[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 24279-24285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           ISSUES OF CONCERN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to address really three 
subjects. The first two subjects will be quite brief.
  One, satellite TV. Many of my colleagues, who like me represent rural 
districts in this country, have a deep concern about the reception and 
the need for local access on satellite TV.
  The second issue that I intend to address this evening is the 
Brooklyn Art Museum in New York City. I have gotten a number of phone 
calls into my office from people who appear somewhat

[[Page 24280]]

confused on my position in regard to that. I want to make sure this 
evening that position is clarified.
  Then I intend to move on to the third subject, which will consume 
most of my time this evening as I address my colleagues, and that is 
the anti-ballistic missile treaty. My comments will be highlighted by 
the term, and Members have heard it before, the race against time.
  What is the anti-ballistic missile treaty and what is the impact that 
the anti-ballistic missile treaty has on us all as average citizens? 
What is the threat to this country of continuing to try to comply with 
the terms of the anti-ballistic missile treaty?
  I will go into a definition of what the anti-ballistic missile treaty 
is, about our national defense against missiles, and I think we will 
have at least some detail for a somewhat educated exchange this evening 
on the pros and the cons of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin with satellite reception across the 
country. As I mentioned, my district is the Third Congressional 
District in the State of Colorado. My district is unique in geographic 
terms in that this district has the highest elevation of any district 
in the United States. We have over 54 mountains above 14,000 feet. TV 
reception in the Third District of the State of Colorado is as 
important to the people of the Third Congressional District of Colorado 
as it is to the people in New York City, or as it is to the people in 
Kansas, or as it is to the people in Los Angeles, or up in Seattle.
  TV has become a very important part of our lives. Now, I am not this 
evening trying to get into the pros and cons of watching television, 
but I am getting into the ability to have local access through 
satellite. Many of my constituents, and many of my colleagues' 
constituents, if they live in rural areas especially in this country, 
or even if they live in an urban area but have some challenges because 
of geography or buildings or things like that, are looking to satellite 
for their TV reception. And I think it is important that these 
satellite receivers, the users, have an opportunity to have local 
access, which they have been denied for a period of time.
  We have a bill right now that passed out of the House overwhelmingly, 
passed out of the Senate overwhelmingly, and we have the two bills now 
in what is known as a conference committee. My good friend, the Senator 
from the State of Utah, is the chairman of that conference committee, 
and I am assured that that conference committee is working very hard to 
come out with some type of compromise so that those constituents of 
ours who are using satellites will have an opportunity in the not-too-
distant future to have the right to local access.
  I am confident that we can conclude this in such a manner that it 
will not be damaging to the other competitors out there but will allow 
satellite to be at least at the same level as cable TV.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me move to the second subject, the subject that 
some of my colleagues who have been on the floor when I have spoken 
before know I feel very strongly about.
  I will precede my comments by telling my colleagues that at times in 
the past I have supported government involvement in certain art 
projects. I think art is fundamentally important in our country. I 
think there are a lot of things about art that help our society become 
more civilized and so on. But that said, I, like all Americans, have 
limitations. And those limitations, of course, were tested, 
intentionally tested, recently by the Brooklyn Art Museum in New York 
City.
  Let me explain what is happening at that museum. That museum, which 
is funded in part, in large part, by taxpayer dollars, by taxpayer 
dollars, decided to put on a show, an art show, an exhibit, that 
displayed, amongst other things, the Virgin Mary, which is a very 
significant symbol of the christian religion, but to exhibit a portrait 
of the Virgin Mary with, for lack of a better word, although they say 
dung in my country they understand it as crap, with crap thrown on the 
portrait. It is disgusting. The artist knows it is disgusting, the 
Brooklyn Art Museum knows it is disgusting, and the directors of the 
Brooklyn Art Museum know it is disgusting.
  But they have decided to defy what I think is common sense, and they 
have decided to stand up and say it is their right, trying to paint it 
under the constitutional right of freedom of speech, it is their right 
to use taxpayer dollars, taxpayer dollars, it is their right to use 
those dollars to pay for this exhibit. I disagree with that.
  Now, let me say at the very outset, so that I am perfectly clear, 
this is not, this is not an argument about the first amendment of the 
Constitution, freedom of speech. No one that I have heard, no one that 
I know has said that this exhibit, as sick as it is, should be 
prohibited from being shown somewhere in the country by any individual. 
We believe very strongly in this country about the freedom of speech 
and about that first amendment in our constitution. That is not the 
issue here. They have tried to paint the issue as a first amendment 
issue. It is not a first amendment issue.
  The issue here is very clear. Number one, should taxpayer dollars be 
used to pay for this exhibit? Now, some people say, well, how do we 
decide what is offensive? How do we decide when taxpayer dollars should 
be used or should not be used? The decision, to me, is pretty easy, and 
I am sure the decision to a number of my colleagues is pretty easy. It 
is called a gut feeling. I wonder how many of my colleagues out there 
would take a look at the portrait of the Virgin Mary with dung, or 
crap, thrown all over it and their gut would not tell them that 
something is wrong; that this is not right; that this should not be 
happening.
  Now, to me, that decision would be no more difficult than looking at 
a portrait of Martin Luther King with crap thrown all over it. That is 
not right. It should not be exhibited with taxpayer dollars. And 
whoever would do that is sick, in my opinion. It is not a display of 
art. But there is that right of freedom of speech.
  I can tell my colleagues what has happened in the Brooklyn Art Museum 
is they have decided to put that exhibit up and they have decided to 
test it and use taxpayer dollars. Well, what have they done and why is 
a congressman from the State of Colorado and the mountains of Colorado 
worried about an art exhibit in New York City? Well, number one, I am a 
Catholic and I am personally offended by what has occurred here.
  But that is not the primary issue. The primary issue is that I am a 
supporter of the arts. But I think by these prima donnas in New York 
City at the Brooklyn Art Museum deciding to display this portrait of 
the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it that these prima donnas 
have damaged the art community throughout the United States, including 
in the Third Congressional District in the State of Colorado.
  I am sure my colleagues can understand how hard it is sometimes to go 
to our constituents and to defend the fact that we have voted for 
government funding of some type of art project, no matter how 
worthwhile it is. These prima donnas at the Brooklyn Art Museum, do 
they take that into consideration? Do they take into consideration that 
they are offending the christian communities out there?
  I can tell my colleagues right now that the Brooklyn Art Museum and 
those prima donnas would no more think about putting a Nazi symbol in 
the museum and pay for it with taxpayer dollars, they would not think 
of doing it with a Martin Luther King portrait, they would not do it 
with an AIDS quilt, those beautiful quilts that are made in memory of 
the people that have suffered that horrible tragedy, and then have crap 
thrown on that blanket. They would not think about it. In fact, they 
would probably join in a protest to take down the building or destroy 
the building. But when it comes to Christianity, they think it is okay.
  And then, beyond that, look what these prima donna directors at this 
museum, and the director of the museum, are doing to the art community. 
Do they need to harm the programs

[[Page 24281]]

that we now have in place where we have legitimate worthwhile art 
projects that are paid for in part with taxpayer dollars? Do they need 
to put those in threat of extinction? Do they need to do that? They do 
not need to do that. They have a lot of money there at the Brooklyn Art 
Museum. They can pick up a phone and call one of their benefactors, 
they have a lot of wealthy benefactors at that museum, and they can ask 
for them to pay for the exhibit. They do not need to use taxpayer 
dollars. The only reason that they are using taxpayer dollars is 
because at that museum they want to put their thumb in the face of the 
American citizen.
  Now, I have gotten some calls in the office, as many of my colleagues 
do when we talk about a controversial subject. I have gotten some 
threats about my future in politics because of my philosophy that we 
should not be using taxpayer dollars here. But those people that call 
me with those threats, those people that think they are justified in 
displaying art like the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over her, at 
taxpayers' expense, those people that call me on the phone, in my 
opinion, colleagues, have a very difficult time. In reality, when they 
are by themselves, they have a very difficult time when they get up in 
the morning looking at that mirror and saying to themselves that what 
they did today and what they are going to do tomorrow is justified; 
that it makes a lot of sense to go ahead and use taxpayer dollars to 
fund this kind of garbage.
  Now, some people have called my office saying, ``How dare you call 
any kind of art garbage. How dare you act so offended by this piece of 
art. This is an artist's right of expression.'' Of course, they do not 
answer the question, they usually hang up on me, when I ask them about 
some of these other examples I have cited earlier. But I am telling my 
colleagues that there are limitations.
  First of all, I think the average person, just their gut reaction is 
deep offense, deep offense at a portrait of the Virgin Mary or a 
portrait of a Jewish leader or a Buddhist leader that would have crap 
thrown on it. There is an inherent standard of character with the 
American citizen that says there is not a place for that. Do not put 
that in our society, especially with taxpayer dollars.

                              {time}  2200

  So, my colleagues, those of your constituents who disagree with me, 
let me make it very clear. I think they are a minority. I think that 
the average American out there wants character standards in this 
country and says there is no place for this type of art.
  Let me now move on to the subject of which I intend to spend most of 
my time and which is entirely separated from either the satellite issue 
that I just spoke about or the fight we are having over the Brooklyn 
Art Museum.
  By the way, let me include one other thing. Mayor Giuliani in New 
York City has come under criticism because he yanked the taxpayer 
dollars. Well, I will tell you something, Mayor, you are doing the 
right thing.
  The second thing I should point out is some of my colleagues, I heard 
it well, what the Republicans are trying to do is exercise censorship 
on the art community. What a bunch of bogus baloney. What do you mean 
exercise censorship? Those are taxpayer dollars, Democrats. And for you 
to come out in the press and say the Republicans are trying to exercise 
censorship is ridiculous and you know it is ridiculous.
  Do not evade the issue. Do not try to push it off under the first 
amendment. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has to do 
entirely with, number one, should you be doing that in a public 
institution, but number 2, should you be allowed to use taxpayer 
dollars for those kind of expressions.
  Mr. Speaker, let us move on to my other subject, the race against 
time.
  Many of us in this country assume that if this country were to come 
under attack by missiles of another country that we would have a 
defense.
  I live in the State of Colorado. Just outside of my district and the 
district of my good colleague the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
who represents the community of Colorado Springs, the County of El 
Paso, there is a mountain called Cheyenne Mountain. That mountain has 
been bored out. In fact, a small community is now within that mountain 
that is called the NORAD Defense System inside Cheyenne Mountain.
  Within seconds, and I do not know the exact details because it is 
classified or the details I do know are classified, but, generally, 
within a very short period of time, if any country in the world 
launches a missile, NORAD in Colorado Springs, through its detection 
devices, can pick up, one, that a launch has occurred; two, the 
direction of the missile; three, the speed of the missile; and a lot of 
other things; and, of course, they can pick up the target of the 
missile.
  Well, we have known this for a long time. NORAD is one of our proud 
accomplishments at providing a defense for the United States of America 
against our enemies. In the past we really only had one country capable 
of delivering that type of missile attack against the United States. It 
was Russia. But what a lot of people mistakenly assume is that once we 
detect within a very short period of time that a missile has been 
launched against the United States of America, then we somehow can 
defend against that missile.
  Well, the bad news that I bring my colleagues this evening is that we 
have no defense. We have the technology. We are even gaining more 
technical capability to defend this country against a missile attack. 
But we do not have a defense system in place to stop those missiles.
  I want to say at the beginning of these comments that a lot of the 
information that I have gathered over the years on the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty has been gathered from some of the experts at the Wall 
Street Journal. I want to commend to my colleagues, I hope you have an 
opportunity to read any of the articles that the Wall Street Journal 
has on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
  But let us go over a few facts about our military defense. One, as I 
just told you, we can detect a launch, we can determine when that 
missile is coming, where it is coming from, and where it is going to 
hit. But then all we can do is call up the target and say, you have got 
an incoming ICBM and we will say a prayer for you because there is not 
much else we can do for you.
  That is wrong. Henry Kissinger once said, ``It is morally 
irresponsible not to provide for the people of your country a missile 
defense system.'' ``It is morally irresponsible not to provide the 
people of your country a missile defense system.'' I was at the World 
Forum about 3 years ago in Vail, Colorado, and there Margaret Thatcher 
said exactly the same thing. These people are people of intellect. They 
are people who have had many experiences through their lives and they 
realize the importance of having a defense system in place.
  Let me go through a few facts for my colleagues. The Cox report. 
Remember what the Cox report was about? The Cox report was a 
bipartisan, not a Democrat, not a Republican, a combination of 
Republican and Democrat congressmen, and I say that generically, who 
investigated the Chinese espionage.
  It is said, and from what I have read and the briefings I have gotten 
I believe it to be true, that the Chinese espionage was the worst and 
most devastating espionage we have had in American history. The Cox 
report reveals that Communist China has moved almost overnight from a 
1950s nuclear capability to the most modern technology in the American 
nuclear arsenal.
  In the opinion of many of the experts, as I just said, this could be 
the most damaging failure in American intelligence history.
  Fact number 2: The ABM Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, is 
over 27 years old. It has not been amended. It is a treaty that exists 
only between two countries, between Russia and the United States. 
Remember earlier in my comments I mentioned that at the time this 
treaty was put together and in the early days of the missiles, the

[[Page 24282]]

only country really capable of delivering a significant and severe blow 
to the United States was Russia.
  This is a very important fact and one we have got to remember: Today 
over two dozen countries have the capability to deliver a missile into 
the United States. Many of these countries are in the process of 
building even more sophisticated delivery systems.
  We know, for example, what the North Koreans are doing. The answer, 
by the way, of the administration to the North Koreans is, buy them 
off, get them to promise that they will abandon their nuclear program 
and we will give them more aid. We give them a lot of aid right now, I 
think 500,000 barrels of oil a year and money that the North Koreans 
promised us they will not put into the military, they will put into 
food for their citizens.
  What kind of fools are we? These people do not have our interests in 
mind. They do not care about the United States of America. They do not 
care about our future.
  Now, that is not to say we need to go to war with them. I am not 
advocating that at all. My position is, however, if somebody picks a 
fight with us, we ought to be in shape to handle it, because at some 
point in the future it is going to happen.
  Do my colleagues not think that we have an obligation to the 
generation behind us, if not our own generation, to be ready when that 
day comes? It is a race against time.
  We need a missile defense system. We need a defense system that, as 
stated by the Heritage Foundation, is a defense based on land, sea, and 
space. Here it goes, space.
  Remember when Ronald Reagan was President and he got ridiculed, 
frankly, he got an awful lot of ridicule from the Democrats, he got a 
lot of ridicule for his proposed missile defense system in space? Well, 
you know, the day is coming when we are going to look back at Ronald 
Reagan and say he knew what he was talking about on that missile 
defense system.
  In fact, we must put into place a missile defense system based on 
land, based on sea, and yes, based on space. Having a missile defense 
system in space gives us many, many more options. In other words, 
instead of waiting for the incoming missile to come into our country 
where we try and intercept it with a one-shot opportunity, we can then, 
through satellite detection and so on, hit the missile in several 
different stages as it arcs over to our country. We can actually hit it 
on the launching pad.
  There are lot of options out there and we should not eliminate any of 
them and we should not allow our hands to be tied by this Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty. I am going to explain a little more on the 
Treaty and what the Treaty means. But the world has changed a great 
deal since the ABM Treaty was first ratified, over 27 years ago. The 
U.S. faces a lot of new challenges and there are a lot of different 
types of threats that are coming at us today.
  Take a look at China and take a look at what China has gotten into 
their espionage and take a look at the capabilities. The Chinese are 
very bright people and they know and they want a future, not only a 
future as a giant in economics, they want to be the leading country in 
the world in military.
  As many of you know, and some of you may hate to admit it, but the 
fact is you cannot be the second strongest kid on block. You cannot do 
it, especially if you have something else that the strongest kid on the 
block wants. You have got to be the strongest.
  That is not to suggest that you got to be a bully and you got to go 
out and pick fights. But it is to say that if you are not the 
strongest, you are going to be in a lot of fights.
  It is interesting. Let me tell you, I have been very blessed over the 
years with many high school students coming into my office, very 
bright. That generation has got a lot of things going for it. There are 
a lot more things going right for this generation than going wrong. But 
once in a while when these classes come in and I have an opportunity to 
speak with some of these fine young people, someone brings up the 
question, why do we spend so much money on military defense? Why do we 
worry about a missile defense system in this country?
  I say to them, if you were a black belt in karate and everybody in 
your class knew that you were a black belt in karate and everybody in 
that class knew that if they decided to take your lunch or pick on your 
friend or pick on you that you would exercise the knowledge you have as 
a result of your black belt in karate and you break their nose or break 
their neck, how many fights do you think you would be in? How many 
people do you think would pick a fight? Not very many.
  I forget who I should attribute this saying to, but there is a quote 
and it should be attributed, but I cannot remember who it was, but the 
quote goes something like this: The best way to stay out of a war is to 
always be prepared for a war. That is the best way to stay out of it.
  Well, let us talk about another fact, the Rumsfield report.
  Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and his team of defense 
experts, now remember, this is bipartisan, this is not a Republican 
deal, not a Democrat deal, it is a bipartisan team, the Rumsfield 
report, and we have real experts on that. We do not have some 
congressmen. We are real experts on missile defense that are on this 
panel. Here are their conclusions, and they are important conclusions 
to remember. Lock them in because it impacts our generation and every 
generation to go forward.
  Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and his team of defense 
experts issued a report to the United States Congress in the summer of 
1988 that said ballistic missiles from rogue nations could strike 
American cities with little or no warning. Ballistic missiles from 
rogue nations could strike American cities with little or no warning; 
that North Korea has been said to be building missiles with a 6,200 
mile range that could reach Arizona or even Wisconsin; that Iran is 
working on missiles with the capability to hit Pennsylvania or Montana 
or Minnesota; that there is a fear that Russian missiles may be bought 
by one of these nations or a terrorist like Bin Laden, that when 
dealing with terrorists arms control negotiations do not work.
  Well, let us talk about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I am going 
to read this. And let me again attribute a lot of this information 
right here to the Wall Street Journal. I think they are very accurate 
in their description. And my colleagues, I would ask that you be 
patient but listen to the words as I read through.
  ``Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty meant to hold the populations of the 
United States and Soviet Union hostage to nuclear attack.''
  Now, what do they mean by that? What the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty does. The essence of it, very simplified, is that Russia and the 
United States agreed over 27 years ago, look, one way to deter war is 
to not have the ability to defend against it. In other words, one way 
to make sure you never pick on anybody is to be sure that you never get 
a black belt in karate.

                              {time}  2215

  So they come up with the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which in 
essence says that Russia cannot build a defense against incoming 
missile attack and the United States cannot build a defense against an 
incoming missile attack. The theory of this is that the United States 
would never then go to war with Russia because we have no way to defend 
ourselves and, vice versa, Russia would never go to war with the United 
States because Russia has no way to defend itself.
  The language of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty expressly forbids 
the development of a national missile defense, allowing each side to 
deploy just 100 land-based anti-missile intercepters, capable of 
shielding only a small region. The United States observed the treaty 
and still does. Yet, from the onset there were troubling signs that the 
Soviets were not.
  Now a new book provides disquieting evidence that the treaty has 
proved to be a gigantic sham and an enormous deterrent to the security 
of the United States of America. In the book, the

[[Page 24283]]

ABM Treaty Charade, a Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion, William T. 
Lee, a retired officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency sets down a 
devastating twofold case against the treaty.
  First, it increased the risk of nuclear war during the Cold War. 
Second, there is conclusive proof of violations on a massive scale, 
both by the Soviet Union and post-Communist Russia. Champions of the 
treaty argue that it reassured the Soviets, dampened the armed race and 
brought stability to the United States-Soviet Union relations.
  In reality, by leaving itself defenseless against missiles, the 
United States had encouraged Moscow to prepare to win a nuclear war. 
Soviet annual defense expenditure climbed steady to about 30 percent of 
gross domestic product in 1988, from about 15 percent in 1968. So 15 
percent in 1968 to 30 percent in 1988. In 1981 through 1984, although 
it was not widely understood at the time, the Soviet Union had nearly 
launched a full scale attack against the United States and its NATO 
allies. Had America deployed a missile defense around 1970, which by 
the way it could have done with technology at that time, the Soviets 
would probably have found the quest for nuclear supremacy prohibitive 
from the start and would have never, ever considered or come as close 
as they did to launching a nuclear attack against our Nation.
  To make matters worse, in utter contempt of the treaty the Soviets 
conceived, tested, deployed and refined a missile defense. Not only did 
the USSR, unlike the United States, deploy the one missile defense 
permitted by the treaty, leaving Moscow with 100 intercepters, 
sanctioned by the law, but Moscow also littered about the Soviet 
territory with another 10,000 to 12,000 intercepters and 18 battle 
management radars. So, in other words, we signed the treaty with Russia 
and contained within that treaty, and we will go over a few parts of 
that treaty here in a minute, contained within the treaty was a clause 
that said each side could have 100 intercept defense missiles.
  The United States had 100 intercept defense missiles. The Russians 
had 12,100 under the mask of secrecy, and under the mask of compliance 
of the anti-ballistic Missile treaty they did not build just 100 
intercepters they built 12,100 intercepters. We are such fools 
sometimes in this country. We owe it to ourselves to become alert about 
this issue.
  Together, the Moscow defense and the vast homeland defense formed an 
interlocking system, nearly all of it not allowed by the treaty. How 
could the U.S. intelligence system overlook such an astounding 
violation? To answer this question is to comprehend another awful part 
of the treaty legacy. Those in this country who promoted the treaty 
succeeded in elevating it to theology and they prevailed upon virtually 
everyone in authority to accept no evidence that spoke to the existence 
of Soviet missile defense. We just intentionally, these arms control 
fanatics intentionally put a shield in front of their eyes and said, do 
not tell me about any Soviet missile defenses. I do not hear it. I do 
not want to see it. I do not want to talk about it. It is not 
happening.
  In the meantime, 12,000 Russian intercepter missiles are put out 
there, and we comply with this treaty and we build 100. Washington knew 
about the 10,000 to 12,000 intercepters; in 1967 and 1968 had concluded 
that the intercepters that were not part of the Moscow system were 
anti-aircraft systems and that each of the radars was for early warning 
of a missile attack. No violations.
  In 1991, however, a U.S. team visited one of the radars and found 
that the passing of data was not only for early warning but also for 
battle management. Violation.
  This discovery, combined with earlier evidence which had been 
dismissed by the Central Intelligence Agency, leads to the clear 
conclusion that the 12,000 interceptors were dual use, lethal against 
ballistic missiles as well as aircraft. Several former top Soviet 
officials have confirmed the dual use in memoirs published this decade, 
but Washington has continued to ignore this massive violation of the 
treaty.
  Today with the Cold War over, the ABM treaty is as dangerous as ever 
to the United States. Long gone, and this is so important, this is so 
important, long gone are the days where the only threat to the United 
States in the form of a capacity of a missile was from Russia. How 
foolish to forsake missile defense in the face of rising missile powers 
such as China, such as Iran, such as India, such as Iraq, such as North 
Korea, such as Pakistan.
  Remember, the treaty is not between the United States and Iran. It is 
not between the United States and North Korea. It is between the United 
States and Russia and prevents the United States from defending itself 
against any other country, not just Russia but against North Korea, 
against Iran. So we cannot build a missile defense system because we 
are locked in under this treaty.
  It is foolish. It is crazy.
  Let us talk for a minute about what we have, what the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile treaty is and some of the articles that are important. I have 
to my left here, Mr. Speaker, a display board and I will go over a 
couple of things. Article number one, my red dot is there, this is the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. These are parts of it taken out. By the 
way, the treaty is not complicated. I would be happy to provide any of 
my colleagues a copy of it. It is three or four pages long. This is not 
a study in complexity. It is fairly simply written. It is easy to 
understand, and it is devastating in its contents.
  Each party undertakes to limit Anti-Ballistic Missile systems and to 
adopt other measures in accordance with provisions of the treaty. Each 
party, again speaking only of the United States and of Russia, but it 
is applicable as to the defense against any other country, against the 
United States of America, each party agrees not to deploy Anti-
Ballistic Missile defense systems for the defense of its territory. 
Each party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems for defense of the 
territory of its country, and not to provide a base for such defense 
and not to deploy ABM systems for defense of an individual region 
except as provided in article three of the treaty.
  Right there, that paragraph right there, we are saying 27 years ago 
we will not provide any kind of missile defense system in this country.
  Well, I cannot figure out the logic of it 27 years ago. I cannot 
figure out the logic of it 15 years ago and today I sure as heck cannot 
figure out the logic of this treaty, especially when we have numerous 
other countries that are developing this ballistic missile capability, 
over two dozen of them.
  Let us skip here just for a minute. Each party undertakes not to 
develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, 
air-based, space-based or mobile-land based. This treaty, in my 
opinion, is a complete lock-out of any opportunity of the citizens of 
the United States of America to defend themselves.
  Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM launchers 
for launching more than one ABM intercepter missile at a time from each 
launcher, not to modify deployed launchers, et cetera, et cetera. You 
can see as this goes on, to enhance the assurance of effectiveness on 
the ABM systems and their components, each party undertakes not to give 
missiles, launchers or radars, other than ABM intercepter missiles, ABM 
launchers or ABM radars capabilities to counter strategic basic 
missiles or their elements in flight trajectory and not to test them in 
an ABM mode. To assure the viability and effectiveness of this treaty, 
each party undertakes not to transfer to other states and not to deploy 
outside of its national territory ABM systems of the components limited 
by this treaty.
  What I have brought out of the treaty here is the language that is 
fairly simple, easy to understand and the concept is clear. The concept 
is that the United States of America, based on the word of Russia, 
would not build a defensive missile system for itself. Know what? In 
America, we like to keep our word. We kept our word. In America, the 
United States did not deploy a missile defense system. We are

[[Page 24284]]

here today, 1999, just a few short weeks away from the turn of the 
century, facing over two dozen countries with sophisticated missiles 
and the opportunity to increase the technology and the sophistication 
of their missiles, and we still continue to put a blindfold in front of 
our eyes.
  As Henry Kissinger said, it is immoral, it is immoral, not to provide 
a defense system for our citizens.
  Well, now some people say, all right, Scott, you have convinced us, 
this treaty is not a good idea. It prevents the United States from 
defending its own territory.
  But are we locked into it? Well, the treaty is perpetual, meaning 
that it goes on as long as the parties agree, but the treaty also has 
language that allows us to abrogate the treaty, to get out of the 
treaty, legitimately. It is in the contract.
  Again, language from the contract, article 15 of the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile treaty, ABM, this treaty shall be of unlimited duration. I 
spoke about that a moment ago. Each party shall, in exercising its 
national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty if it 
decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this 
treaty have jeopardized its supreme interest.
  Let us talk for a minute about extraordinary events. What are some 
extraordinary events? Well, there are several out there that we can 
look at. First of all, the other party that we made the agreement with, 
the Soviet Union, is no longer in existence. Now we have independent 
countries over there. So one party of the agreement is not even in 
existence as it was at the time we signed the agreement over 27 years 
ago.
  Number two, the countries that have the missile capability 27 years 
ago, 20 years ago, even 15 years ago, the only country that was capable 
of bringing and delivering those missiles to Minnesota or to Montana or 
to New York or Los Angeles was Russia. So extraordinary event, now we 
have over two dozen countries that are building or are capable of 
delivering those missiles into the inside of the United States of 
America. That is a pretty extraordinary event, and that is exactly what 
that term is intended to mean in that treaty.
  We ought to get out of this treaty. We ought to abrogate the treaty.
  It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months 
prior to withdrawal from this treaty. Such notice shall include a 
statement of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as 
having jeopardized its supreme interests.
  Supreme interests; think of the wording, supreme interests. Above all 
else, what should the United States of America be concerned about, 
above all else when it comes to this military? It is the defense of our 
people. We are not warmongers. Our country has lost many, many of our 
citizens and lives to protect other countries, some of them in recent 
years, and we know that in the future we will have another fight. But 
what are our supreme interests? It is an inherent supreme interest to 
protect yourself. Even individually, we have the concept of self-
defense. That is what this is. It is self-defense for an entire nation, 
for the territory of the United States. That is a supreme interest and 
that is why we should, in this country, abrogate this treaty under the 
terms of the agreement and build a missile defense system for the 
United States.

                              {time}  2230

  Now what are some people thinking about this? You are not going to 
believe it, you are not going to believe it.
  There are still, of course, supporters out there for this treaty, 
including the President.
  Colleagues, we have an opportunity in another year and a half to have 
new leadership down there, and regardless of which party it comes from, 
although obviously I have some preference in that regards, whichever 
party it comes from, that new President, our new President, should 
seriously consider the terms of this and how it has handcuffed the 
United States in its own self-defense.
  But I want you to know there are other people on the other side of 
this issue. What are their thoughts?
  They want to go a step further. They actually do not think that the 
anti ballistic missile treaty is enough. They think we ought to do 
something called, and get ahold of this, and any of my colleagues out 
there that have constituents with any type of military conscience, get 
ahold of this:
  They call it de-alerting, de-alerting, D-E-hyphen-A-L-E-R-T-I-N-G, 
de-alerting. Let me describe what de-alerting is. You are not going to 
believe it.
  Now, having lulled the country to sleep on defenses against missiles, 
the same group of old-time arms controllers have come up with another 
idea called de-alerting which would take our nuclear forces off alert 
status. The aim would be to increase the amount of time necessary to 
launch a nuclear weapon from minutes to hours to even days.
  De-alerting, a word so awkward only arms control bureaucrats could 
have thought of it, could take a number of forms, and suggestions being 
put forward are somewhat concerning. They include removing the 
integrated circuit boards from the ballistic missiles that we have and 
storing them hundreds of miles away.
  What? As my colleagues know, what you do is you take the computer 
brains of the missiles we have, and you take them, and you store them 
several hundred miles away so that if, all of a sudden, we come under 
attack by another country and we decide to retaliate, we have got to go 
get the parts several hundred miles away, bring them to the missile and 
install them. Makes a lot of sense; does it not? Taking the warheads 
off the missiles or possibly the Minutemen ICBMs, welding shut, and get 
ahold of this, welding shut the missile hatches on some submarines and 
doubling the number of orders a hard-to-communicate-with submarine 
would have to receive before it can launch a missile.
  Any one of these measures is the nuclear equivalent of giving a beat 
cop an unloaded gun and requiring he radio back to headquarters for 
bullets when he wants to use them. That is a pretty good example. I 
want to credit the Wall Street Journal for that example. What they are 
saying is what the new arms control people are aiming for is the 
essence of giving a police officer out on the street in a dangerous 
situation an unloaded gun and that if he wanted the bullets for his 
gun, he would have to call headquarters and request headquarters to get 
them out of the lockbox. He can run back, get the bullets and then come 
back to the scene.
  That is what they are asking us to do with our military defense. We 
have got to change the direction that some of these people are going, 
and I think the majority of people in the United States believe, one, 
very strongly that we should not initiate a war unnecessarily; two, 
that our country has a fundamental obligation to its citizens, a 
fiduciary obligation to its citizens, and not only a fiduciary and 
fundamental obligation to its citizens, but a fiduciary and fundamental 
obligation to the future generations to provide a defense, a missile 
defense, for this country.
  That is where we have to go with this. That is where we need to take 
it, and that is the direction we need to go. And can we do it with the 
anti ballistic missile treaty? We cannot do it. We need to get rid of 
it. It is not serving our best interests. It does not help us. It does 
us as much good on the floor as it does in action. I mean it is not 
helping. It hurts us. We should be entitled to defend ourselves with 
defensive missiles.
  Let me wrap up just very briefly about the conclusion that I think we 
should all look at.
  Number One, remember the facts, that there are over two dozen 
countries currently with the capability or building the capability to 
deliver missiles into the heart of the United States of America.
  Number Two, that when this treaty was drafted, it was 27, over 27 
years ago, and it was drafted between two countries, Russia and the 
United States. It was applicable. Even though the United States now 
faces multiple

[[Page 24285]]

threats, this treaty prevents the United States not only from defending 
itself from the country of Russia, but defending itself from any of the 
other threats like they may have from North Korea, or Iran, or Iraq, or 
Pakistan, or India, et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, we could go 
through two dozen of those kinds of countries.
  Number Three, we have the sophistication today to build an effective 
missile defensive system. We have the money today, and it should be a 
high priority. We have the money today to develop even better 
technology.
  Now is the technology complicated? It is very complicated. Imagine a 
bullet coming several thousand miles per hour, and you have got to take 
it down with another bullet going several thousand miles per hour.
  Now many of you may recall over the last couple of weeks we had a 
successful test where the bullet hit the bullet. It is a preliminary 
test, but the technology there is promising.
  The next fact that I think is important is do not automatically, 
colleagues, do not automatically dismiss a space defense system.
  Now in the days of Reagan when the Democrats ridiculed him, it was 
amazing, it was amazing in my opinion the shortsightedness that was 
allowed to continue with that ridicule. But today those days are 
passed. I am willing to go past that. But today we need to sit down as 
a team. We need to sit down and develop the kind of technology, not to 
start a war, not to pick on somebody, but to defend the supreme 
interests, and I use that as a quote out of the anti ballistic missile 
treaty, supreme interests, to defend the supreme interests of the 
United States of America. It is a race against time.
  I have said several times during my comments this evening I have 
quoted Henry Kissinger. It is immoral, it is immoral not to provide the 
citizens of your country with a defensive missile system.
  To my colleagues, when you leave the chambers tonight, you may not 
remember the facts. I hope you remember a little about this treaty and 
how and what it does to us. But more than anything else, I hope you 
remember those four or five words:
  A race against time.

                          ____________________