[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4710-4716]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE RUMSFELD COMMISSION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, this special order hour by the Republican 
majority is one occasion upon which we will take the opportunity to 
discuss the issue of national missile defense, particularly as it 
relates to legislation that is expected to pass on this House floor 
tomorrow, certainly to be debated, and we will kick off that event with 
an unprecedented joint bipartisan meeting on the House floor, at which 
we will receive a briefing and a report from the commission known as 
the Rumsfeld Commission.
  The Rumsfeld Commission is one which was commissioned by this 
Congress to look into the issue of national ballistic missile defense, 
to ascertain the complexity of the threat that looms over the United 
States of America from a potential intercontinental ballistic nuclear 
missile attack.
  Most Americans are unaware that the United States possesses no 
capability or capacity to stop a single incoming intercontinental 
ballistic missile. We cannot stop it. If any of the rogue nations that 
we are concerned about were to launch an attack of a single missile 
against the United States, it would take approximately a half-hour for 
that missile to reach us and there is nothing we would be able to do to 
stop it. That is an alarming reality that the Rumsfeld Commission 
report exposed and used as a basis to warn this Congress that we must 
begin to move forward on implementing a national ballistic missile 
defense policy.
  The report is also one that we took to Russia over the weekend. I am 
joined by one of my colleagues who was part of an 8-member delegation 
that left for Russia on Friday, had an opportunity to brief the Russian 
Duma on the status of nuclear missile threats from rogue nations and 
also to address some of the opportunities for misinterpretation, I 
should say, that should be expected by our Russian counterparts in the 
legislative branch in Russia.
  Our purpose was to do three things. One was to walk them through the 
Rumsfeld Commission report, to give to them the unclassified version of 
the briefing that we will receive here tomorrow and to do that prior to 
the vote that takes place. That was remarkable in and of itself. I 
think the briefing went a long way to helping the United States and 
Russia maintain the strong bond of friendship that we have established 
but do so in a way that allows us to continue to move forward with 
protecting the American people.
  The second thing we hope to accomplish, and I believe successfully 
did, is to suggest to the Russians that our efforts to move forward on 
a national missile ballistic defense program is not motivated by any 
fear or concern about the Russian people or any hostility by the 
country of Russia.
  The third item that we focused on was to suggest to the Russians that 
in an age of rapid technological advances, there is much to be gained 
through cooperative efforts to try to reduce the missile threat around 
the world; to, in fact, move us to that day off into the future that we 
all envision where nuclear missiles, intercontinental ballistic 
missiles, can one day become a thing of the past, where we can 
effectively, through the advances of technology, diplomacy and 
partnership, render nuclear missiles obsolete.
  Now that is a distant dream but one that is imminently possible, and 
I think it was an important opportunity again, first of all, to explain 
our legislation to the Russians before we cast the vote on the House 
floor, and we actually accomplished that before the Senate voted just 
yesterday to pass their version of the measure off of the Senate floor, 
and finally to reassure the Russian Government and our counterparts in 
the Duma that the extension of friendship and partnership that we have 
really strived to establish since the fall of Communism in the old 
Soviet Union is something that we are serious about and we can maintain 
that friendship and, as I said earlier, go forward with establishing a 
missile defense program for our people.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to participate during the 
whole hour but I do want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer), for entering into this special order. We are going to be 
joined by my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) in a few 
moments and perhaps others.
  My friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) has made a 
number of very important points. We are going to have an important 
debate tomorrow afternoon in this House of Representatives on a real 
threat against the United States and against the citizens of our 
country, and I think the American people will be watching us in this 
debate. I want everyone in this body to understand how important it is.
  Also, as the gentleman says, we have an opportunity as House Members, 
tomorrow morning at 9:30 eastern time, to have a very important 
briefing. It is a closed briefing, but I would say to my colleagues 
that are within the sound of my voice we may have constituents coming 
in, we may have subcommittee hearings, and I know that we will be 
pulled at from many, many areas, but there is no more important place 
that

[[Page 4711]]

my colleagues could be tomorrow morning at 9:30 than to hear former 
Secretary Rumsfeld and the members of his bipartisan commission about 
the very real threat that we have from incoming intercontinental 
ballistic missiles where our United States cities, our United States 
citizens, now have absolutely no protection. Hear me. We now have 
absolutely no protection from these incoming missiles.
  We now have a threat that has changed, the world situation has 
changed, and the briefing that we will have from Secretary Rumsfeld 
will be very important tomorrow.
  As the gentleman from Colorado mentioned, he and I just returned last 
night from a long weekend trip to Russia, where we met with members of 
the Russian Government, members of the Russian parliament, the Duma, to 
brief them on the unclassified portions of this Rumsfeld report. We 
were joined on this trip by former Secretary Rumsfeld and two other 
members of his commission, former Director of Central Intelligence, the 
former director of the CIA under this administration, under the Clinton 
administration, Jim Woolsey, and former Under Secretary of State Bill 
Schneider, who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations.
  This is a bipartisan delegation that represented the Rumsfeld 
Commission in Moscow just this past weekend, and the entire Rumsfeld 
Commission, consisting of 9 members, was bipartisan, patriotic 
Democrats and Republicans, who were unanimous, Mr. Speaker, unanimous 
in their bipartisan conclusions that the United States faces an 
imminent threat from missiles coming in principally from rogue nations.

                              {time}  1645

  Nations like North Korea which has already shown us that they can 
launch a multi-stage missile. They have shown us in recent tests. 
Countries like Iraq and Iran whose stated policies are hostile to the 
United States of America.
  So we do not need to be alarmists in this Congress, but we need to 
tell the American people the facts, and I think the American people who 
listen to our debate and the Members of Congress tomorrow afternoon who 
listen to our debate will conclude that this bipartisan commission of 
people who have been there, who know what they are talking about, who 
have been on the frontline in Republican administrations and Democratic 
administrations, protecting our Nation against foreign threats, these 
people are telling the truth. The threat is very real; it could come 
within 5 years, where cities are subject not only to intentional 
attacks from rogue nations, but accidental missile launches or 
unauthorized attacks.
  So I am pleased to join the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) in 
this discussion. As I say, I will probably not be able to be here for 
the entire hour, but I believe we have a message that perhaps has not 
sunk in with the American people. But there is a threat, and this 
Congress will act tomorrow to begin to answer this very real threat.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, and I 
would echo the sentiments of both the gentleman from Mississippi and 
the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, in the beautiful preamble to the Constitution, a 
Constitution we have sworn to uphold and defend against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic, there is the mission statement, if you will, to 
use the parlance of the late 1990s, that it is the role of we, the 
people, to provide for the common defense. And there is no clearer 
mission and no clearer mandate than the current world condition as 
explained by the Rumsfeld Commission.
  The gentleman from Mississippi is quite right. Republicans and 
Democrats, acting foremost as Americans, evaluated the threat of rogue 
States such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and came away with the chilling 
evaluation, as widely reported in the press, though perhaps not with 
the emphasis in hindsight that should have been required, that within 5 
years time, these rogue nations would have at their disposal weapons of 
mass destruction; specifically, intercontinental ballistic missiles, 
that could strike at the heartland of the American Nation, and this is 
what we confront.
  My colleagues also mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the assumption and the 
false impression that exists in the minds of many that the continental 
United States and Alaska and Hawaii are already protected from such an 
attack. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, that is not yet the case. I should pause 
here, especially given the tenor of the times and the revelations of 
unauthorized transfers of technology to the Chinese government, and 
sadly, the alleged political misconduct of the Clinton-Gore 
administration, to underscore what has happened, because in the 
parlance of the politically correct, sadly, our commander in chief from 
time to time is factually challenged. Mr. Speaker, he stood here at the 
rostrum 2 years ago in his State of the Union message and said to the 
American Nation, who looks to its President for reassurance and truth, 
two qualities, Mr. Speaker, that sadly have been sorely lacking, the 
President offered a classic Clintonian statement when he said, quote, 
Tonight, no Russian missiles are aimed at America's heartland, or words 
to that effect.
  That led the distinguished Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Mr. 
Kerrey, in a subsequent appearance on NBC's Meet The Press to say well, 
yes, that is true, but those missiles can be reprogrammed in a matter 
of minutes.
  I acknowledge that reality not to cast aspersions on the Russian 
Federation or members of the Duma with whom my colleagues met this 
weekend, but to point out that sadly, in this age of presidential 
leadership, all Americans have to parse the statements of our commander 
in chief.
  So we are faced with this dilemma: How best to provide for the common 
defense and protect our citizenry from attack from any quarter, but 
especially the threat of rogue nations. And indeed, the headlines today 
ring out the irony of a curious state of conduct with the outlaw Nation 
that is North Korea.
  Indeed, as the gentleman from Mississippi will recall, before we were 
sworn in to the 104th Congress, as part of this new common sense 
conservative majority, the then Secretary of Defense William Perry came 
to brief us at a breakfast sponsored by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter) and I was privileged to ask the first question of then 
Secretary Perry, and I asked the Secretary why the Clinton 
administration was insistent on sharing any form of nuclear technology 
with the North Koreans. And to sum up the Secretary's reply to me: I 
needed a further briefing.
  No, Mr. Speaker, I did not need a further briefing. It is common 
sense that if the stove is on, one does not put one's hand on the eye 
of the stove or one will get burned. One does not play with matches, 
one does not play with fire. And continuing this curious indulgence of 
the North Koreans is now the announcement heralded by this 
administration that the U.S., at long last, will be granted inspection 
of sites in North Korea. But, there is a caveat there, because the 
grand leader of the North Koreans, Kim Jong-il, has a Nation wracked 
with famine, and while this great constitutional republic has proper 
humanitarian impulses to help feed people of the world stricken by 
disaster inside that closed and sadly retro Stalinist state, Kim Jong-
il and his military leaders continue apace their development of 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, and as my colleague from 
Mississippi pointed out, now the North Koreans possess technology that 
can strike America's heartland.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
from Arizona has made a number of absolutely correct statements about 
the missile threat, both from the former Soviet Union, now the 
Federation of Russia, as well as the rogue States. But it is important 
for our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and for all Americans to understand 
that the missile technology, the intercontinental ballistic missiles 
previously owned by the Soviet Union and aimed at us have not been 
utterly destroyed.
  I think a lot of people perhaps even listing to the President of the 
United States in his speech from this very

[[Page 4712]]

room might misunderstand the situation. Those missiles are still there, 
and they can be reprogrammed as the Democratic Senator, responding to 
the President of the United States, correctly pointed out. So that 
threat is still there.
  Now, we have every reason to be optimistic about our new relationship 
with the Soviet Union. We have some joint initiatives with them on 
housing, hopefully which will constitute a win/win situation with the 
United States investment community, the Russian people, and stability 
worldwide. We are involved in some joint efforts with Russia on space 
technology, and I applaud that.
  But the missiles are still there, and elections are going to be held 
in Russia in December of 1999 for the Duma, the Russian parliament. We 
hope that people who support our continued openness and steps toward 
friendship will be elected in December of this year, but we do not know 
that. Presidential elections will be held in the federation of Russia 
early in the year 2000. We do not know the result of that election. So 
we are still in a very dangerous world and the Russian missiles are 
there. But it is not because of the Russian missiles that the Rumsfeld 
Commission has come forward. And we were there, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and I, and a bipartisan delegation from this 
body, we were there to point out the true facts to our colleagues from 
the Russian parliament, that the United States is threatened by rogue 
nations and perhaps by an unauthorized or accidental launch.
  We also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues in the Russian 
Duma that we are asking for the very type of missile shield which 
Russia presently has around its capital city of Moscow. Russia 
presently has the technology that we are asking for to protect our 
cities, and it is only fair and only right, and it is actually our 
constitutional duty, as the gentleman has already pointed out, to take 
the necessary steps under the changed world situation to protect 
Americans from whatever threats as they arise.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is something that 
of course our delegation knew, but I think it was reemphasized during 
this visit, is that the Russians have been engaged in an incremental 
strategy over the years of deploying ground-based radar stations, 
missile interceptors, as well as a civil defense network designed to 
protect the capital city of Moscow.
  Now, this is really one of the weaknesses of the ABM Treaty that we 
are under, because we here in the United States, under that treaty, are 
restricted from constructing a missile defense system that is 
comprehensive in nature, that can protect the entire country. In Russia 
it is a very different story because the majority of the Russian people 
live in the capital city. In fact, the defense structure that they have 
established it is estimated can protect upwards of 70 percent of the 
Russian people. But the ABM Treaty only allows us to protect a point, a 
place. Would it be Washington, D.C., would it be New York, would it be 
Denver, would it be San Francisco, would it be L.A.? Imagine the 
political difficulty in deciding which part of the country we would 
defend in a similar way that the Russians are able to. It is a very 
perplexing question.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
is saying that 70 percent of the population of Russia is now protected 
by a missile defense system and not one American city or citizen is 
protected by a similar system.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the case. It is only the 
reason why, as the gentleman from Arizona mentioned earlier, last 
summer it was when our satellites were beaming down immediate data to 
our analysts in the Air Force primarily, in the space program, they 
watched in almost horror as they were watching in real time data being 
transmitted on a missile launch that we detected from Korea that was of 
a heat signature we had never recognized out of North Korea. It was a 
trajectory we did not recognize. It was at a speed we did not 
recognize. They instantaneously realized and came to the conclusion 
that North Korea had a 3-stage rocket which had not been announced to 
the world. Our intelligence community had failed to warn the United 
States or even to detect that North Korea had this capacity. And with a 
lightweight warhead, that Taepo Dong missile, as it was soon to be 
called, has a radius capacity of about 6,000 miles. That means North 
Korea announced to the world that day the ability to land a missile on 
the North American continent within about a half-hour of launch time. 
Now, that shocked us because we cannot stop it.
  But over in Russia, however, 70 percent of their people are 
potentially protected from that kind of a launch. And the North Koreans 
are not stopping at the Taepo Dong I missile. They are now working on 
the Taepo Dong II missile which will also be of similar design, a 3-
stage rocket with a heavier payload, and continue to possess the 
ability of longer range and more precise targeting over time. That is a 
very real threat.
  I might also point out that members of the Russian Duma had heard 
information before. They know, for example, that North Korea, Libya, 
Iran, Iraq are countries that are moving forward on development; they 
know that Pakistan and India have experimented with underground 
detonations, but they have never, as members of the legislative branch 
in Russia, they do not have the leverage that we do in the United 
States Congress to demand this kind of information to inform themselves 
about these threats.
  The information we took over to the Russian Duma and delivered to the 
Russian parliamentarians was quite an elaboration that I do not think 
they were prepared to hear or expected to hear. I think in the long 
run, let us be frank, the Russian parliamentarians are not thrilled to 
see the United States move forward in a policy direction that would 
have us defend ourselves. They like the current imbalance. That is to 
their strategic advantage.

                              {time}  1700

  But I think we did a successful job, one of erasing some of the 
misinformation and the misinterpretation that is possible with the vote 
we are going to take tomorrow, and, secondly, alerting them to the very 
valid reasons that we as Americans have over the emerging threat of 
these rogue nations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) 
and others, including our very good friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who lead the delegation to the former Soviet 
Union, the Russian Federation.
  Again, I think it is important to underscore the unprecedented nature 
of such a visit, American legislators meeting with their Russian 
counterparts to explain and cut through the haze of disinformation and 
other impulses that may linger from the Cold War that, in the situation 
which we find ourselves, there is a legitimate stake in self-defense 
for this constitutional republic, for our American Nation, and for the 
American people.
  I might also point out, as genuine as the threat is from North Korea, 
the area in and around the Persian Gulf remains an area of grave and 
great concern. Given the proximity of Israel to that region of the 
world, indeed given the Scud attacks on Israel, this administration 
proposed a few years ago that the Israelis might want to have a missile 
defense.
  That begs the question, Mr. Speaker, if it is good enough for the 
Russian people, and as my colleagues have pointed out, some 70 percent 
of the Russian population is effectively covered with this type of 
missile defense system, if our own administration and State Department, 
Mr. Speaker, would say it is good enough for the Israelis and they 
should work on a comparable system, then certainly the American people 
deserve such protection. We must underscore the fact that it currently 
does not exist.

[[Page 4713]]

  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the fact that there continues to 
be a somewhat curious debate in the realm of international law about 
enforcement of a treaty such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or 
ABM Treaty, from more than a quarter century ago ratified by the United 
States Senate.
  In our new world situation, we call that entity with whom we dealt at 
that time now today the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has 
ceased to exist and, indeed, in everyday parlance, just as marriage 
vows customarily end with the term ``till death do you part,'' when one 
entity is dissolved, it is my belief, and I believe a reasonable test 
and a reasonable assumption and assertion, that that treaty likewise or 
at least the involvement with the Soviet Union and the strictures of 
the ABM Treaty ceases to exist because now we are dealing with a new 
Russian federation.
  But, again, I want to salute my friends who took the time and had the 
courage to go talk to our Russian counterparts in a spirit of candor.
  We might also point out, Mr. Speaker, as relevant again as today's 
headlines, there have been reports of the possibility of a similar 
computer crisis that we hear about in this country under the guise of 
Y2K. There are concerns about Russian computers.
  We welcome the chance to break down the barriers and ensure that 
there would be no unintended launch from any type of computer 
malfunction. But if it were to happen, is it not the role of this 
Congress and the American people to make sure that this Nation is 
adequately protected? Sadly, on this day, at this hour, in this 
Chamber, we have to point out that, for the American Nation, no such 
missile defense exists.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) to expound on the point of the 
relevance of the ABM Treaty to the vote tomorrow because the ABM Treaty 
has acknowledged weaknesses.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona has begun a discussion which 
I think will continue for months and even years in this Congress and in 
this Nation concerning the ABM Treaty. I think he has made a very 
logical point in that the Soviet Union no longer exists.
  Other very learned scholars who have looked at the issue have 
concluded that the deployment of our missile defense program in the 
United States would not violate the ABM Treaty. That is to be decided 
later.
  We do need to point out for the sake of our colleagues that will be 
voting tomorrow that there is nothing in the legislation tomorrow that 
has anything to do with the ABM Treaty at all. Indeed, it does not 
discuss the ABM Treaty, yes or no. It simply says, very, very simply, 
in a very short piece of legislation, that it is the policy of the 
United States to deploy a national missile defense system.
  I think it is also important for us to point out that, despite the 
niceties of the ABM Treaty, we are going to take steps in this Congress 
to protect our people, to protect the citizens and cities and 
communities of the United States and provide for the common defense.
  If the ABM Treaty eventually has to be renegotiated, if there has to 
be further diplomatic conversations between these signatory parties or 
between new states that have sprung up in place of those signatory 
parties, we will do that.
  But our first and foremost responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is to realize 
the threat, as the Rumsfeld Commission is going to point out to us in 
our session tomorrow and as we will be learning in the debate and, 
having realized that threat, to do our duty, our duty to provide for 
the defense.
  The gentleman from Arizona mentioned the Middle East and the very 
real conflict that we have seen there in recent years. Certainly we 
know we wish it were not so. But we know that Saddam Hussein is the 
sworn enemy of the United States.
  Here is what Mr. Saddam Hussein had to say about the United States of 
America, ``Our missiles cannot reach Washington. If they could reach 
Washington, we would strike if the need arose.'' Saddam Hussein, 1990.
  Listen to this quote from Abul Abbas, head of the Palestinian 
Liberation Front: ``Revenge takes 40 years. If not my son, then the son 
of my son will kill you. Someday, we will have missiles that can reach 
New York.''
  Mr. Speaker, this House, this Congress, and I hope this 
administration is going to take the necessary steps to answer these 
threats, to answer the very real facts which will be presented to us 
tomorrow, and to make sure that our people can live as safely as 
possible in this very dangerous world.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to add 
one more quote from an American. This is a student who just e-mailed me 
the following message yesterday, and I want to share it with my 
colleagues.
  It says, ``Dear Congressman Schaffer, I do not know if this has come 
up to the floor yet,'' and how timely that it will come to the floor 
tomorrow. ``I do not know if this has come to the floor yet. However, I 
have become aware of the existence of this bill and wish to encourage 
its support.'' She referenced the bill a little earlier. ``The bill 
entitled the American Missile Defense Protection Act calls for enacting 
stronger measures to protect our magnificent country from missile 
attacks. Please research this issue and act and vote in support of it. 
Thank you. God bless.''
  This is a constituent from Fort Collins, Colorado, my district back 
home. This letter is indicative of what most Americans feel about this 
topic when they learn the details of our current state of military 
readiness and defense preparation, when they learn about the issues 
that are at stake, when they learn about the imbalance that is swiftly 
balancing against us.
  I think these are the voices that need to be heard on this House 
floor, particularly tomorrow, over and above all of the hesitations, 
the concerns, the placations that are coming out of the White House 
right now and others throughout the country who believe that this 
defenseless posture that we are in today is something that should 
continue. We have the opposite view.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
sharing that message from his constituent in Fort Collins. Mr. Speaker, 
it points out the unique nature both of this special order and the 
ability that our constituents have, not only from our individual 
districts, but indeed from coast to coast and beyond to e-mail, fax, 
phone their Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, Republican or Democrat, we 
are all Americans, to ask their Member of Congress to move forward with 
this missile defense system. It is vital. It is necessary. It is long 
overdue.
  There is nothing better than the input of those concerned citizens 
rising to this cause, Mr. Speaker, and alerting their respective Member 
of Congress in much the same way as I would take this time, Mr. 
Speaker, again to invite Members from both parties tomorrow to listen 
to the classified briefing on this floor from former Defense Secretary 
Rumsfeld and others who join him on the Commission.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just point out the 
timeliness of the announcement we just heard from the Committee on 
Rules in bringing the bill to the floor for debate. This is very 
relevant matter that we are discussing here today.
  Members of this Congress and citizens throughout the country need to 
come to grips very quickly with the question of what is it we are going 
to stand for as a country when it comes to defending our borders.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for filing that rule so that that debate can take place on 
this House floor tomorrow.
  The world remains a dangerous place. Even as media outlets such as 
the capable news network offer their, at

[[Page 4714]]

times, controversial documentary treatment of the Cold War as if it is 
and anachronism or a relic, the fact is the world does remain a 
dangerous place.
  The rogue states, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) 
pointed out, the avowed enemies of this country who make no bones about 
their yearning, their desire to deploy weapons of mass destruction 
against the world's lone remaining superpower and the very ideals this 
constitutional republic embodies.
  So, again, in full view of the oath we take to the Constitution of 
the United States and our trusted responsibility with the American 
people as their constitutionally elected representatives, we must 
answer this clarion call and make provisions for a missile defense 
system.
  Because, sadly, again, as shocking as it may be to the American 
people, despite some flowery phrases, there is currently no such 
system. This Congress will have to take steps tomorrow.
  I would also point out to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), 
as he is well aware, the developments again echoing through the 
headlines of the major newspapers, the unlawful transfer of technology 
to the People's Republic of China, and the fact sadly that reports 
indicate the Communist Chinese have been only too eager to share this 
technology with rogue States.
  Mr. Speaker, this time on the floor affords us not only the 
responsibility and opportunity to communicate with all of our 
constituencies, and indeed with the American people, but, Mr. Speaker, 
this also affords us the time to speak to those who monitor the 
proceedings on these floors who, quite frankly, wish us ill or fail to 
understand that the very freedoms we cherish in this society are not, 
in fact, weaknesses.

                              {time}  1715

  The despots of this world look at free and open debate as a form of 
weakness, a form of inertia, of immobilization that would somehow 
prevent or abridge our proper responses.
  I think particularly of the Communist Chinese. I think of the 
bellicose threat from the Chinese defense minister of a couple of years 
ago with reference to the Taiwan question when the Chinese, in 
provocative fashion, as the Taiwan government was holding free and fair 
elections, the Chinese conducted exercises and shooting missiles just 
off the coast of Taiwan, and the provocative statement, Mr. Speaker, by 
the Chinese defense minister with reference to our great Nation, 
saying, oh, well, we believe the Americans value Los Angeles more than 
they value Taiwan.
  How are we to interpret that statement, Mr. Speaker? How can we 
interpret that but as a threat to this Nation?
  As I explained to the consul for the Chinese government from Los 
Angeles, who visited Phoenix and sought me out for a meeting expressing 
his goal of friendship, I said, Mr. Speaker, to the consul, then let us 
speak as friends.
  And let there be no mistake, none of our adversaries around the 
world, in any regime, in any place, should ever confuse the will and 
the resolve of the American people once fully informed and rallying to 
a cause. This is such a cause. This is such a moment, to take 
legitimate steps to protect our Nation.
  And though at times, because of previous actions and whatever 
reluctance on the part of this administration to follow through 
effectively in dealing with foreign governments and others, make no 
mistake this Congress takes seriously, Mr. Speaker, its constitutional 
role and its oversight of the executive branch and the need to protect 
the American people. And this constitutional republic will prevail 
because we understand that in a free society the eternal price of 
liberty is vigilance.
  I yield to my friend from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The gentleman is precisely right about the importance 
not only of our efforts to contain the flow of technology and missile-
related components in and among other countries, but it is our own 
participation in the proliferation of missiles which is something we 
should be concerned about as well.
  Let me raise something that came up at the meetings in Russia just 2 
days ago in Moscow. I was part of the delegation that was meeting with 
members of the Duma.
  We had several meetings, but the most memorable one took place Monday 
afternoon, and we were talking about the concern we have for the 
transfer of technology from the Russians, either willingly or outside 
of their own laws, to some of these rogue nations. One of the 
scientists who was there said to all of us, well, it is our impression 
that it is the United States that is contributing to the proliferation 
of their own enemies and the enemies of Russia as well.
  This took us aback for a moment, until we realized the validity of 
his concern. We could certainly understand his point of view. And this 
goes back, and it has actually been documented in the Rumsfeld report, 
goes back to February 15 of 1996 when a Chinese Long March space launch 
vehicle, carrying a western satellite, exploded. The post-failure 
review involving U.S. aerospace companies led to the transfer of 
sensitive information regarding rocket engineering.
  That was an effort by the United States to send information to the 
Chinese to help them perfect their long-range launch capability.
  It goes on to say that in the spring of 1996 the United States sold 
supercomputers to China's Academy of Sciences, which historically has 
participated in that country's effort to develop missiles. In 1996 we 
sold supercomputers to the Russians for a nuclear weapons design lab.
  It was no surprise, I suppose, or should have been no surprise to our 
President that the symbolic gesture by the Chinese took place on July 1 
of 1998, just last year, when China tested the motor of its new DF-31 
intercontinental ballistic missile during the visit from our President. 
They tested the motor of this new-age missile while our President was 
there in a symbolic gesture to show that they are emerging on an 
international, and not only emerging, but they are moving forward very 
dramatically and drastically in the development of new missile defense 
technology.
  I see I am joined by another member of our delegation who was there, 
and it might be instructive at this point to talk a little bit about 
the Russian Duma itself and the members of the Duma, how they relate to 
us as a country. Because for too long, frankly since the fall of 
communism, our relationships with the emerging republic of Russia have 
been at the executive level, our President and State Department 
relating directly with the Russian president, Boris Yeltsin and his 
administration, ignoring wholly the importance of the democratically 
elected members on a representative basis of the Russian Duma.
  Now, in relation to what we understand and know here through our 
system, the legislative branch in the Russian government is less 
powerful and has less direct influence over the day-to-day lives and 
affairs of Russian politics, and there is tremendous strain between the 
presidency of Russia and the Russian Duma.
  Our real hope, I think as Americans, for reaching out to the Russian 
people and forging a relationship that promotes free markets, that 
promotes true democracy, that promotes the kinds of economic reforms, 
such as property rights, homeownership and so on, is through a 
relationship with this body, the Congress of the United States, and 
members of the democratically elected Russian Duma.
  The Russian Duma is where we will find the rising Democrats. This is 
where we will find the individuals who are in favor of these kinds of 
market driven reforms. It is also the place where we will find the 
folks who most vehemently reject the old ways of communism that we find 
so prevalently in the Russian presidency today. That is where many of 
the old Communists went after the Soviet Union fell apart.
  It is the Russian Duma that really could use some support and 
assistance in elevating the stature and their

[[Page 4715]]

prominence in the role of Russian politics, and it is where we should 
look.
  It is why, I think, the visit that we made, an historic visit, was so 
important. Because it really did involve the Russian Duma in an 
important national issue for themselves in a way that they have never 
been afforded before. And I think it will go further in our efforts as 
a country to assure the Russians that our desire for long-term 
partnership and friendship, and to see the Russians move forward in the 
economic reforms that will result in peace and stability are, in the 
end, not only in their best interests but in our best interests.
  It is important to understand that within the context of this bill 
passing tomorrow that the President of the United States prefers to 
deal with the President of Russia and the old line Communists that are 
part of that administration, the old way of doing business in Russia, 
which is resented by the majority of the Russian people and rejected by 
the majority of the Russian people. Our effort in this Congress should 
be to reach out to those new Democrats, the new free marketeers that 
are getting elected with greater frequency in the Duma.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), 
who joined us in that delegation returning last evening.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
his time and indulgence and the point he makes, along with the 
gentleman from Arizona, that this was truly an unprecedented journey 
and an historic journey.
  As the gentleman pointed out, we are in the process of exposing the 
Russian Duma to more and more Members of Congress. This was my first 
time ever to visit that great country of Russia, to talk to them very 
frankly about our need to defend our people from a possible limited 
nuclear strike by some rogue nation.
  It is as a result of our discussion with Duma members, by our 
recognizing the Duma and dealing with the Duma, who very similar to our 
House of Representatives are elected by democratic process by their 
constituents in their regions, and represented in other ways according 
to their constitution, which is vitally important, that we recognize 
the importance of a constitutional form of government and 
Democratically elected representations as a vital part of that 
government. The Duma can see, just like themselves, that we represent 
our constituents. We are representative of the individuals.
  I tell people, when they ask me about this job, I tell them that if 
they want to know what America is like they should just look at the 
U.S. House of Representatives. We are a picture of America. And if we 
look at the Duma the same way we will see what Russia is like. And very 
many times, when we see this executive branch to executive branch 
dialogue and discussion, we miss that from time to time by not seeing 
the elected representatives from the various regions.
  The meeting was vitally important because it is necessary that the 
Duma understand our resolve to join them in the belief that it is the 
obligation of the Federal Government, both in Russia and in the United 
States of America, according to our Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 
to defend the United States of America. And that is what H.R. 4 
tomorrow is all about, to make it the policy of the United States to 
develop and deploy a national missile defense system.
  It is important to note, and I am sure the gentleman has already done 
this in this discussion, that Russia already has such a system that is 
ABM compliant, a ground-based system situated on the outskirts of 
Moscow, and that has the capability of protecting a majority of their 
citizens.
  I made the point in our press conference yesterday, and the point has 
been made time and time again on this floor by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), whose single-handed activity in this area, 
with the support of a lot of the rest of us, and especially the 
chairman on the Committee on National Security, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and other members on that committee, that 
we have got to move to a situation where we at least do what the 
Russian government has done for their people, and that is to try to 
defend and protect American lives.
  Not one U.S. citizen residing in the United States of America is 
protected at all from an accidental or other type of launch of a 
ballistic missile against the United States of America. Not one person. 
We do not have a system. The American people believe that we do.
  One reporter asked the question, as the gentleman from Colorado 
remembers, at the press conference, the reporter from the Baltimore Sun 
asked the question that if Russia has this capability, and they have 
for years, and the United States of America does not have that 
capability, and it has been the policy of the United States of America 
and the Federal Government in the past to not protect our people from 
ballistic missile attack, who in the world made that decision?
  It is this debate, this special order that is going to bring to light 
as we begin to head back to our districts during the April recess, 
where we get to talk about important issues that may be on the front 
page from time to time; the budget, which is vitally important, 
maintaining a balanced budget, reducing the tax burden on American 
families, doing the right thing with regard to Social Security, but 
adding another issue to the vitally important issues that we deal with 
in this country, to make sure that the American people know where we 
are and where we need to go from here.
  I thank the gentleman for his time and hope to continue this 
dialogue.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, the press conference that we had yesterday was in 
Moscow, yesterday morning, 8 hours earlier than it is here. And the 
gentleman is precisely right, that is the ultimate question that the 
American people need to ask is, well, where was it along the lines we 
decided to stand back, while the Russians were able to see off into the 
future enough to construct a national missile defense system for 
approximately 70 percent of their people, that we decided to do 
nothing?
  It is faith that has been placed, for about 6 years in Washington 
now, in the notion that our intelligence gathering capacity and our 
diplomatic cooperation with other countries was all we needed to 
prevent these kinds of hostilities from taking place. But it was the 
five detonations in Pakistan, when we were looking right at the site 
and our intelligence community had no idea that those detonations were 
about to take place; the inability for us to prevent similar kinds of 
retaliatory tests in a friendly country, India, the largest democracy 
in Asia, when we could not stop that; and then also, on top of that, 
the launch that we spoke about earlier, the Taepo Dong missile from 
launch out of North Korea, which we had no idea even existed. Those 
events, stacked upon one another, opened our eyes in America.

                              {time}  1730

  That is what my colleagues will find in the Rumsfeld report that 
shows very clearly that we significantly, as a country, underestimated 
the threat of these rogue nations, we have severely misrepresented the 
threat to the American people and understated the threat that confronts 
us.
  Frankly, if we had started this project back when President Reagan 
suggested it, deploying a national missile defense system would have 
been cheaper, first of all, and it would have been in place today with 
technology that is superior to all, second to none. And we do not have 
that now. Here we are, in 1999, headed into the new century with, as 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) mentioned, the ability for 
us to stop not a single intercontinental ballistic missile.
  Yesterday it was announced by the White House that they changed 
course and are willing to support a ballistic missile defense system as 
designed by the Senate. This is a remarkable change. The President did 
stand up at the roster right behind the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) just earlier this year and said, ``we need a national missile 
defense program,'' but he

[[Page 4716]]

has opposed early drafts of our versions here to at least set a policy 
to actually move the country in that direction, move beyond the hollow 
words that can so easily be spoken during a short visit.
  I ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), what do you make of 
the traumatic transformation, the turnaround of the President of the 
United States, as the Senate overwhelmingly adopted on a bipartisan 
basis the Senate version of a missile defense policy bill?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Let my say to my colleague the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer) and my friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler), Mr. Speaker, that we welcome this intellectual elasticity 
within the administration. We saw it a couple of years ago with 
reference to historic welfare reform. We saw it last year when it came 
to the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and cleaning up through oversight the 
Internal Revenue Service that indeed 30 minutes prior to the Secretary 
of Treasury coming to our Committee on Ways and Means, on which I 
serve, that the administration changed course.
  And we welcome it. We understand that the burden of international 
leadership rests uneasily on the shoulder of this President. Perhaps it 
is because so often his rhetoric fails to square with reality. But we 
welcome this change of heart, even if it is what is in essence the last 
nanosecond of the eleventh hour.
  But while we welcome that, let us also reassure the American people, 
Mr. Speaker, that we offer these grim realities not to promote panic or 
fear but a policy change and a conviction that we must adequately 
defend our Nation against all threats but especially the growing threat 
of a rogue state or an accidental launch of an intercontinental 
ballistic missile.
  And so it is in that spirit, even given the dramatic changes in 
attitude from the administration, perhaps also prompted in the wake of 
media revelations about the problems in China, we welcome this change 
and we look forward to working with all Members of this House, 
Republicans and Democrats, to act first and foremost as Americans and 
provide for the common defense of.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, in the final few minutes I have left, I 
yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) to sort of wrap up 
our special order and I will close in the last few seconds.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I would just add that the journey that 
several of us made, a bipartisan delegation to Russia, to talk about 
these issues is vitally important. Because, as the point was made, that 
when the former Soviet Union decided to deploy such a missile, they did 
not, neither were they obligated to come to the United States of 
America, to Washington, D.C., to sit down with Members of the House of 
Representatives, sit down with Members of Congress, to inform us that 
they were going to do it and why they were going to do it.
  That is what this Congressional delegation did just this past week in 
taking members of the Rumsfeld Commission, Chairman Rumsfeld, former 
CIA director James Woolsey, and Dr. Bill Schneider to show the Russian 
Duma, and therefore the Russian people, that we want to be open with 
them because we see tremendous opportunity, tremendous prospects and 
potential for a growing relationship, both economic and otherwise, with 
the people of Russia.
  And the way that we are going to do that is to be more open with 
them. But while we are more open with them, as the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) so appropriately pointed out, we are to remind 
them that it is our obligation to follow the Constitution of the United 
States and defend the people of the United States against any threat 
that may be over the horizon. That is our foremost obligation according 
to the Constitution.
  Plurality of the delegated powers of Congress deal with that national 
defense. We will do that and we will do that, hopefully, with the 
cooperation and understanding of our friends in Russia. But we will do 
it nonetheless.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for this 
opportunity to talk about this vitally important issue not only to us 
today but to our children tomorrow.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I will close with the following thought 
and in an effort to urge our colleagues, all of our colleagues, to be 
here on the House floor tomorrow morning for an unprecedented briefing 
on the nature of the missile defense or the threat to the United States 
and say that the administration has dramatically changed its 
perspective when confronted with the truth and the facts of this 
report.
  The same administration which opposed a national missile defense 
program just this year said the following, the Secretary of Defense: 
``There is a threat and the threat is growing, and we expect it to soon 
pose a danger not only to our troops overseas but also to Americans 
here at home.''
  That change of heart was inspired by the Rumsfeld Commission report, 
which can be summed up in the following way: ``Concerted efforts by a 
number of hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological 
or nuclear payload pose a growing threat to the United States, its 
deployed forces, and its friends and allies.'' That is the seminal 
statement of the report of the Commission to assess the ballistic 
missile threat to the United States, which was unveiled July 15 of 
1998.
  This is a vitally important issue. This is one of the most critical 
issues confronting our country. It is one that I call upon all Members 
to view and to consider with great seriousness and in great detail 
before casting not only the vote to establish policy, which we expect 
to accomplish tomorrow, but to then be prepared to follow up with the 
secondary and tertiary steps of moving this country forward toward 
providing the same kind of defense that the Russian people have seen 
fit to provide for themselves, a national defense program to protect 
the American people.

                          ____________________