
today.
  Mr. SPENCE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
merely say that much has changed since the Strategic Defense Initiative 
debate was born some 16 years ago, and a lot has changed since last 
year. So I ask all of the Members, Madam Speaker, to approach this 
bill, H.R. 4, as amended, with an open mind, as a good-faith effort to 
establish a bipartisan consensus on defending America. I intend to vote 
for it. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SPENCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
We should not have to be here today. People cannot understand the 
frustrations we have had over a long period of time in having to 
literally fight our own government to protect our own people.
  I will just go back to recent history. In 1996 we provided for 
national missile defense for our people, to protect our people from 
missile attack. The President vetoed that legislation. We have been 
trying time and time again since that time. No one could imagine the 
hoops we have had to jump through in an effort to force our government 
to protect our own people.
  One example, just for the Record, to show the extent to which our own 
administration will go in an effort to resist our efforts to defend our 
people.
  Back when the bill was vetoed in 1996, the administration had a 
politicized intelligence estimate put out by the CIA, the national 
intelligence estimate. It goes in part like this: Aside from the 
declared nuclear powers, it will be 10 years before any rogue Nation 
can develop the capability to threaten this country with missile 
attacks.
  When I saw that, I said, my gosh, what about the declared nuclear 
powers? Are they not a threat? They were just brushed aside. And what 
about the fact that a Nation which does not have a capability can 
simply purchase a capability from someone else? They do not have to 
develop their own capability themselves from scratch, we say, they can 
buy it.
  So I called up the Director of the CIA at that time in an effort to 
get him to issue a clarifying estimate that was not misleading to the 
American people, because the American people had been lulled into a 
false sense of security.
  Well, the result was that the Director refused to change the estimate 
reflecting those things, so we had to appoint an outside commission, a 
bipartisan outside commission of intelligence experts, to assess the 
threat and report back to Congress of what their findings might be.
  They reported back and they confirmed what we had said. Instead of 10 
years to develop a capability, we would have little or no warning, 
according to this report.
  On the part about taking 10 years to develop a capability, they 
confirmed what we said by giving an example of how China sold, intact, 
a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile system to another country. 
This other country becomes nuclear-capable overnight by simply buying 
the system.
  This is just one example of what we have had to do along this line to 
get us to this place today. I hope that we are on our way now with the 
passage of this legislation. I pray that it is, and I pray that it is 
in time, and that we can develop a defense before we are actually faced 
with an attack.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4 which 
states that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national 
missile defense. I am convinced that this measure should and will pass 
by a large bipartisan majority. I am also convinced that the President 
of the United States will sign this important piece of legislation. In 
doing so the President will make a historic decision, a decision to 
protect the United States and its people from the grave threat of 
missile attack.
  Today the United States faces these threats defenseless, unable to 
stop even a single missile launched at the United States. And yet there 
are dark clouds on the horizon. Countries like North Korea and Iran are 
moving ahead undaunted with weapons of mass destruction programs, 
including intercontinental ballistic missiles. The United States and 
the American people are at risk now, and H.R. 4 states clearly that we 
must do something to respond to these threats.
  I would also like to take a moment to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for his tireless work and leadership on this critical 
issue. It is rare that one individual can make such a difference on 
behalf of his country. The bipartisan support for this measure is a 
tribute to his hard work and dedication to protecting the American 
people from a clear and imminent threat.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this vital measure.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill.
  It is imperative that we move forward to counter the growing 
ballistic missile threat. Today our nation has absolutely no ability 
whatsoever to shoot down an incoming ballistic missile--even one fired 
by accident.
  Meanwhile, rogue and terrorist states like North Korea and Iran are 
committing significant resources towards the development of these 
weapons. Last August, North Korea--notwithstanding the severe famine 
now going on there--launched a three-stage ballistic missile, 
demonstrating an ability to threaten United States territory for the 
first time. Likewise, Iran is actively seeking long-range missiles that 
could threaten our nation.
  This bill reflects the Congress's bipartisan concern about this 
situation, and expresses the belief that all Americans should be 
protected against this very real threat. It will make it the policy of 
the United States to deploy a national missile defense system to defend 
against a limited attack as soon as technologically possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to not 
commit the United States to a flawed policy with a flawed process.
  It is a flawed policy to commit the United States to a missile 
defense policy that hasn't been proven technologically feasible.
  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of our nation's 
highest military leaders, said ``the simple fact is that we do not yet 
have the technology to field a national missile defense.''
  It is a flawed policy to commit the United States to a missile 
defense policy with an open-ended price tag.
  Since 1962 we have spent $120 billion to develop missile defense 
system.
  We paid $67 billion for the failed ``Star Wars'' initiative.
  In the last 10 years we have put some $40 million into the program.
  At $4.2 billion this year, missile defense is the largest single 
weapons program in the defense budget.
  What about our other defense priorities?
  It is a flawed policy to maintain a defense posture at the expense of 
all other domestic priorities.
  We have not yet saved Social Security, we have not reduced class 
size, we have not provided for health care for all Americans.
  In our zeal to protect our democracy we are actually jeopardizing our 
democracy by failing to protect our domestic tranquility.
  I urge the defeat of H.R. 4.
  Mr. SPENCE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
179, the previous question is ordered.

[[Page H3437]]

  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Madam 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 345, 
nays 71, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               YEAS--345

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     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
     Hilliard
     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, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     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
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--71

     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Slaughter
     Strickland
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bilirakis
     Brown (CA)
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Largent
     McNulty
     Moakley
     Napolitano
     Pickett
     Rogers
     Salmon
     Stark
     Thomas
     Towns
     Walsh
     Waxman

                              {time}  1555

  Mr. BAIRD and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion 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. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I was not present for the vote concurring 
in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4. The National Missile Defense Act. If 
I had been present I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 144, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 144, I was unavoidably 
absent from the Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall 
vote No. 144, agreeing to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4, a bill 
declaring United States policy of the deployment of a national missile 
defense system. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  I am a strong supporter of this legislation and voted for the 
original measure when the House of Representatives earlier considered 
it this year.

                          ____________________