[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 116 (Monday, September 10, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5477-H5482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    THE BUDGET AND THE ECONOMY; MISSILE DEFENSE, AND SEX AND INTERNS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, this evening I want to talk about a 
number of different issues with my colleagues.
  As my colleagues know, we have just come back from our August recess 
and there are some issues that have come up. First of all, I hope later 
in the week to talk a little more about natural resources and talk 
about our public lands. I was up in Alaska and had the privilege to 
enjoy Mt. McKinley and Denali National Park. Beautiful. Alaska, as we 
all know, is a great, great State and I learned a lot on my trip up 
there.
  I also spent a good deal of time back in my district, the Third 
Congressional District of Colorado, which many of my colleagues know 
includes almost all of the mountains of Colorado. In fact, the Third 
Congressional District of Colorado geographically is larger than the 
State of Florida. And of the 67 or so mountains above 14,000 feet in 
the United States, 53 of them are located in my district. It is the 
highest district in the Nation. As a result, there are a lot of things 
that are particular to the Third Congressional District not found in 
many other districts in the country.
  Seventy-five percent of the land in this Nation, including Alaska, 75 
percent of the land above 10,000 feet is in the Third Congressional 
District of Colorado. The Third Congressional District contains the 
majority or the largest amount of ski resorts of any congressional 
district in the United States, world-renowned resorts in Aspen, 
Colorado; Vail, Telluride, Durango, Steamboat, et cetera, et cetera, et 
cetera. So I hope later this week to get an opportunity to address my 
colleagues on some of the issues like public lands, like water, like 
wilderness areas, national parks, and national monuments because these 
issues are very important.
  But tonight I want to talk about a couple of other subjects. I would 
like to visit for a few minutes about the President and the budget and 
the economic situation that we are in. As many of my colleagues know, I 
serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, and that committee is working 
very hard on both sides of the aisle to try to figure out some answers 
to what would be the appropriate government interaction in regards to 
the economy.
  I would also like to talk about missile defense and the importance of 
missile defense. And the third thing I would like to talk about, and 
which I will start out at the very beginning with, is sex and interns.
  I have come under a great deal of criticism in the last month when I 
have addressed the issues of inappropriate relationships between a 
United States Congressman, and I am speaking generically here, no 
specific Congressman, but speaking generically of the United States 
Congress and exactly what its ethics rules are in regards to 
inappropriate relationships with interns. That, I have received 
criticism for.
  I have had people across the Nation, editorials across the Nation 
asking why would I think we need an ethical rule in the United States 
Congress to say that a sexual relationship with an intern is 
inappropriate? Well, we need that rule in the United States Congress 
for the same reason that we find that very rule, that very specific 
content in rules in every educational institution in the United States.
  I defy any of my colleagues and I defy any of those editorial boards 
to pinpoint for me one high school in this Nation, to show me one 
college in this Nation that allows a teacher or a professor to have a 
sexual relationship or an inappropriate relationship with a student. 
They do not allow it. A teacher, a professor who engages in a sexual 
relationship with a student, they are gone. They are fired.
  It was this body not very many years ago, as a result of Tailhook in 
the United States Navy, that addressed this with the Department of 
Defense and the executive agencies. They have very specific rules in 
our military. A commanding officer engaging in a sexual relationship 
with a consenting adult, an adult who is consenting but falls below 
them in the hierarchy of command, is gone. That fast. It does not 
matter. Why? Because they have a position of authority over the person 
they are having that sexual relationship with.
  That is exactly what we have in the United States Congress. We have a 
position of authority over these interns. But in a lot of these cases 
these interns, in almost all these cases these interns are students. 
Now, sure, by the technical definition, these students are adults. I do 
not know what it is in D.C., maybe 15 or 16. So, theoretically, if they 
are above statutory rape age, 15 or 16 years old, they are an adult.
  So some of these editorials and even some of my colleagues have said 
to me, hey, they are grown up. Give me a break. Why does the field of 
medicine, doctors, prohibit themselves from having sex with patients? 
It is considered an inappropriate relationship and it is in their 
ethics. They can lose their medical license for an inappropriate 
relationship. Why does the clergy prohibit it? Because a clergy person, 
a priest or a minister, is not supposed to have an inappropriate 
relationship with a parishioner. It is against their ethical rules, 
their in-house rules. Why does the legal profession, lawyers, prohibit 
by the ethics of their bars their members from having an inappropriate 
relationship with their clients? It is because they exercise a great 
deal of influence over people.
  Now, what I have proposed, contrary to some of the news reports 
across the Nation, is not precedent setting. It is not some novel idea 
that I came up with. It is simply taking the language that applies in 
the military, that applies in the clergy, that applies in the teaching 
profession, that applies in the medical profession, that applies in the 
legal profession and apply it to the one institution in this country 
that has no ethical rule about it, to the best of my knowledge, and 
that is the United States Congress.
  I am not saying going out there and trying to legislate morality. My 
proposal is not a piece of legislation. I have not introduced a bill. 
What I have asked is the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to 
give me an opinion as to whether or not under current ethics 
regulations, and it is clearly not clear, but under current ethics 
regulations if this type of relationship is prohibited. And if it is 
not prohibited, I have asked for an in-house rule, not legislation. We 
are not trying to draft a bill. I am not trying to legislate morality, 
I am just trying to say the same rules that prohibit us from misuse of 
government credit cards, for example, or things like that, that we put 
this in there as well. Just like every other major institution.
  Now, remember, these interns are in the United States Congress. First 
of all, the internship program is what I care the most about, and I 
want to see that program preserved. It makes me sick that the late 
night talk shows spend a good deal of their jokes about interns in 
Washington, D.C. I have seen editorial cartoons across the Nation, and 
one in particular where they show an intern in a life raft, and I saw 
this the other day, an intern in a life raft, and her legs are hanging 
over the side. Underneath the life raft are a bunch of sharks and they 
have Congressmen as the names for the sharks.
  I can say to the parents who have interns back here, that this is an 
exception, this type of inappropriate conduct with an intern. This is a 
program that has made many changes in young people's lives, and these 
are young people. These students and interns are not hard to determine 
who they are. Back here in the United States Congress, interns have 
separate IDs. Interns have a separate pay classification. They are back 
here as students of government. The interns are students of government 
and we are the teachers. We as the Congressmen exercise a 
disproportionate

[[Page H5478]]

amount of influence, a disproportionate amount of authority over these 
young students, and we ought to have certain responses that we follow.
  I saw last week where somebody asked, why do we need a rule; our own 
moral beliefs ought to tell us we should not have an inappropriate 
relationship. Well, why do schools need rules; why do high schools or 
colleges need them? Why does the clergy, the medical or legal 
profession need them? Because of the fact there are some people who pay 
attention to those rules. In my opinion, every Congressman that is now 
serving today, all 435 of us, reads the rules. And I would venture to 
say that all of us, or almost all of us, when we read the rules, we 
will modify our behavior so that we fall in compliance with those 
rules. If the rules say that we cannot send out constituent mail, say, 
with political advertising in it, I would venture to say that most 
Congressmen do not send out congressional mail with political 
advertising because the rules prohibit it. They follow the rules.
  So what I have suggested here is not something that should be 
deserving of ridicule in editorials or under-the-breath talk by some of 
my colleagues, because what we are trying to do is preserve the 
internship program. A poll was just recently conducted, and parents 
were asked if they would trust the Congressmen to send their children 
back to, their students, their young people, back to be interns. Of 
course, as you might guess, the answer was overwhelmingly no.
  This is a program that a lot of my colleagues came through 
themselves. This is a program that has exposed the young people to the 
American government and its workings. Every intern in my office, I 
believe, will remember their internship in Washington, D.C. in a very 
positive fashion, and it has made a significant change in their life. 
So I think it is important to preserve this program.
  Now, I have three children, two daughters that are internship age. 
One is 22 and the other one is 19. Both of them have been back here in 
Washington, D.C. And as a parent I want to know, as every parent wants 
to know with their young son or daughter, that when they are back there 
they are in a professional relationship. They are back there in a 
relationship that has a fiduciary responsibility so that they do not 
have to worry about the Congressman exerting influence over their 
child. And they are still students. I do not care whether they are 
technically adults. The fact is they are students of government.
  Do not forget, in college, or in the military, if a professor in his 
or her class has a student that, say, is 25 years old, the age does not 
matter. It is the fact they are a student and it is the fact that there 
is a position of authority over the student and that is why these 
educational institutions across the Nation prohibit inappropriate 
relationships.
  Now, some people have suggested I not take the floor to discuss this. 
I feel it is important, because I think it is getting a little out of 
hand. Not the inappropriate relationships, because contrary to popular 
belief, in my opinion, most of the Congressmen in these chambers, if 
not all, and I am not aware of others, all of the Congressmen I know 
maintain themselves in a professional mode. They are highly ethical 
when it comes to the treatment of interns and there is not widespread 
abuse in the internship program. But the perception that has gone out 
there is in part caused by the fact that our own ethics do not prohibit 
it, or apparently there is some confusion as to whether our ethics 
prohibit those types of relationships.
  So we owe it to the internship program, we owe it to the program to 
put forth a proper in-house rule. Not legislation. We are not 
legislating morality, we are putting in our own in-house rule, the kind 
of prohibition that, as I have said three or four times in these 
comments, the same kind of prohibition that exists in our churches, 
exists in our schools, exists in our hospitals, and exists in our 
courts.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say I would be interested to look at 
some of the major news networks who waste editorial space on me, I 
would venture to say most of them probably have prohibitions against 
inappropriate relationships with their student interns that are in 
there to learn how to be journalists. I would ask my colleagues to 
support me and publicly acknowledge that it is appropriate for us to 
have in our House rules a rule which prohibits inappropriate 
relationships with interns.
  I will wrap it up with this: Let me say that we are talking 
specifically about interns. I am not talking about a congressman who 
may choose to go outside of his or her marriage and have a relationship 
with someone who does not work as a student intern or one staff member 
dating another staff member. I am not talking about those kinds of 
relationships.
  What I am talking about, very, very specifically what I am talking 
about is a congressman and a student intern. I cannot stress enough 
that these interns are students. They are students of the government. 
We do not have to use interns, by the way. As a congressman, we are not 
required to hire interns. But if we do, we ought to assume some 
professional responsibility. As I have mentioned several times before, 
all of my colleagues that I know do assume that professional 
responsibility, contrary to popular perception. Whether Democrat or 
Republican, they handle their interns on a professional basis when I 
have seen them. But I think the internship program, and certainly the 
reputation, is in danger because of the fact of some of the things that 
have gone on.
  Mr. Speaker, I think one way to help rebuild the reputation is to at 
least put in place a rule; and then if somebody breaks that rule, let 
them suffer the consequences. We have a process for that. We have 
checks and balances in that process. There is absolutely no reason that 
the United States Congress should not have a House rule prohibiting 
inappropriate relationships between a congressman and a student intern.
  Let me move on briefly to cover a couple of points. During the break, 
the liberal side of the Democratic Party has been lambasting President 
Bush on this tax cut. What the liberal side of the Democratic Party 
seems to be forgetting is that my good colleague on the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), introduced an 
amendment on this House floor, and that amendment was a tax cut. That 
amendment called for a tax rebate. It was very similar, not exact, but 
very similar. Certainly pretty close to exact in concept, but it was 
very similar to what the President put into place.
  The debate here on the floor was not the amount of money of the tax 
cut, the debate was between the Democrats and the Republicans, and 
really between the liberal side of the Democratic Party because several 
of the conservative Democrats supported President Bush's program for 
tax cuts, so it was not a clear Democratic/Republican bill, but the 
Democrats that opposed it, their primary argument after listening to 
hours and hours of debate, was not about the amount of money, but it 
was focused on who should get the rebate.
  Those Democrats said that the tax rebate should go to people who paid 
payroll taxes but paid no income taxes. The Republicans and the 
Democrats who supported the Bush program countered that argument by 
saying the people who ought to get the tax rebate back are people who 
paid taxes in. You should not give a tax rebate to people who had no 
tax liability. That is where the intensity of the debate focused.
  Now because our economy continues to go south, which everyone 
acknowledges, it really started to do that about 6 months before 
President Clinton left office, but now that the economy continues to go 
south, instead of joining together as a team, which is what the 
American people are demanding, we are seeing the Democrats starting to 
pile on President Bush, and I heard over the weekend one of the leaders 
said Bush is the architect of this bad economy.
  What does he mean? Does my colleague think Bush went out and designed 
a bad economy? Does my colleague think any of us are comfortable that 
our economy is going back and continues to worsen? No. But there are 
some people who are going to use this bad economy, and some people in 
leadership positions throughout this country, that want to use this bad 
economy for their own political advantage. They are not worrying about 
what do we do for the American people to improve

[[Page H5479]]

this economy, but instead trying to figure out how can we win the 
elections next year by monopolizing on how terrible this economy is and 
doing the blame game.
  The time has come. We cannot allow this economy to continue to go in 
its downward direction and perhaps get into an uncontrollable spiral 
just because you want political advantage next year in the elections. 
Every one of us, the Democrats, the Republicans, have an obligation to 
come together as a team. Sure we will have some debates, but our 
primary focus ought to be what can we do in working with the President 
of the United States to try and get this economy to at least level out 
or hopefully begin a recovery. There are a lot of unique situations 
about the economy that we face today. One of those is that the entire 
world is in an economic recession. Many of the countries, a lot of the 
countries in the world are in an economic recession. The world is in an 
economic slowdown. The United States is swaying back and forth as to 
whether or not we go into that economic recession.

  Mr. Speaker, so in a time like this, there is a demand for us to work 
together as a team for the benefit of the American people so that they 
have a healthy economy. I would advise my colleagues, take a look at 
the Sunday talk shows, and take a look at which one of our colleagues 
really want to work as a team to improve this economy or really want to 
take advantage of the sour economy for political purposes for next 
year's elections. If you know some of them, obviously you know who the 
ones are that want to take political advantage, you ought to say, I 
understand that we want political advantage, but maybe we better pay 
attention to what is happening. While we are preparing for next year's 
elections, the ship has a big hole in its side. We are taking on a lot 
of water. We may be so worried about next year's elections, by the time 
we get that secured and take a look at the boat, we may have too much 
water to save the boat. I expect now that we are back in session that 
we are going to see people popping up here and there trying to take 
political advantage of this economy.
  On the other hand, if my colleagues want to see examples of 
leadership, take a look at which Members of those parties stand up and 
are willing to walk back and forth across this aisle and say, Hey, as 
team, what are we going to do on this economy? How are we going to 
control spending? Are we going to need further tax cuts?
  The Democrats over the weekend on national television on the Sunday 
shows acknowledged that additional tax cuts may be necessary. Why are 
they necessary? We need to get more money into the economy. That is why 
the interest rates have been lowered. That is why Greenspan lowered the 
interest rate. That is why President Bush put into effect his tax cut. 
That is why we are talking about additional tax cuts, and we need to 
figure out in what areas of the country government spending makes some 
sense, and what do we need to do about deficit spending. Will deficit 
spending become a necessity to prevent the country from going into a 
recession?
  Mr. Speaker, I have some ideas to those questions, and I take it upon 
myself to have the responsibility, and I think most of my colleagues 
do, and I hope all of them do, to assume that responsibility to come 
across that aisle and talk.
  I invite the liberal Democrats, put down your arms and come across 
and help us come up with a solution because in the end, maybe next 
year's elections you will have an advantage, but in the meantime, you 
may very well be a participant in driving this ship to the bottom of 
sea, and now is our time to avoid it.
  I hope to see some effort of cooperation from the Democratic side and 
from the Republican side in an effort to improve our economy, or at 
least get this country going in a positive recovery from where we are 
right now.
  Mr. Speaker, for the balance of my time I would like to talk about 
missile defense. I think missile defense has been mischaracterized in 
the last month. There are a number of issues of missile defense that I 
want to discuss.
  First of all, we will talk about the anti-ballistic missile treaty. I 
want to talk about the capabilities that this country is going to need 
for the future, about the weaknesses that we have, about the 
responsibilities and the obligations we have to the next generation in 
regards to the defense of this country.
  This country is not the most popular country in the world. It 
certainly is the strongest country in the world, the strongest country 
in the history of the world. This country has done more than any other 
country in the history of the world. This country has some of the best 
of everything. But it is all at risk if we do not continue to defend 
ourselves. We have to be on constant alert that somebody else wants 
something we have or somebody else wants to do harm to us.
  I had a group of high school students in my office, and we began to 
talk and we talked about defense. I can tell Members, the students 
today are smart young men and women. They are very thoughtful, and they 
look into the future. We talked about defense.
  I asked them, I said what student do you think in your school gets in 
the least amount of fights. One said the person who is in the best 
shape, the person that is the strongest, the toughest. Not the person 
that picks the fights, but the person that avoids people picking a 
fight with them. That is right.
  If you have in your class or group of friends, if you have somebody 
who is a black belt in karate, and everybody knows that and everybody 
knows if they decide to take them on they are probably going to get 
their nose busted, how many people are going to fight with the person 
that is a black belt in karate? But the moment they notice the person 
with the black belt in karate is no longer staying in shape, when they 
notice that person is not practicing, getting overweight, his or her 
moves are not what they used to be and really kind of just becoming 
lazy, what happens? Somebody then begins to take a look, and then the 
temptation starts.
  Maybe now when they are not properly defending themselves and not 
staying in shape, maybe now is the time to take that person on; and it 
is the same thing with the United States of America. We are in pretty 
good shape right now, but we cannot bank on the good shape we have been 
in in the past. We have to bank on how well we keep ourselves in shape 
for the future. What do we have in regards to military apparatus and 
defense.
  I know there are a number of people out there that say and kind of go 
on the theory we should stop military spending and we should limit 
defense spending, and do it in peaceful discussion. We should settle 
things in peaceful ways. And I have interest, in the last year there 
seem to be a lot more people saying violence has no place in our 
society.
  Well, I am here to tell Members violence does have a place in 
society. That is exactly how we took care of Hitler, and that is 
exactly what our police officers do. But these people are correct that 
while violence is sometimes necessary, it ought to be the last remedy 
that we use.
  Obviously we need to have the ability to communicate, and 
communication is a very important part of a Nation's defense. That is 
why our Secretary of State, and fortunately we have an excellent 
Secretary of State in Colin Powell, that is why the position is so 
critical. That is why we have ambassadorships.
  One of the best elements of our defense is communication with other 
countries. Talk to people. Have the ability to negotiate. Have the 
ability to try and understand where they are coming from; but sometimes 
that fails. We saw it in the Persian Gulf.

                              {time}  1930

  Despite repeated warnings by the President, that country failed to 
communicate; and we gave them every chance, and finally we had to 
resort to violence; but as I said, it should be the last remedy.
  When we talk about our country, we need to talk about something. Let 
us look back, for example, in history, in the sixties and the 
seventies, about 30 years ago. At that time, as you know, the Russian 
empire was in existence, U.S.S.R., Soviet Union, Communist, threatening 
to take over the world, Krushchev and people like that had been their 
previous leaders, talked very

[[Page H5480]]

strongly about the United States was the number one enemy.
  The United States knew that it had to build up and they did so, and 
even in the Kennedy years and so on; and we had the Cuban missile 
crisis and so on, we began to build up.
  Somebody came up with an idea that said, you know, Russia has got a 
lot of nuclear missiles and the United States has a lot of nuclear 
missiles; maybe what we ought to do is sign a treaty between the two, 
communicate between the two and a treaty should be what we call the 
Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, and this is very, very important.
  The Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty as its concept, as its original 
thought of the basis of this treaty says that one country cannot defend 
itself against the other countries.
  Now, remember, that the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, often called 
obviously ABM, the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. The Anti-ballistic 
Missile Treaty which was executed, signed, only had two parties to it. 
There are only two parties that are subject to the Anti-ballistic 
Missile Treaty.
  Why only two parties in the 1970s? Because there were only two 
parties that were capable of delivering a nuclear missile upon the land 
of another country, and they were the United States and the U.S.S.R. 
That is why you had two parties.
  Well now, today, how many parties to the Anti-ballistic Missile 
Treaty? Well, theoretically only one because the U.S.S.R. does not 
exist anymore. The Communist regime fell. But realistically let us say 
two, still two. Now remember, back in 1970 there were only two 
countries capable of delivering one missile into another country, only 
two. That was in the 1970s.
  What is it today? I do not know: 12, 14. There are lots of countries 
today. You can start off with China. You can move to India. You can 
move to Pakistan. You can talk about Israel. You can talk about Iran. 
You can talk about North Korea. You can talk about South Korea. There 
are a lot of countries today who are not subject to this Anti-ballistic 
Missile Treaty. So based on that alone, the treaty needs to be modified 
or eliminated.
  Let me tell you that when this treaty was drafted, the thought of it 
was one country would not build a defense. They would agree not to 
defend themselves against missiles. So the United States agreed not to 
build a missile defense system. Russia, at the same time, the U.S.S.R., 
the Communist regime, agreed they would not build a missile defensive 
system. The theory being that the United States would not fire upon 
Russia because they knew Russia would retaliate and we would have no 
defense because we do not have a missile defensive system; and 
obviously it works the same thing with Russia.
  Well, the people that drafted this, while I disagree with that 
concept, that is clearly the basis upon which the treaty was drafted; 
and while I do disagree with that, I can tell you that the drafters of 
that document had a lot of foresight in that they knew that as time 
moved on there may be other circumstances that were unforeseen that 
entered the picture.
  Therefore, they put within the four corners of this agreement a 
clause. They put a clause in there that said that this agreement, they 
could end the treaty, that the treaty could be abrogated and they 
called for that. That is a right of the treaty. It is a basic right in 
the treaty.
  Now, President Bush has said and the administration has said that the 
United States could very well terminate that treaty because of our best 
interests and the risks we have against the best interests of the 
American people. I have noticed that, frankly, some of the more liberal 
journalists in the country have said what do you mean you are going to 
abrogate that treaty? What do you mean you are going to walk away from 
the ABM treaty? You cannot do that.
  Read the treaty. Read the treaty. Of course you can do that. It is a 
fundamental right. It is in the language of the treaty. Of course you 
can do that, because the people who drafted that 32 years ago knew that 
in 32 years things might change; and boy, have they changed.
  Who would have ever imagined 32 years ago that North Korea could 
deliver a nuclear missile? Who could have ever imagined the fire power 
of China or India or Pakistan or Israel or other countries in the 
Middle East or Iran? And not just with nuclear warheads, but with 
biological warheads as well.
  Look, we are kidding ourselves, and I can tell you that as 
Congressmen we have an absolutely inherent obligation, a fiduciary 
obligation to the American people to provide the American people a 
defense, a military defense against the aggressiveness of another 
country. We are fools, we are kidding ourselves, if we continue to 
think that we should not build a missile defense for this country.
  In Colorado Springs, Colorado, there is a mountain. It is called 
Cheyenne Mountain. Cheyenne Mountain is a granite monument, a beautiful 
mountain. Years ago on the inside of that mountain, they went out and 
they bored out the center of that mountain. They took the granite out 
of the center of the mountain, or a portion of it out of the mountain, 
and they put in there the NORAD defense detection. Inside that 
mountain, we have the capabilities of detecting within seconds, 
anywhere in the world, a missile launch. We can within seconds tell you 
where that launch took place, where the trajectory is of that 
particular missile, what type of missile we think it is, what kind of 
warheads we think it has on it. We can tell you where its target is. We 
can give you the estimated time of arrival.
  So let us say that North Korea launches a missile, or let us say 
China launches a missile. Let us say that the target is Oklahoma City, 
the military base in Oklahoma City. We have the capability, we have it 
today, we have the most advanced technology in the history of the 
world. We can immediately know within a couple of seconds we have got a 
missile launch, it is coming out of China, it is headed for Oklahoma 
and it is going to hit in 15 minutes. Then what can we do?
  All we can do is call Oklahoma. Governor, you have got an incoming 
missile. Sorry, Governor, we decided not to provide a missile defense 
for this country. Sorry, Governor. We had a lot of people that said we 
should live by the laws of 30 years ago. Sorry, Governor, we pretended 
that that threat out there did not exist, even though in fact, 
Governor, we knew it existed. And sorry, Governor, there is nothing we 
can do. You are going to have a missile hit in about 13 minutes. God 
bless you. We will think of you in the future.
  That is all we can do today. President Bush has had enough guts to 
stand up and several Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, 
Democrats and Republicans, have had enough guts to stand up and say, 
uh-oh, we better stop, enough time has gone by, we better pay attention 
to our responsibilities to the American people. We need to put in place 
a missile defense system.
  Missile defense is very complicated. Obviously, we are going to have 
to research it. Take a look at how much research it took to fly an 
airplane. Take a look at the money we spent on the space program. Take 
a look at how much research there was to figure out a TV. You do not 
just go out there and wave the magic wand and have a perfect missile 
defense system.
  Some of my colleagues are saying, Oh, my gosh, we don't have one 
ready today to go, so we shouldn't build one. Is that ludicrous? Is 
that crazy? We do not have the technology today, although we do have 
the technology today, but we do not have one in place, so let us not 
build one because we have to spend too much time on research.
  Give me a break. Of course we have got to spend time on research. We 
need to get a system that is perfected. And it is going to take some 
time. But we have no time to spare. If we start today, if we give the 
President the money that the President has requested to put a missile 
defense system in place, it will still be several years down the road 
before we can deploy that missile defense system. In the meantime, 
China has built up more, Iran has built up more, Iraq has built up 
more, North Korea; and I can go right down through the list. Times have 
changed.
  What do we have to do with a missile defense system? You, in effect, 
have two missiles, two bullets speeding through the sky. You have got 
to be able to connect your missile defense, it may be a land-based 
missile, has got to be able to hit this incoming missile. It

[[Page H5481]]

is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. They are both traveling at 
very, very fast speeds. You have got to be able to connect them. You 
cannot just do it with a land-based missile.
  The best place to stop an enemy missile is where? Where is the best 
place to stop an enemy missile? On their launching pad. Not while it is 
over New York City or over the continental United States, but stop that 
missile when they are getting ready to launch it. How do you do that? 
You cannot do it with a land-based missile in the United States. You 
have got to do it with some kind of space technology. You have got to 
be able to do it with laser.

  Every peace-loving person in America who is against war, and I guess 
we are all against war, but who is antimilitary or is against violence, 
you ought to be the strongest proponents there are for missile defense. 
Because what happens if that missile leaves the launching pad? Think. 
For example, a big danger today is not necessarily an intentional 
launch of a missile. A big danger today is somebody pushes a button by 
accident.
  What if we had an accidental launch of a missile incoming to the 
United States? I mean, if we had the capability to stop that and we 
confirmed that it was an accident, we may have just stopped the next 
war. We may have stopped nuclear oblivion because of the fact we were 
able to stop it before it did harm and determined that it was an 
accidental launch.
  Today as somebody launches a missile, let us say that Russia, by 
accident, launches a nuclear missile or launches a nuclear missile with 
multiple warheads on it so that the missile comes into the United 
States and fires multiple warheads and hits several different targets. 
How convinced do you think the United States is going to be that that 
was an accident? What do you think our response would be? We could very 
easily end up with a nuclear war on our hands. So even those of you who 
are big proponents of no violence, and I hope you are successful in 
your efforts, by the way, but realistically I do not think you will be, 
but let us say those of you who are absolutely opposed to violence, you 
ought to be the strongest proponents there are of a missile defense 
system, because the best way to avoid that violence is to take away the 
tool of violence that they have, and that is a missile that they could 
deliver to the United States.
  So you have several different stages that you want to develop so that 
you can take out an incoming enemy missile or a missile launched by 
mistake. One, you want to be able to get it on the launching pad. 
Ideally, that is the best place to do it. If it gets off the launching 
pad, you want to be able to, at any different time, have satellite 
laser beam technology that hopefully can destroy that over the ocean. 
Then, finally, if it gets into the United States, over into our 
airspace, you want to have the capability of not only satellite laser 
beam but you also want to have the capability of ground-based or some 
other ship-based type of missile that could go up and collide with that 
missile and take that missile out.
  About 2 months ago, we had a successful test. They fired a missile 
and they fired an intercept missile and we hit them. That is pretty 
good. Think about it. You cannot miss by this far. You have got to hit. 
That missile is not that big around. When you take a look at the 
warhead on top of a missile, it is maybe the width of a car, so you 
have got to bring those two cars together out there going at the kinds 
of speeds that they are going at, and they have got to be able to hit. 
The test the other day was a successful test. We were able to calculate 
it. So it is a good step.
  But I am amazed at the people who, number one, criticize the 
President. He, by the way, is the one whom we charge with the 
leadership of this country. We say to President Bush, President Bush, 
you better take a look at this treaty. Are you protecting this country? 
You are in charge of it. You are the President. You are the guy that we 
are holding responsible to make sure that we can go to work every day 
without being concerned about being dragged into some kind of war or 
having a missile attack against us.

                              {time}  1945

  Yet we tell them on this end, on this hand we say you are spending 
too much money, you are dreaming about missile technology that may or 
may not exist.
  The fact is, Mr. President, I am proud of you. We need a missile 
defense system in this country, and we need it, and we have needed it 
for some period of time; a leader of this country, to finally stand up 
and say to Russia, look, Russia, we will even share with you our 
capability to defend ourselves, but you better acknowledge, Russia, 
that there are no longer two countries in this world capable of firing 
missiles at each other. That number is in the tens and twenties, maybe 
even the high twenties, of countries capable; and every month, every 
year that goes by, some other nation out there is developing the 
capability to deliver a missile into another country.
  We have got finally a President who has got enough guts to stand up 
and say, all right, it is time to get back in shape. It is time to 
build a military missile defense system for the protection of this 
country and its allies.
  Of interesting note, the Europeans, as you know, probably the Brits, 
some of the strongest allies we have ever had, good allies out there, 
they are standing up for us. They want a missile defense system. Take a 
look at the Italians. The Italians, their Prime Minister, they support 
this.
  So do not be misled by the national media that may say the Europeans 
say that this could throw off the balance of power, and that the United 
States is a warmonger because they are trying to deploy a missile 
defense system. You watch what happens in Europe. You watch what the 
French do and some of the other people do over in those European 
countries once we perfect that technology. They are going to be at our 
front door. They are going to be at our front door with their Xerox 
machines, saying, look, can we get a copy of what you have got, because 
we too have an obligation to defend the people of our country.
  As far as I am concerned, I would like to see every nation in the 
world have a defense apparatus so that they could stop incoming 
missiles, because I really, really am concerned, really concerned, 
about an accidental missile launch.
  Now, some people who are, I guess, theoretical in the concept of 
peace, say, well, everybody should agree not to fire a missile. 
Everybody should lay down their arms. All we have to do is look at the 
Middle East. I mean, look, there are inherent things of human nature, 
and we better accept them, and most of us have accepted the fact that 
there will always be somebody who is not willing to lay down their 
arms, and as long as one people has their arms, you better be willing 
to defend against it. The United States, because of our prominence in 
the world, because we are such a strong power, will always have 
somebody who wants to take us on, who wants to launch a missile against 
the best interests of the citizens of the United States.
  Now, we have some appropriation battles coming up here pretty soon. 
We know the basis of our economy. It is requiring that we tighten our 
belt, like every other American citizen, that we manage the Federal 
budget just like the American families have to manage their own home 
budget, and we have to take a look at what programs are priority 
programs.
  The President has made it very clear that there are a couple of 
priorities for him, and when he says ``for him,'' he speaks of his 
concept for the country. In other words, there are a couple of programs 
that are of priority for the Nation.
  The first one, education. The President has asked for a considerable 
increase in appropriations and in reform, regulation, regarding 
education; testing, accountability, and more money for education.
  That is pretty hard to argue, although, as you might guess, on our 
floor we manage to find argument about it. But education is one of the 
priorities of this President.
  The other appropriation he is talking about is the military. Now, 
remember, when we talk about military, in excess of 70 percent of our 
military budget goes for salaries and wages. We have got to pay these 
men and women that are serving this country something above the poverty 
level. We have to be able to provide for them. So we have to be able to 
take that into consideration.

[[Page H5482]]

  But one of his priorities contained within that military priority is 
military defense. I am suggesting to my colleagues, no, I am not 
suggesting to my colleagues, I am telling you, the time has come. We 
have got to work with the President on a military missile defense 
system. We cannot continue to waste any more time. We have an 
obligation to the next generation, to my kids, to your kids, to your 
grandkids, to my grandkids, we have an obligation to provide a defense 
apparatus in this Nation so that they do not live under the threat of 
an accidental missile launch or an intentional missile launch against 
the United States of America.

  We are the ones today that make those decisions for tomorrow. That is 
why we were elected. We were not elected to sit here and not think 
about tomorrow. The President has said to the United States Congress, 
think about education tomorrow. What are the results tomorrow? And it 
is the same thing with our military defense. Think about tomorrow, 
because, before you know it, tomorrow is here, and we have added many, 
many more countries in the world that have that capability to launch 
missiles.
  Mr. Speaker, let me show this poster. Take a look at today. I am 
talking about nuclear warheads. But do not forget that on a missile you 
can also deliver biological or chemical warheads. Take a look. Every 
spot on this map is a country that is capable of delivering known or 
probable biological and chemical programs, and they can deliver those 
chemicals with a missile.
  Now, remember, in 1970 when that treaty, the antiballistic missile 
treaty was drafted, there were two countries, the United States and the 
USSR, there were only two countries in the world that had to be 
concerned about that. But, because of this expansion, things have 
changed.
  I want to stress to my colleagues, because this argument continues to 
come up again and again and again, and in my opinion it has no 
validity, and that argument is the proposition that we cannot build a 
missile defense system without violation of the Antiballistic Missile 
Treaty, which we have no right to exit from.
  What I am saying here tonight is that Antiballistic Missile Treaty, 
fortunately, the people who drafted it, as I mentioned earlier, I 
disagree with the concept that the treaty was drafted 30 years ago, but 
fortunately the people who drafted that treaty had the foresight to 
say, gosh, over a period of time the consequences may change to the 
extent that the United States and the USSR ought to be able to walk 
away from this treaty; that the consequences are of such importance 
that it justifies withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
  I think the President is justified in taking the position that with 
all of the countries today that can accidentally or intentionally 
launch a missile into the United States, that the circumstances have 
changed dramatically enough that the United States has to take a new 
approach; that the United States can no longer afford, can no longer 
afford to sit by and pretend that in our future there will be no 
missile attack against the United States.
  In fact, it is just the opposite. The United States must prepare 
today for tomorrow and for the future generations, prepare for the 
expectation that in fact a missile at some point or another will be 
launched against the United States of America, either intentionally or 
accidentally.
  But once that missile is airborne, it does not much matter as far as 
the consequences of the missile hit. But it does matter if we are able 
to stop that missile, let us say, on its launching pad; and let us say 
we are able to determine it was an accidental launch, that somebody 
made a mistake, that some mechanism, a malfunction, and we were able to 
stop a war or we were able to stop American retribution, which you know 
because of our capabilities would be severe, harsh, and instantaneous; 
that we were able to avoid that because we had in place a system that 
was capable of stopping an attack against the United States.
  So I urge every one of my colleagues, instead of playing the 
political rhetoric game, which I am beginning to see emerge up here, 
against the missile defense system, put that political rhetoric aside 
for the benefit of the future generations of the United States of 
America. Try and put in place a vision for the future, a future that 
allows the people and the population of the United States, and the 
friends of the United States of America, the capability of making a 
missile attack a nonissue, because we have the capability to stop it.
  For those of you who want to end violence or at least do what you can 
to minimize violence, you, as I said earlier, should be the strongest 
proponents we have for a missile defense system. So I congratulate the 
President, I congratulate the administration, and, frankly, I commend 
both Democrats and Republicans on the House floor that are coming 
across this aisle to stand in unison in favor of a missile defense 
system for this country.
  Let me just reiterate a couple points I made earlier. It is 
appropriate and it is timely for the United States Congress to put in 
our rules a rule which prohibits inappropriate conduct between a 
Congressman and an intern.
  I spent a good deal of time at the beginning of my remarks explaining 
why I have pursued this issue. I spent a good deal of time pointing out 
that we are the only major institution, the U.S. Congress is the only 
major institution in United States that does not have a prohibition 
against inappropriate relationships between a Congressman and an 
intern. For example, the teaching profession, every school in the 
Nation prohibits it; the medical profession prohibits it; the military 
prohibits it; the clergy prohibits it; the legal profession prohibits 
it; most major corporations prohibit it. The United States Congress 
ought to follow good example. It is not precedent breaking. We should 
set a good example, follow a good example, and put in place a rule that 
prohibits that type of inappropriate conduct.
  Finally, as my final remarks, I urge all of us to stand as a team to 
address this economy. This is not a laughing matter. This is a very 
serious situation. We are in a tunnel, we are not out the other side of 
it, and there is a train coming in. We need to stand in unison to 
figure out how to get out of that tunnel. And there is light. We can 
get out of the tunnel, but the more bickering and partisanship that we 
see on this House floor, the less likely that we can fulfill our 
leadership responsibilities and obligations and lead our country into 
some type of economic recovery.

                          ____________________