[Pages H1780-H1846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 83 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 7.

{time} 1427

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 7) to revitalize the national security of the United States, with
Mr. Linder in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr.
Torricelli] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are beginning general debate of a
very important segment of the Contract With America, H.R. 7, the
National Security Revitalization Act.
H.R. 7 confronts issues of real concern to the American people.
Take for example the issue of foreign command of U.S. Armed Forces in
U.N. peacekeeping operations.
The Clinton administration broke new ground in this area. Indeed, few
aspects of their foreign policy have been pursued with as much vigor as
their efforts to promote U.N. peacekeeping operations in which U.S.
forces have been placed under foreign command.
They did it in Somalia, they did it in the former Yugoslavia, and
they were prepared to do it in Haiti.
H.R. 7 restores a proper balance with regard to foreign command of
U.S. forces in U.N. peacekeeping operations.
H.R. 7 doesn't forbid foreign command in all cases; only in those
cases where the President is unable to certify that the foreign command
arrangement is necessary to protect U.S. national security interests
and that the U.S. forces will not be required to comply with illegal or
militarily imprudent orders.
The American people would be shocked to learn that the administration
and its allies in Congress think the President should have a free hand
to put U.S. forces under foreign command, even when it's not in our
national interest and even when our forces could be compelled to obey
illegal or militarily imprudent orders.
But that is the administration position, and today they will have
time to defend it.
The exploding cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations is another matter
of concern to the American people that we address in H.R. 7. Last year,
our total peacekeeping payment to the U.N. was almost $1.1 billion. In
addition, the Department of Defense incurred incremental costs of more
than $1.7 billion for U.S. support to or participation in U.N.
peacekeeping operations.
That's a total of $2.8 billion for peacekeeping.
H.R. 7 tries to get a handle on these spiraling costs. It insists
that at least some of our unreimbursed Defense Department expenditures
in support of peacekeeping be deducted from our U.N. assessment.
Critics of H.R. 7 say this is unreasonable. They accuse us of wanting
to destroy U.N. peacekeeping.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Peacekeeping is an important
tool that can serve our national interests. But because the U.S.
taxpayer foots the largest share of the bill, we must ensure that it is
only undertaken when it serves our interests and that it is carried out
in a cost-effective way.
A final issue address by H.R. 7 is the expansion of NATO.
My efforts and those of my colleagues to facilitate the expansion of
NATO--both in H.R. 7 and in the NATO Participation Act passed on the
last day of the last Congress--are the final answer to those who claim
that the Republican Party stands for a return to isolationism.
To the contrary, we favor continued American engagement in the world,
and flexible policies in response to the changes brought about by the
end of the cold war.
For these and other reasons, H.R. 7 is a good bill that deserves to
be approved.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are beginning today to debate a
very important element of the Contract With America, H.R. 7, the
National Security Revitalization Act.
In all probability our consideration of H.R. 7 will occasion a lively
debate.
For too long the Congress has avoided debating some of the toughest
foreign policy issues confronting our country. Last year, for example,
those of us who wanted to debate President Clinton's plan to invade
Haiti were muzzled until it was too late.
We're not going to avoid the tough issues any longer.
That's what H.R. 7 is all about. We're going to confront issues of
real concern to the American people.
And it's our intention to turn around administration policy where it
has been misguided, inept, or simply out of step with the wishes of the
American people.
Take for example the issue of foreign command of U.S. Armed Forces in
U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Before President Clinton took office, no President had ever put
significant numbers of U.S. forces in a U.N. peacekeeping operation
commanded by a foreign national.
The Clinton administration broke new ground in this area. Indeed, few
aspects of their foreign policy have been
[[Page H1781]] pursued with as much vigor as their efforts to promote
U.N. peacekeeping operations in which U.S. forces have been placed
under foreign command.
They did so in Somalia, they did it in the former Yugoslavia, and
they were ready to do it in Haiti, until last November's election
focused the attention of the U.N. bureaucracy and forced them to agree
to put a U.S. commander in charge of the Haiti Operation.
H.R. 7 restores a proper balance with regard to foreign command of
U.S. forces in U.N. peacekeeping operations. Notwithstanding the
rhetoric of administration spokesmen, H.R. 7's approach could hardly be
more moderate.
It doesn't forbid foreign command in all cases; only in those cases
where the President is unable to certify that the foreign command
arrangement is necessary to protect U.S. national security interests
and that the U.S. forces will not be required to comply with illegal or
militarily imprudent orders.
The American people would be shocked to learn that the Clinton
administration and its allies in Congress think the President should
have a free hand to put U.S. forces under foreign command, even when
it's not in our national interest and even when our forces could be
compelled to obey illegal or militarily imprudent orders.
But that is their position, and today they will have the opportunity
to defend it.
The exploding cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations is another matter
of concern to the American people that we address in H.R. 7. Last year,
our total peacekeeping payment to the U.N. was almost $1.1 billion. In
addition, the Department of Defense incurred incremental costs of more
than $1.7 billion for U.S. support to or participation in U.N.
peacekeeping operations.
That is an overall total of $2.8 billion for peacekeeping.
And we all know that much of these funds are simply wasted. The
billions of dollars we and the U.N. spent in Somalia accomplished
precious little. And this month DoD expects to spend another $15
million so that U.S. forces can cover the withdrawal of the last U.N.
peacekeepers from the failed mission in Somalia.
H.R. 7 tries to enable the Congress to get a handle on these
spiraling costs. It insists that at least some of our unreimbursed
Defense Department expenditures in support of peacekeeping be deducted
from our U.N. assessment.
Critics of H.R. 7 contend that this is unreasonable. They say, for
instance, that we have no right to expect the U.N. to reimburse us for
the $15 million we're spending this month to evacuate the U.N.
peacekeepers from Somalia. They accuse us of wanting to destroy U.N.
peacekeeping.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Peacekeeping is an important
tool that can and does serve our national interests. But because the
U.S. taxpayer foots the largest share of the bill, we must ensure that
it is only undertaken when it serves our interests and that it is
carried out in a cost-effective way.
The critics of H.R. 7 favor the status quo, where the U.S. taxpayer
gets double billed for U.N. peacekeeping. We demand a better deal from
the U.N.
We look forward to debating this issue here on the floor.
A final issue addressed by H.R. 7 is the expansion of NATO.
My efforts and those of my colleagues to facilitate the expansion of
NATO--both in H.R. 7 and in the NATO Participation Act passed on the
last day of the Congress--are the final answer to those who claim that
the Republican Party stands for a return to isolationism.
To the contrary, we favor continued American engagement in the world,
and flexible policies in response to the changes brought about by the
end of the cold war. We seek to adopt NATO to the new security
requirements in central and eastern Europe, and we are pleased that our
efforts have received considerable support from the other side of the
aisle.
Even the administration seems to be slowly coming around to our point
of view.
We welcome that change, and we look forward to further debate on that
issue here on the floor.
For these and other reasons, H.R. 7 is a good bill that deserves to
be approved by our colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1430

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, of course, in opposition to H.R. 7. I think the
key point is that H.R. 7 really strikes right at the heart of the
President's authority to protect our national security and to conduct
American foreign policy. It does that in several different ways, first
of all with respect to peacekeeping.
This bill would end peacekeeping overnight. That may not be the
intent, but it is the result of the language. That is the judgment of
the Congressional Budget Office, it is the judgment of the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Defense, and it is the judgment of the Deputy
Secretary of State in the Reagan administration, Mr. Whitehead. It
unilaterally abrogates our obligation to the United Nations to pay our
share of peacekeeping expenses.
Mr. Chairman, these peacekeeping operations that are in effect across
the country are important across the world, not just to other nations,
but to the United States. If we come along and unilaterally deduct
these expenses, it just cancels our assessment. If we cancel our
assessment, other nations are going to cancel their assessments, and
peacekeeping is going to be destroyed.
What does that mean? That means in Cyprus, in Jerusalem, in Angola
and Kuwait and Rwanda peacekeeping comes to an end. It means the end of
sanctions enforcement against Iraq, and it means the end of
humanitarian relief in Bosnia.
If we pass H.R. 7, Mr. Chairman, we give the President of the United
States a choice: Act alone or do nothing. Often we are going to choose
to act alone, and we should, but every single President has wanted the
option to act in this collective security system, and we ought not to
cut that option off. It is a valuable tool in American foreign policy.
All of us agree that the United Nations is not a perfect institution,
that it needs all kinds of reform. However, our goal should be to
strengthen the United Nations, not to weaken it.
My second concern, Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 7 is that it will lead to
a major expansion of United States security and assistance commitments
in Europe. Here again, Mr. Chairman, we all agree that NATO should
expand. The question, however, is whether this Congress should try to
dictate the details of that expansion. That is the question. We ought
not to try to write that in the statute.
Mr. Chairman, we see going on in Central Europe today a very complex
historical process to develop a security regime for Central Europe. It
is complex, it is diplomatic. This bill would jeopardize U.S. national
security by unilaterally, arbitrarily, prematurely designating certain
countries for NATO membership.
This bill begins a vast new foreign aid program, but it does not
provide any funding for it. It is an open-ended program of military and
economic aid to four countries. It puts them at the top of the list. It
makes winners and losers. We risk, then, discouraging the reformers in
countries not named, and we risk fostering complacency in the countries
that are named. We are trying to pick through legislation the winners
and losers for NATO membership, and that will divide Europe into
opposing camps.
Mr. Chairman, the bill creates a dangerous gulf between our
commitments and our resources. One of the things we ought never to do
in foreign policy is to make commitments when we do not have the
resources to pick them up.
That is precisely what we do in H.R. 7. We expand our security
commitments, or seek to. We provide no resources for it. We do it at a
time when
[[Page H1782]] we are cutting troop levels from 300,000 down to 100,000
in Europe. We are doing it at a time when every single country in
Europe is reducing their NATO and their defense establishments.
How can we meet these new security commitments? Mr. Chairman, I urge
Members here to think carefully before voting to set us on a course
leading to a vast expansion of U.S. security commitments.
Mr. Chairman, the House today takes up H.R. 7, the National Security
Revitalization Act. This is the most far reaching foreign policy
legislation to come before the House in several years.
But titles are deceptive. This bill does not revitalize our national
security--it weakens it.
It strikes at the heart of the President's authority to protect
national security and conduct foreign policy.
It would end U.N. peacekeeping, a tool the President must have
available to him in the conduct of foreign policy.
It would force the President to act alone, or do nothing.
It prematurely and unilaterally designates certain countries for NATO
membership, picking winners and losers in a way that could actually
slow down the process of NATO expansion.
It micromanages foreign policy and undercuts Presidential authority,
limiting his ability to respond to crises and protect national
security.

Destroying Peacekeeping

My first concern in peacekeeping. This bill would end peacekeeping
overnight. It unilaterally abrogates our treaty obligation to the
United Nations to pay our share of peacekeeping expenses.
It would require the United States to deduct from its peacekeeping
assessment all costs incurred by the Department of Defense in support
of U.N. operations, even when those operations are conducted
unilaterally by the United States, with U.S. forces under U.S. command
and control.
These expenses more than offset the annual U.S. peacekeeping
assessment. if the United States unilaterally deducts these expenses,
it cancels our assessment. Other countries would follow suit. U.N.
peacekeeping would be destroyed.
That would mean the end of all U.N. peacekeeping missions: in Cyprus,
Jerusalem, Angola, Kuwait, and Rwanda. It would mean the end of
sanctions enforcement against Iraq, and the end of humanitarian relief
in Bosnia.
If we pass H.R. 7, we leave the President with a choice: act alone or
do nothing.
Collective security is a tool that has been available to every
President since Harry Truman. We must have that option for this
President.
The United Nations is not a perfect institution. It needs reform--
plenty of it. Our goal should be to strengthen the United Nations to
better serve U.S. interests--not weaken it.

Premature NATO expansion

My second concern is that H.R. 7 will lead to a major expansion of
U.S. security and assistance commitments in Europe.
Title VI of the bill does two things: it states that it will be U.S.
policy to extend NATO membership to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic
and Slovakia, and it mandates an assistance program to help these
countries become NATO members.
We all agree that NATO should expand. The question is whether
Congress should seek to dictate the details of that expansion.
NATO expansion is a complex diplomatic process involving 16 NATO
members. H.R. 7 interferes with this process in ways that could be
harmful both to the very goal the bill seeks--NATO expansion--and to
other U.S. national interests:
First, this bill could jeopardize U.S. national security by
unilaterally, arbitrarily, prematurely designating countries for NATO
membership.
It short circuits the Partnership for Peace initiative, which aims to
prepare countries for NATO membership.
Second, this bill mandates an open-ended program of military and
economic aid for four countries--Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic,
and Slovakia--without authorizing any funding. Let's be clear about
this: if we pass this bill, we will be creating a new, costly, foreign
aid program.
Third, if we arbitrarily lock in advantages for some countries, we
risk discouraging reformers in countries not named and fostering
complacency in countries that are.
By picking winners and losers for NATO membership, we are signaling
to potential adversaries which countries we care about most.
We will once again divide Europe into two opposing camps.
Fourth, this bill will create a dangerous gulf between our
commitments in Europe and the resources required to meet them. We have
cut our military forces in Europe by two-thirds since 1990. Unless we
are prepared to redeploy hundreds of thousands of troops, how can we
meet new NATO security commitments by any means other than a nuclear
commitment?
Finally, there is no threat to European security that warrants
speeding up the pace of NATO expansion.
NATO membership involves a solemn treaty obligation. It means we will
regard an attack on any member as an attack on the United States, and
come to that nation's defense.
I would urge Members to think carefully before voting to set us on a
course leading to a vast expansion of U.S. security commitments.

undermining the president's foreign policy authority

Finally, I am concerned that this bill undercuts the President's
authority to conduct foreign policy and undermines his power as
Commander in Chief.
As former Secretary of State James Baker told our committee,
``Attempts at micromanagement were a bad idea when the Democrats were
in control, and they remain a bad idea today.''
Let me point out three examples of micromanagement:
This bill requires an act of Congress before the President could send
a single U.S. military observer to join a U.N. force.
Yet we know that Congress has never voted to authorize a U.N.
peacekeeping mission.
This bill dictates the terms and conditions for U.S. military command
and control, telling our military how to do its job.
The bill prematurely picks winners and losers for future NATO
membership. That's not our job. It's the job for the President, and
other members of NATO. Passing this bill will only make it more
difficult.
This bill also undermines the ability of the President to act as
Commander in Chief.
It would prohibit the President from deploying a single U.S. soldier
to a U.N.-authorized operation without an act of Congress.
It would prohibit the President from placing U.S. troops under
foreign command without specific congressional authorization unless he
first reports to Congress that such action is not unconstitutional, is
necessary to protect U.S. national security--and then meets a series of
other requirements, detailed in five pages in the bill.
This is an unprecedented assault on the President's authority as
Commander in Chief.
Had this been law, it would have prohibited President Bush's
deployment of U.S. troops and ships in Operation Desert Shield and
Desert Storm.
It could have blocked President Clinton from deploying 30,000 United
States troops to Kuwait in 1994 to counter Saddam Hussein's new threats
of aggression against that country.
It would effectively prohibit the President from sending a single
soldier to participate in a U.N. peacekeeping activity--even as part of
a medical team to help in Cyprus--without specific congressional
authorization.

conclusion

I urge the House not to pass this bill today. We cannot solve all the
problems of U.S. national security today. The wisest course we can
follow is to defeat this bill.
I understand why Members are critical of some aspects of American
foreign policy. I cannot remember a time when Members were not. And, of
course, it is entirely appropriate that they voice those criticisms.
But it is one thing to criticize. It is quite another to restrict, to
constrain, and to hamstring the chief architect of American foreign
policy--the President of the United States.
This bill, if enacted, will not expire on the last day of Bill
Clinton's Presidency, whenever that comes. It will restrict and
constrain and undermine the authority of all future Presidents to
protect the national security and conduct U.S. foreign policy.
I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 7.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Mr. SPENCE addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am shocked at this last comment. The beauty and the
brilliance of this system is that we have different perspectives and
different points of view. Is that not what we are saying to the entire
world? Embrace the principles of democracy. Is that not why our
colleagues challenge totalitarian governments because they said there
should be competing ideas and competing principles? What is this?
Liberal mind. We are all coequals here. We came here by the same
process. We were elected by human beings who comprise America,
ostensibly the greatest democracy in the world. This debate should not
go forward with that kind of rancor.
Mr. Chairman, it is not my prerogative to challenge you, sir. It is
my responsibility to challenge ideas. This is
[[Page H1783]] about democracy. And what does this mean? If this is how
the debate is to begin, my friends, it brings tears to my eyes to think
about how it will end, because if this is the top of the mountain,
where is the valley on this debate?
We should be about largeness, bigness, dignity, and respect for each
other. I would have no problem challenging your ideas, challenging your
politics. But let us not be condescending to each other. Let us not
engage in this kind of folly with each other. I am prepared to deal
with you intellectually. Let us see whether there is bankruptcy or
currency in these ideas. But let us not characterize each other. The
world is watching us. We should be large enough to be able to handle
difference.
I came here in January 1971 from Berkeley, CA, opposing the Vietnam
war as a simple human being who tried to raise my voice in the name of
peace. I cannot tell the new Members of Congress the scars that I faced
from that, the beatings that I took on the floor of Congress for simply
being a human being who had the audacity to try in good faith to
represent my constituency on these issues. We all have a right to be
heard here. Whether one perceives oneself as a liberal or conservative
or a moderate or a progressive or whatever, that is the beauty of this
process.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to spend these moments talking about this
bill, laying out the points, to engage. I beg of you, deal with each
other with some kind of human dignity. I do not want to go back through
24 years ago, where we kept casting aspersions upon each other because
you had the audacity to say peace, or challenge nuclear armaments,
challenge war, challenge big military budgets, that in some way you are
unAmerican or unpatriotic. How incredible.
How incredible, Mr. Chairman, when we can look out at the world and
say we oppose totalitarianism and we cannot stand difference and handle
and tolerate difference in this Chamber, considered the most
deliberative body in the United States, in the world.
We have to respect each other's difference. But let us engage. I have
supreme confidence in ideas, and so should you. So let us engage on
ideas, not on who has got what mind and how that gets conjured up. That
should be beyond us.
Mr. Chairman, it should be beyond all of us. I come to challenge
your ideas. I did not come to challenge you. I did not come to
challenge your label. But I will say this: In the context of a post-
cold war world, let us take off old labels. They do not work anymore.
Let us move beyond old paradigms. They do not work anymore. Let us get
beyond old ideas. The human mind changes slowly, but the post-cold war
world challenges us to a higher order of being, to an imaginative way
of looking at the world.
Let us stop trotting out cold war ideas in the context of a post-
cold-war world. Let us stop trotting out these ideas of liberal and
conservative and moderate. At this point, I do not know what those
things mean anymore when we start talking about national security. We
have got sides talking about isolationism. A few years ago in my
earlier tenure, they would have once wanted to engage in ventures all
over the world. Interventionists, now isolationists. Peace advocates
sound like hawks when we start talking about peacekeeping and
peacemaking. We are standing the world on its head. What should that
communicate to us? That the world has substantively and substantially
changed and it dictates to us that we change, Mr. Chairman. That we
think afresh and we think anew.
Let us stop engaging in the characterization. If you think we ought
to have star wars, stand and defend that. If you think we ought to
dictate to NATO, stand and defend that. If you think we should not be
in the Somalias and the Haitis and the Rwandas and the Bosnias of the
world as peacekeepers and peacemakers, stand and defend it. Then the
debate can go forward rationally.
Why this mean-spiritedness? It is not necessary, Mr. Chairman. The
issues that confront us dwarf us as human beings. Do we have to then
add in the folly of characterization, the folly of challenge
ideologically? This is no longer an ideological world. It requires
imagination and brilliance and the highest and the best in us. Lay down
that yesterday madness and let us stand up and face each other on an
intellectually honest basis and try to shape this legislation so that
it speaks to the reality of a changing world.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Combest], the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Mr. COMBEST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, the Intelligence Committee held one hearing on title V
of the National Security Revitalization Act, partly in open session.
The subsequent markup was conducted entirely in open session. During
the markup, the committee unanimously approved amendments to sections
502, 504 and 512.
Section 512 was the focus of the committee's interest. As introduced,
the section required that the United States may provide intelligence to
the United Nations only pursuant to a written agreement between the
President and the Secretary General of the United Nations. The
agreement must specify:
The types of intelligence to be provided to the U.N.;
The circumstances under which intelligence may be provided; and
The procedures to be observed by the U.N. concerning persons who
shall have access and the procedures to be observed by the U.N. to
protect the intelligence against disclosure not authorized by the
agreement.
As introduced, section 512 required that no agreement would have been
effective for a period exceeding 1 year.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. policymakers working with the U.N. use
intelligence information as part of their broader diplomatic efforts to
advance U.S. foreign policy interests with other governments and U.N.
agencies. A significant portion of intelligence sharing with the U.N.
includes support to peacekeeping activities. However, intelligence
sharing also involves humanitarian missions, sanctions enforcement,
nonproliferation, opposition to ethnic cleansing, and other issues
clearly of importance to U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Procedures have been developed by the intelligence community to
provide intelligence information to the United Nations. Specific
guidelines have been established for consideration on a case-by-case
basis of what can be provided without compromising intelligence sources
and methods.
The committee recognizes that there are valid concerns about the
U.N.'s ability to protect sensitive information, and when intelligence
information is provided, these considerations are taken into account.
Each request is carefully reviewed to assess the agency or operation
involved, and when the United States does provide intelligence
information, the least sensitive information is used to satisfy each
requirement, and it is provided to a limited number of individuals.
Moreover, much of the Intelligence provided has been redacted to
include only information that is unclassified.
The practical effect of section 512, as introduced, would have been
to shut down intelligence sharing with the United Nations.
A formal agreement would probably not be achieved as the U.N.
leadership could find such an agreement with the United States
politically unacceptable for a variety of reasons. Flexibility and
discretion are afforded the United States under the current
intelligence sharing process. A formal agreement would hamper our
ability to share intelligence with the U.N. when we want to and how we
want to, and might indeed create an obligation on the part of the
United States to provide intelligence to the U.N. upon request.
Moreover, every year we would
face the possibility that a Secretary General unwilling to sign an
agreement acceptable to the United States could, by his refusal,
prevent our Government from sharing intelligence when it is in our
interests to do so. Finally, the United States would be reluctant to
accept the possible public disclosure of the details that such an
agreement would require.

Given these concerns and others, the committee adopted a substitute
to section 512. The amendment sets out two
[[Page H1784]] required responsibilities for the President.
First, before intelligence is provided by the United States to the
United Nations, the President must ensure that the Director of Central
Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and
Defense, has established guidelines governing the provision of
intelligence to the United Nations that protect sources and methods
from unauthorized disclosure.
Second, the committee has strengthened its oversight of intelligence
sharing arrangements with the U.N. The amendment requires periodic and
special reports by the President regarding intelligence provided to the
United Nations. These reports must be made not less frequently than
semiannually to the Intelligence and International Relations Committees
of the House and to the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees
of the Senate. The reports must specify the types of intelligence
provided to the United Nations and the purposes for which the
intelligence was provided. The President must also report to the two
Intelligence Committees any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence
provided to the U.N. within 15 days after the disclosure becomes known
to the President.
The amendment further requires the Secretary of State, or the
Secretary's designee, in consultation with the Director of Central
Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, to work with the United
Nations to improve its handling, processing, dissemination, and
management of all intelligence information provided to it by its
members.
Mr. Chairman, the committee amendment to section 512 will accommodate
the valid need for intelligence sharing with the U.N. where important
U.S. national interests are served, while at the same time establishing
stronger oversight over these activities.
As amended, H.R. 7 is a good, workable approach to the need for
intelligence sharing with the United Nations.
{time} 1450

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is recognized
for 2 minutes.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate my support for section
512 of the bill which will permit the continuation of intelligence-
sharing with the United Nations. I think our history shows on certain
occasions, the Cuban missile crisis for one, recently a situation in
Iraq where sharing intelligence information, satellite imagery, has
been vitally important to United States security interests.
I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas. We were able to work
out our bipartisan concerns and differences on this legislation. We are
working to develop a compromise which I felt was in the best interest
of the country. I only regret that this was not achievable in other
aspects of the bill.
I think we have worked out most of the concerns that the intelligence
community has. We have worked out a sharing relationship which will be
on a case-by-case basis with the United Nations, which gives us the
option of saying we do not want to share in certain instances, which I
think is important.
There is one last concern that I have that I hope we can address in
conference, and that is that part of the responsibility here is given
only to the President, and it said he cannot delegate this. I
understand the concerns of the majority, but I hope that we can work
this out so that it will be more acceptable to the President and to the
administration. And I hope we can look at that again in the conference
committee. But, on section 512, I think we showed that we can have
bipartisan support and cooperation.
There are many other reasons I will not be able to support the bill,
but one of them clearly is not section 512.
I will include the remainder of my statement in the Record.
The statement referred to follows:
The imagery shared with the United Nations revealed to the world the
threatening activities of the Soviet Union and forced the Kremlin to
acknowledge its placement of offensive missiles in Cuba despite its
previous denials.
More recently, it was the United States' contribution of intelligence
to the United Nations which proved crucial in assessing Baghdad's post
war disarmament activities and to the U.N.'s decision to maintain
sanctions against Iraq.
The National Security Revitalization Act as introduced contained a
provision which would have required the President and the United
Nations Secretary General to enter into a written agreement prior to
any U.S. intelligence being provided. The Intelligence Committee
received testimony from witnesses representing the State Department,
the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were adamant in their
opposition to that provision, noting that it would remove the
flexibility which currently permits U.S. intelligence to be provided on
a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the Acting Director of Central
Intelligence informed the committee by letter that the requirement for
a written agreement meant that ``the proposed legislation will make it
difficult, if not impossible, to provide meaningful intelligence
support to those U.N. activities which are supportive of U.S. foreign
policy goals.''
Based on the information it received, the Intelligence Committee
rewrote the provision. In its current form, section 512 requires the
President to ensure that the Director of Central Intelligence, in
consultation with the Secretaries of State and Defense establishes
guidelines governing the provision of intelligence to the United
Nations which shall protect intelligence sources and methods from
unauthorized disclosure. The Director of Central Intelligence has
already established such guidelines and is under a statutory duty to
protect all intelligence sources and methods from compromise.
The Intelligence Committee is aware of no instance in which the
current procedures governing the provision of intelligence to the U.N.
has resulted in a compromise of any intelligence source or method.
Nevertheless, the committee believes it is important that it be advised
if a compromise of intelligence sources or methods should occur. To
this end, section 512 requires the President to report to the
congressional intelligence committees any unauthorized disclosure of
intelligence information provided to the United Nations within 15 days
after the disclosure becomes known to the President. Additionally,
periodic reports describing the types of intelligence provided to the
United Nations and the purposes for which such intelligence was
provided are required. These periodic reports must be submitted to the
designated committees at least on a semi-annual basis.
While I support section 512, which is the product of a bipartisan
effort of the Intelligence Committee, I want to note a separation of
powers issue which the section raises, and which is of concern to the
administration and several members of the committee. Section 512
establishes certain duties for the President which are made non-
delegable. While I believe it is essential that the committee be
assured that these duties are discharged in a manner which reflects
their importance, I hope that we can agree on compromise language in
conference which addresses the administration's constitutional
concerns.
Mr. Chairman, section 512 represents a substantial improvement over
the manner in which this issue was treated in the original version of
the National Security Revitalization Act. Although the bill as a whole
is still objectionable to me, at least in the narrow area of
intelligence support to the United Nations, this legislation, if it
passes, will do no harm to a system which is currently working well in
support of the national interests of the United States.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. McKeon].
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of H.R. 7 as reported by the Committee on
National Security.
Mr. Chairman, protecting the industrial base of strategic military
programs is an issue that our Government must address in identifying a
long-term strategy for defense procurement. There are three critical
technology programs with an application that is dedicated exclusively
to military procurement: conventional munitions, nuclear attack
submarines, and long-range strategic bombers. Because these programs
have no commercial benefit, it is of paramount importance that the
Department of Defense act now to preserve these unique technologies.
As many of us know, the administration requested funding for a third
Seawolf submarine, largely because of the need to preserve the
submarine industrial base in the future. In the area
[[Page H1785]] of bombers, however, the administration appears content
to cap production of long-range bombers at 20 aircraft, even though
there is no successor program in either the research or development
stage. Because there is no substitute for the strategic elements of the
bomber industrial base, it would cost billions to reestablish existing
production lines if these capabilities are allowed to dissipate.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this issue is of extreme national importance
and am pleased that H.R. 7 acknowledges the fact that the current
bomber force falls woefully short of meeting the baseline established
in the bottom-up review.
I urge a favorable vote on H.R. 7.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, later in the day I will support two amendments printed
in the Record on this bill. One is by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Edwards] that supports ground missile development but strikes out the
star wars in the bill.
H.R. 7 on missiles will cost a lot of money that we really do not
have, Mr. Chairman, I worry about if you have to look at other
programs; if you look at the National Guard and Reserve and you have
this big missile cost, it could come from the National Guard and
Reserve, and also it could come from readiness of our forces.
The other amendment that I will support and hope to get and make some
remarks on is offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
Her amendment will eliminate title III of H.R. 7. Title III sets up a
commission which would cost the taxpayers about $1,500,000. It is not
necessary, Mr. Chairman, to have a commission. We have the roles and
mission commission which will have a report in May. Basically that does
the same thing that is in the commission title III of the bill. So I
will be supporting both of these amendments, one by the gentleman from
Texas and one by the gentle woman from California.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

{time} 1500

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Kim], a member of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I think the American people would be shocked
to find out how much money we were contributing last year to the U.N.
peacekeeping mission. The last year, fiscal year 1995, our
administration submitted to us $533 million to support this U.N.
peacekeeping effort. Halfway through, they asked for an additional $627
million. Added together, we spent $1.2 billion. That is our assessment,
just for the U.N. peacekeeping mission alone.
This year they are asking for $445 million. Come on, I know well that
they are going to come back midyear asking for another half billion
later.
Why do they do this? They are trying to keep overall budget numbers
low.
In addition to the $1.2 billion, the U.S. Government contributed a
voluntary gift last year alone of $75 million. This year they are
asking an additional $100 million gift.
Our Government gets no credit for this voluntary gift contribution.
Let us talk about how much money other countries are contributing for
U.N. peacekeeping. Ninety countries paid less than 0.01 percent, one-
hundredth of 1 percent. Only 10 nations in the world pay more than 1
percent; 10 countries pay more than 1 percent. Guess how much we pay.
Thirty-two percent. Is that fair? Almost one-third of U.N. peacekeeping
we pay.
What are we getting back? I do not know.
It used to be 25 percent. Why it has gone up to 32 percent is because
we have got to pick up the tab from Russia. Russia was dissolved. They
have not been able to pay their share. We pick up the tab. That is why
we end up paying 32 percent.
That is 2\1/2\ times more than the next highest contributor, which is
Japan. They are paying 12\1/2\ percent.
The American people did not know this. I know this is shocking to
you, not to mention a gift, not to mention an in-kind contribution.
Let me tell you about the in-kind contribution, by the way. We pay
$1.7 billion in in-kind contributions in addition to U.S. assessment.
Do you know what they are? Transport of foreign military to Somalia,
airlift of supplies to Bosnia, Rwandan airlift of supplies, on and on
and on. Right now we have got 13 such missions around the world. We
spend $1.7 billion in in-kind contributions, which is absolutely no
credit to us.
H.R. 7 will send a strong message to the United Nations to shape up.
There is no more bottomless pit.
Second, we are asking to reduce to 25 percent from 32 percent. That
is fair. Twenty-five percent, in my opinion, is still high. we will
accept it.
Finally, we are asking the United Nations to reimburse us those in-
kind contributions we made.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7. The authors of the bill
claim it will revitalize national security. In fact, the bill does the
opposite. This bill undermines the national security of the United
States, by mandating extravagant spending on the star wars pipe-dream;
by playing fast and loose with the NATO alliance and our role in the
United Nations; and by short-circuiting the bipartisan foreign policy
review process.
The bill narrows, weakens, and confuses our national security by
mandating huge expenditures for a national missile defense program.
There is little justification for these expenditures in terms of our
overall security strategy.
Republicans talked the star wars talk in the 1980's, throwing huge
amounts of money away with little to show for it. As a famous
Republican once said, ``There you go again.'' Star wars II, the sequel,
will not only waste money. It will take away from efforts to enhance
military readiness.
H.R. 7 also trifles with the pursuit of our national interest through
NATO. It trivializes the precious and trusted relations we share with
our NATO partners by playing politics with the process of NATO
expansion. It names four specific countries, rather than supporting
membership for countries only if and when they adhere to the values and
goals of the NATO alliance.
The bill also jeopardizes our leadership in the United Nations. The
administration and Congress are working to reform the United Nations to
improve its administration and peacekeeping operations. However, the
bill cuts deeply into our U.N. contributions. It makes U.S.
participation in U.N. peacekeeping activities practically impossible,
even for small numbers of technical experts.
The way in which H.R. 7 has been pushed through committees also
erodes the process of careful debate and bipartisan discussion which
has long typified the review of foreign policy in the Congress.
The bill makes fundamental changes which will have potentially
serious and dangerous consequences for national security and
international peace and stability, but without adequate time for
consideration.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 7.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Engel].
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible bill, my colleagues. We
are moving here toward a dangerous isolationism.
Some of my friends think, with the collapse of the Soviet Union,
America need not remain engaged in the world. I believe America needs
to remain more engaged now than ever before.
If we have quarrels with the United Nations, we ought to fix them.
Certainly now, as Ambassador Albright said, we ought to use the United
Nations for U.S. purposes. Is that not what President Bush did in the
Persian Gulf war?
With this bill, the President has two choices: move alone, or do not
move at all. I do not think that is the kind of era we ought to be in.
If we deduct the cost of our voluntary actions against U.N. dues, the
United Nations would wind up owing us money, and other nations would
surely do the same, leading to the collapse of the U.N.
[[Page H1786]] I want to address the issue of American command of
U.S. troops. My colleagues, the President never relinquishes command.
The issue is operational control. This bill would not even allow
someone from our NATO allies to command U.S. troops.
With that twisted thinking, D-day could not have been possible. Field
Marshal Montgomery could not have commanded our troops.
Let us take down all the statutes of General Lafayette, because he
could not have helped us fight the Revolutionary War. World War I and
World War II could not have been possible, and Desert Storm, which I
supported, remember when President Bush mobilized the U.N. and nations
for Desert Storm; Desert Storm could not have been fought under the
constraints of this bill.
Right now in Korea the Second Infantry Division is currently under
operational control of a Korean commander. Should that not be allowed?
No NATO commander of our troops at a time when we say we want to expand
NATO? What is the sense of expanding the alliance if we are not going
to trust the alliance?
Star wars, Mr. Chairman, we need defense dollars in the area of
theater missile defense, not in the area of star wars.
We cannot retreat to a dangerous isolationism. The United States must
remain engaged.
Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes, President Clinton ought to veto it
the way Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry said they recommend
him to veto it.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National
Security Revitalization Act.
For too long we have been walking down the primrose path of
complacency--allowing our military capabilities to deteriorate and our
defense priorities to be misplaced. The legislation before us today
moves to correct these deficiencies.
Figures from the General Accounting Office and the Congressional
Budget Office show that between now and the end of the century, our
defense establishment is underfunded by between $65 and $150 billion.
H.R. 7 puts Congress on record that these shortfalls are unacceptable,
and calls for U.S. forces to be provided with the means to successfully
address two simultaneous regional conflicts.
H.R. 7 also calls on the President to move ahead with theater and
national ballistic missile defenses. We saw in the Persian Gulf war how
devastating even primitive theater ballistic missiles can be if they
reach their target. With adversaries around the world increasingly able
to obtain sophisticated missiles, we must have viable defenses against
these systems.
Although this administration has moved forward somewhat on theater
systems, it has not sufficiently focused on the threat to our own
homeland from ballistic missiles launched by accident or by a rogue
commander. Today we have no effective defense whatsoever against such
an attack. H.R. 7 establishes a clear policy on a national missile
defense, directing that robust efforts be undertaken now.
H.R. 7 also establishes a clear policy on the involvement of U.S.
forces in U.N. peacekeeping operations and the placement of U.S. forces
under foreign command. While still giving the President authority to
act unilaterally where a direct threat to U.S. national security
exists, the bill establishes much needed Congressional oversight in
these areas. It also sets prudent new limits on amounts that U.S.
taxpayers provide for U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Moreover, the bill calls for the reestablishment of defense budget
firewalls, ensuring that the vital funds budgeted for national defense
needs are not redirected to non-defense functions.
Last, H.R. 7 reiterates the U.S. commitment to NATO, setting forth
appropriate mechanisms for admitting new members.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 puts the defense policies of our Nation back on
track. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the dozen or so Democrats on
the National Security Committee who voted in favor of this bill. That
is one indication that I have a somewhat different perspective on this
bill than some of my colleagues.
I do not want to get any of my Republican friends in trouble, but I
have to confess that the committee leaders worked in the best
bipartisan spirit to make this bill better than it was when it was
first sent to the committee.
I must also confess that I continue to debate in my own mind whether
this bill is good or bad--and at the moment, I lean toward thinking
that it is not the best way to achieve what its sponsors want to
achieve. Let me tell you why.
For years, one of my greatest concerns has been that legitimate
debate about national security would become partisan and political.
National security is one issue where I simply do not care about
Republican or Democrat, I care about what is best for the country.
I was proud the Armed Services Committee was truly bipartisan. I hope
that will be true of the new committee. But bills like H.R. 872
threaten to destroy that bipartisan spirit.
Some say this bill is a partisan, political statement, cultivated
like a mushroom in the basement of Republican campaign headquarters. It
has been fertilized by sessions with pollsters and focus groups. We saw
the results in campaign ads during the 1994 elections.
Focus groups should not determine what we do about national security,
and we do not need a new commission to do our job. That is the
responsibility of Congress and the National Security Committee.
Secretary of Defense Perry told the committee that if we lacked
confidence in him, we should ask him to resign. But I do not see my
friends on either side of the aisle calling for him to do so.
That is because most of us know our military is ready, willing, and
able to do whatever mission they are given--because Democrats have
always worked with Republicans to build a strong defense.
All of us can take pride in having built the strongest, most
effective, most ready military in the world. Let us not tear down all
we have been able to achieve in a frenzy of partisan politics.
We should not play games by arguing about which side is tougher on
U.S. command and control--when there are no U.S. troops under foreign
command anywhere in the world.
We should debate ballistic and theater missile defense where we have
time to determine the real cost of what we want to achieve. We should
not wreck our foreign policy by unilaterally changing U.N. assessment
formulas or by forcing the admission of certain countries to NATO.
I was in Munich two weekends ago with Secretary Perry, and I can tell
you from firsthand experience: Our attempt to unilaterally redefine the
boundaries of NATO has our allies on edge--and maybe even questioning
our foreign policy sanity.
When all is said and done, we will all have to go back to work
together in the authorization and appropriations process. That is the
appropriate forum for deciding these issues.
I ask all my colleagues to think carefully about the votes they cast
today. Continue to make decisions in the bipartisan spirit that we have
always seen previously. If you take pride in not playing politics with
national security--do not start now.

{time} 1510

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], a Member of the Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, brave young American men and women volunteer in our
Armed Forces in order to serve their
[[Page H1787]] country and to protect her vital security interests.
But in recent years, those soldiers have increasingly been put under
foreign command and operational control--Americans ``peacekeeping'', or
as it often becomes, defending themselves from attack--under the U.N.
flag.
Mr. Chairman, not one American should die serving the United Nations.
When an American is sent in harm's way, that American deserves--and
we in Washington have a moral obligation to provide--a clear
understanding of the vital interests of the United States that justify
putting that American at risk.
No Utopian affection for the U.N. on the other side of the aisle
should affect this solemn obligation.
And, Mr. Chairman, they say that ``nature abhors a vacuum.'' While
that may be true, it is also true that our adversaries love a vacuum.
And now, where there was American leadership under Presidents Reagan
and Bush, there is, in its place, a vacuum of leadership.
Presidents Reagan and Bush understood that the United Nations was an
important body that we could work with to advance America's vital
interests.
This administration believes that America's vital interests--and the
safety of its fighting men and women--should take a back seat to the
interests of the United Nations.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this administration has it backwards, and we
promised the American people we would correct it.
This bill will restore our Nation's interests to the top of the
equation.
It does not, as our liberal critics contend, abandon the United
Nations. But it does say--loud and clear--that our soldiers serve to
protect the vital interests of the American people, not the interests
of U.N. bureaucrats.
And as long as I have a vote in Congress, I will oppose Americans
going to war, or serving in so-called peacekeeping operations, when
America's vital national interests are not present and clearly defined.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 7.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
I rise today to oppose H.R. 7. I believe it is penny-wise and pound-
foolish and also very shortsighted, specifically on the U.N.
peacekeeping.
It seems to me the issue has evolved into a question of whether we
have legitimate U.S. interests in United Nations peacekeeping. I would
submit we do. First, in terms of the global marketplace. We have
committed ourselves to NAFTA, we have committed ourselves to GATT. In
the post-cold-war era we have hitched our wagon to the notion of a
global marketplace. International instability, localized terrorism, all
disrupt that global marketplace and those global markets. We have an
interest in U.N. peacekeeping to the extent it helps us to maintain the
global marketplace.
Second, we have a vital U.S. interest in fighting terrorism on a
multilateral basis. Terrorism is perhaps the biggest threat of the
coming century. We only have to look to New York City to see the
potential.
Clearly, it is in our interest to have the ability to act
multilaterally to combat terrorism.
And third, burden sharing: It used to be very much in vogue to
suggest that our allies and other countries around the world ought to
join with us in bearing some of this responsibility. It seems to the
extent we undermine U.N. peacekeeping by reducing our own commitment,
we undermine the ability to command a multilateral force to protect
U.S. interests.
Now, I am not ignorant of the concern that we may be paying too much.
As a matter of fact, this Congress last year reduced our commitment
from 30 to 25 percent. But I think if we take the unilateral action
suggested in this bill, we will certainly harm our interest because we
will set a reverse, negative precedent. Russia will want to decrease
its commitment because of the things it has done in the former Soviet
Union. France would want to decrease its commitment because of Rwanda.
So the net effect will be that we will have an untenable choice: We
will either have to act unilaterally or we will have to take no action
at all. I suggest that is shortsighted.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the distinguished chairman of the
Military Facilities Subcommittee and a key member of our national
security team.
Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, many of us feel that defense cuts proposed by the
Clinton administration during these last couple of years are leading us
to a hollow force again. That is the reason for this bill. We want to
make a statement that we do not want a hollow force, that defense is an
important part of our national security.
There is a perception that defense spending has not been reduced. But
nothing could be further from the truth. In 1992, candidate Clinton
called for $60 billion in additional defense cuts beyond the cuts
President Bush proposed. This year's represents the 11th straight year
that we have decreased defense spending.
What we are going to do with this bill, I think, is to make a
statement that we are going to have a strong national defense in this
country.
Now, it is not the end-all of bills. I would like for it to be much
stronger. I would like for it to speak more to the force strength and
that kind of thing. But the National Security Restoration Act is a down
payment on the Republican promise to restore national security. It does
not do all that is needed, but it does begin to add to the blueprint. I
would urge support of this legislation.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
Ms. HARMAN. As the Representative of a district I call the aerospace
center of the universe, I have consistently stood for a strong defense
policy on a bipartisan basis, and I do so again today. I have supported
the C-17; in fact, I coauthored the amendment to fund it fully; the F-
18; the B-2; ballistic missile defense and defense reinvestment
programs.
But I would make several points about this bill, which, unless it
changes substantially, I will end up opposing. First of all, it is to
my mind a campaign pamphlet, not a piece of legislation, and I think we
must find more serious vehicles to legislate on defense issues.

{time} 1520

Second and sadly, I think some of its advocates tend to label some of
its opponents in wrong ways. I must say I was honored to listen to the
comments of my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums],
a few minutes ago in which he said that the labels are misguided. We
are not here to attack each other. We are here to address serious
policy, and I would reiterate his point, and make it again coming from
a very different part of the political spectrum.
Finally let me say this: Some serious amendments will be offered
during the course of this afternoon, this evening and tomorrow. I will
speak for some of them and against some of them. But I urge all of us
to approach this, not as part of a political campaign, but as part of
our serious responsibilities to govern this country.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the first priority of the Federal Government
is to protect its citizens by maintaining a military strong enough to
fight and defeat any aggressor that threatens the United States. Since
the end of the cold war the defense budget has been borrowed from to
pay for social welfare programs and U.N. peacekeeping missions. As a
result, our defense resources are at dangerously low levels. The
Contract With America will put a stop to the practice of borrowing from
the defense budget and reverse the past 2 years of neglect on this
issue. H.R. 7
[[Page H1788]] includes the strong sense of Congress to restore defense
spending fire walls that prohibit the use of Department of Defense
funds to pay for social programs unrelated to military readiness and
restrict future defense cuts to deficit reduction purposes only.
The thing that stirred me up so much, Mr. Speaker, was the fact in
last year's budget we allocated $200 million for displaced Russian
soldiers while our own Vietnam veterans are homeless in the streets of
the United States of America. We cannot afford to become careless. The
Federal Government has a duty to provide for the common defense of its
citizens.
I say to my colleagues, ``I urge your support of H.R. 7.''
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
the great State of New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, in my 20 years of public service I have
never witnessed anything like what is going on now in the world's
greatest deliberate body, the U.S. House of Representatives. And if you
love American democracy like I do, you better be worried.
I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do
not agree with the extremist and isolationist provisions of H.R. 7.
Several Republicans voted for a Democratic amendment to this bill that
was passed by the International Relations Committee. They then called
for a new vote and they all switched their votes.
I know that some of them believe that the greatest and most powerful
country in the world should lead, and not retreat, from the
international community. I know that some of them do not believe that
we need Star Wars II. And all of us know that we simply cannot afford
it.
But none of this seems to matter to my Republican colleagues. They
have decided that marching in lockstep is in and voting independently
is out. For the sake of kneeling before the altar of soundbyte bills
written by pollsters, my Republican colleagues have abandoned the great
American tradition of independent parliamentary debate. We must put
patriotism ahead of polls and be serious about what we bring to the
House floor.
If this bill had passed the Democratic Congress of 1992, President
Bush would not have been allowed to send a single American soldier to
the Persian Gulf for Desert Shield or Desert Storm.
If this bill passes in its present form, America will be forced
either to place thousands more of our young soldiers in the line of
fire to protect our vital national interest abroad--or not to act at
all. America will be forced to spend millions of dollars alone, instead
of sharing the costs.
If this bill passes, we will create yet another unneeded commission
that wastes $1.5 million for yet another study about military needs.
Never mind that we already spend millions upon millions of taxpayer
dollars every year to do just that.
That is why I have sponsored an amendment with the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman] to strike that, and we hope we will get
support.
So, say yes to a strong and secure America, but say no to the
national insecurity bill. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 7.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the statement we just heard regarding Desert Storm and
other actions is absolutely, totally without merit and untrue. As a
matter of fact, 45 minutes ago former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, a
former Democrat turned Republican, just down the hallway totally
endorsed this piece of legislation, and said it would have no impact on
the President's ability to send our troops abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Thornberry], one of the newest stars from our committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
measure.
Mr. Chairman, after more than a year of visiting with folks in my
district about where this country is headed, I can tell my colleagues
that they are very concerned about what is happening to our military.
We are asking our men and women to do more and more and giving them
less and less to do it with. This bill does not solve all the problems,
but it does make a good start, and there are three areas key to me:
One, establish an inspection commission to evaluate our needs and the
resources to meet those needs because the administration has lost total
credibility in being able to make that assessment; second, it is
important to keep U.S. troops under the command of U.S. commanders, and
this drift toward relinquishing control of our security to
multinational organizations has got to stop; third, we have got to
protect our people from missile attack, and it does not matter whether
its short-range or long-range missiles. It is the fundamental purpose
of this body to protect our people, and, if we do not make every effort
to meet that threat, then we have not met our responsibilities to our
constituents.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], another one of our bright stars on
the Committee on National Security.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I believe all of us agree that a
strong military was a prime factor in the end of the cold war and won a
stunning victory in the Persian Gulf, but events over the past few
years have shown that though the cold war is over, we still live in a
very dangerous world. It is not just our side of the aisle that
recognizes our military is stretched too thin. We have cut too far, too
fast.
And these massive cuts have been multiplied by our military being
ordered to build nations in places where we have no vital national
interest.
Places like Somalia and Haiti.
Meanwhile, even top Pentagon officials admit we need to commit more
resources to training in places like Fort Knox in my district,
facilities vital to keep our service men and women well prepared.
H.R. 7 allows a bipartisan panel to review our military in light of
yesterday's mistakes and tomorrow's challenges.
And perhaps most important, H.R. 7 will keep our men and women in the
armed services from being placed under command of another country. We
are still the leaders of the free world, Mr. Chairman.
The men and women in our armed services have given their all to our
country. H.R. 7 is an important step toward ensuring we do the same for
them.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, does this debate sound like a time warp?
I would not be surprised if I heard evil empire, iron curtain, and
Berlin Wall. Let me just remind my colleagues that that was yesterday,
and now we need to talk about today and tomorrow.
This bill is a prescription for disaster. The Republicans are rushing
as a part of their contract to penalize the poor, discriminate against
legal immigrants, pander to the rich, and now, through this national
security part of their contract, they add insult to injury by also
asking this House to invest scarce dollars in yesterday's boondoggle.

{time} 1530

The Republicans have chosen to look through the rearview mirror as if
blinded by the light of the future. Instead, they choose to look
behind.
This is the same party that says that Government is too big. This is
the same party that says that kids do not deserve to eat subsidized
lunch in school, that pregnant women do not need to have subsidized
nutrition so that they can give birth to healthy babies. This is the
same party that said we do not have enough money to put 100,000 cops on
the streets. But Government spending for an elaborate and controversial
missile defense in space, well, that is all right.
Rather than asking for money for Star Wars, the Republicans could
have asked for money to clean up the contaminated bases that coexist
within our communities. And rather than railing on about foreign
command and control, they could have focused instead on constructive
engagement with the rest of the world through multilateralism and
collective security. The specter of foreign command is not true. The
President is and always
[[Page H1789]] has been our Commander in Chief. Finally, they could
have looked at promising weapons systems that bear more relation to the
type of defense that we need in the future.
This bill does not provide for the forward looking vision of this
country. It robs us of our peace dividend, and I say vote ``no.''
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 7.
Mr. Chairman, the results from the November 8 elections demonstrate
the American voter's overall dissatisfaction with Congress. Recognizing
this concern, many of us signed the Contract With America, to clearly
illustrate our promise to eliminate weak leadership and destructive
policies. Since January 4, we have been working very hard to bring 10
bills compromising the contract to the floor during the first 100
legislative days of the 104th Congress. We have passed several of these
bills, however, and now we must address the next item, H.R. 7, the
National Security Revitalization Act.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation which was
successfully voted out of four committees of jurisdiction including the
International Relations Committee, of which I am a member. The bill
expresses many of my sentiments toward foreign policy, particularly
regarding the current administration. Yes, the world of today differs
tremendously from that of the 1980's, therefore our foreign policy must
change and continue to change as we move into the next century.
However, it is time we restore America's reputation as a superpower; we
must repair our strength and credibility damaged by the policies of the
Clinton Administration.
The Clinton administration's bottom-up review of the U.S. military
has severely undermined our readiness by reducing defense funding and
personnel. The question that needs to be asked now is: Can the United
States defend itself against an attack, or more than one attack? H.R. 7
would address this inadequacy in several ways. First, it would renew
the United States' commitment to an effective national missile defense
by requiring the Department of Defense [DOD] to develop and deploy
antiballistic missile and theater missile defense as early as
practicable. Second, the bill would require the creation of the
National Security Commission, a bipartisan panel of independent defense
experts, to assess force structure, readiness, strategic vision,
modernization, and personnel policies. In the end, these provisions
would return our military to the level of force that is capable of
protecting our shores and projecting our might anywhere in the world.
As we have all witnessed, costly multinational peacekeeping
operations, under the auspices of the United Nation in both Somalia and
Bosnia have failed to produce the desired outcomes, and support for
these operations has declined across America. Currently, the United
States pays the cost of these missions sponsored by the United Nations,
as well as peacekeeping operations we initiate. The United States is
responsible for 25 percent of the U.N.'s normal operating budget and
31.7 percent of the cost of each U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping operation.
Our funding of U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping missions is not counted
toward our contribution to the U.N. operating budget. Furthermore,
although Congress appropriated $1.2 billion in 1994 to pay for
peacekeeping, the State Department estimates that the United States
could fall behind by another $800 million by the end of fiscal 1995.
This arrangement clearly cannot continue. Under H.R. 7, the United
States, while continuing to fund peacekeeping mission, we would begin
to count this cost as part of our overall contribution to the United
Nations. However, under this legislation, the United States will write
off the cost of unilateral peacekeeping missions like the one in Haiti,
from its U.N. bills.
We have heard arguments that any provision requiring the U.S.
Government to subtract costs incurred by the United States for
participation in U.N. peacekeeping activities from the United States
assessed U.N. contribution could be fatal to U.N. peacekeeping.
However, according to a study conducted by the General Accounting
Office [GAO], provisions to limit U.S. contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping operations will not completely eliminate U.S. funds.
Included in these U.N. provisions is a section that I find very
intriguing. Section 511 requires the withholding of 20 percent of
assessed U.S. contributions of the regular U.N. budget and 50 percent
of all assessed and voluntary U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
operations each year until the President certifies: The creation of an
independent office of the Inspector General chosen for his/her ability
and integrity; the Inspector General has access to all records and
officials at the United Nations; the United Nations will protect
whistleblowers who cooperate with the Inspector General, and the
reports of the Inspector General are made available to the General
Assembly of the United Nations without change.
The United Nations has a record of wasting money and at times has
acted in a corrupt manner. However, with an Inspector General's office,
we can carefully check to ensure U.S. taxpayers' dollars are put to an
honest and proper use, reflecting American perspectives. This section
fits perfectly into current efforts by Congress to review all levels of
government for efficiency and costs.
H.R. 7 would also make a fundamental change--one that has been
advanced by former Joint Chief of Staff Colin Powell--that would
restrict the ability of the
President to place U.S. troops under foreign command. This step is
taken because the American people do not trust nor have confidence in
the United Nations. The lives of our young men and women should not be
placed at risk somewhere in the world by a foreign commander. H.R. 7
would change this policy.

Lastly, the bill contains provisions to reemphasize the commitment of
the United States to a strong and viable NATO alliance, urging that we
assist the Eastern European democracies with the transition to full
NATO membership. NATO must adapt to the reality of the post-cold-war
Europe. Expansion would ultimately benefit these countries by
encouraging integration into the West.
In the contract, we made promises--promises we plan to keep. In the
post-cold-war period, the passage of the National Security
Revitalization Act marks an improvement in our foreign policy by
acknowledging the Clinton administration precipitated the decline in
military readiness; by restricting future participation in U.N.
programs; by developing defense against ballistic missile attack, and
pledging American leadership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
[NATO]. Join me in voting in favor of H.R. 7.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
(Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, over the last 10 years, U.S. troops have been deployed
for more operations per year than ever before. Currently, the United
States has over 48,000 military personnel involved in 13 ongoing
operations in unstable areas like Bosnia, Haiti, and Iraq. In Somalia,
for example, there was no clear objective, no clear timeframe, and no
clear plan to bring our military personnel home. In 1993, Congress
appropriated $401.6 million for U.N. operations--President Clinton had
requested $597 million.
Mr. Chairman, we are reaching a troubling time in our defense policy.
We are spending too much money in situations where we have very little
control. The United States is responsible for 25 percent of the United
Nations' normal operating budget. We pay 31.7 percent of the cost of
missions sponsored by the United Nations.
Mr. Chairman, this is a disturbing trend and patriotic Americans want
to stop it. That is why we are asking our colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to work with us in passing the National Security Restoration
Act. Let's restrict U.S. troops to those missions that are in our
national interests, reduce the cost of the United States of U.N.
missions, and demand that U.S. troops be only deployed under U.S.
commanders. Let us pass H.R. 7.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as relics of the cold war,
when there was a serious nuclear threat, nuclear fallout shelters are
being used to store garden tools. Yet the Republicans are suggesting we
need to prioritize our national security interest and place greater
emphasis on incoming ballistic missiles over the development of Scud
defense, which poses certainly a considerably greater threat to U.S.
lives. A nuclear warhead weighs about 270 pounds, is slightly larger
than a water cooler bottle and does not need a missile for effective
delivery. It can be brought across the Mexican border in a pickup
truck. And if you doubt that ability, just check the incoming
[[Page H1790]] from all over the world with cocaine as it arrives here
every day.
So why are we proposing the development of a multibillion dollar
national missile defense that will take away resources from very
important readiness, modernization, and quality of life programs for
our defense? We will spend massive amounts of funds on a system that
can be countered by a 1970 El Camino.
What has happened to common sense? H.R. 7 is bad legislation. It
directs our national defense priorities away from our troops. It
restricts our peacekeeping participation and our capabilities there. It
undermines the President's authority as commander-in-chief. It is a
reckless expansion of U.S. defense commitments through our NATO
participation.
This bill certainly does not represent common sense. The common sense
vote is no on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 7. This bill represents a very appropriate reordering of our
priorities. I would like to reemphasize that although we do live in a
post-cold-war world, it still is a very dangerous world. Within a
decade, we expect some 27 countries will have nuclear weapons with
increasing capabilities to deliver them. At this point in time, we have
no meaningful defense against ballistic missiles. This bill very
appropriately requires a reevaluation in this area. It is a good bill.
I urge its support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, in 1939, the leader of the isolationist
wing of the Republican Party, continuing a tradition of 20 years of
Republican isolationism that started after the end of World War I,
Senator Arthur Vandenburg said:

We cannot be the world's protector or the world's
policeman. The price of such assignment would be the jeopardy
of our own democracy. Let us avoid entanglement in any chain
of circumstances which may be too strong for us to break.

Seven years later, as the new leader of the internationalist wing of
the Republican Party, the one that has dominated the Republican Party
for the last 50 years, Senator Vandenburg said:

If World War III ever unhappily arrives, it will open new
laboratories of death too horrible to contemplate. I propose
to do everything within my power to keep those laboratories
closed for keeps. There are two ways to do it. One way is by
exclusive individual action in which each of us tries to look
out for himself. The other way is by joint action in which we
undertake to look out for each other. The first way is the
old way, which has twice taken us to Europe's interminable
battlefields within a quarter of a century. The second way is
the new way in which our present fraternity of war becomes a
new fraternity of peace.

The issue in sections 501 and 508 and title IV, of H.R. 872 no matter
how many times it is denied, is do we continue with the
internationalist perspective, or do we force ourselves into an
isolationist, ``either do it alone or don't do it at all'' perspective.
The National Security Revitalization Act is a rash and reactive
attempt by a Republican congressional majority to supersede
presidential prerogatives in the conduct of U.S. foreign and defense
policy. Though aimed at circumscribing President Clinton's authority,
its unintended consequences will come back to haunt future presidents,
regardless of their party.
It is Congress' role to question particular programs and policies of
the executive branch, and it is imperative that the executive branch
consult with Congress early and often on national security affairs. But
the sort of partnership between the executive branch and the Congress
necessary to the advance of American national interests cannot be based
on hamstringing Presidential prerogatives.
Vote ``no'' on H.R. 872.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] a cosponsor of the bill.
(Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, tomorrow we have the opportunity to correct today's
defense policy problems by passing the National Security Revitalization
Act. I think it is important that the American people know what is at
stake here and what the current administration is actually fighting
against. Very simply, H.R. 7 would prohibit placing our military troops
under the command or control of a foreign commander without
presidential or congressional approval.

{time} 1540

The men and women of the largest fighting force in the world do not
want to have their lives placed in the hand of a foreign commander and
neither do their families. H.R. 7 would also allow the United States to
count our military peacekeeping operations as a contribution to the
United Nations.
It is just not right for someone in our districts to see their tax
dollars spent on missions that currently are not allowed to be counted
as a contribution to the United Nations.
Quite frankly, we can no longer afford to undertake 13 peacekeeping
missions with the use of some 48,000 personnel in countries like
Bosnia, Haiti and Iraq. I must say that many of the people back in
Tennessee that I represent do not agree with these questionable
missions our military has been assigned, and they certainly do not
believe that they should be paying for them.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 would strengthen our NATO alliance by bringing
the countries of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia into
the alliance. These countries are working toward democracy, and they
deserve the opportunity to earn the protections that NATO could afford
them.
I urge my colleagues to support this National Security Revitalization
Act.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
unnecessary, irresponsible and dangerous bill. The Republican defense
bill is unnecessary because it is based on the false premise that our
military is ill-prepared. That is an insult to our troops and an
invitation to would-be aggressors.
The truth is that we face no national security problem so urgent that
it cannot be fixed through the much more thoughtful and much more
bipartisan approach of the authorization process.
This bill is irresponsible because it completely rewrites our defense
and foreign policies after just as few brief hearings and only a
limited amount of debate in this Chamber. What is the rush?
The only rush is to check off another item on a political scorecard.
Of all the issues, the national security policy of post-cold-war
America demands more than that. Most of all, this bill is dangerous
because it puts a higher priority on a boondoggle in the sky called
star wars than on our troops on the ground. Star wars is going to cost
billions of dollars and the people who are going to pay the highest
price are our men and our women in uniform. The cost of Star Wars is
going to come out of their training. It is going to come out of their
salaries and their housing, and it is going to come out of the modern
weapons that they need to reduce risk in battle.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the price of the Republican defense bill may very
well be paid with the lives of our troops. With this bill, the Contract
With America literally becomes a contract on the men and the women who
serve in uniform. It does them a disservice.
Support our troops and vote no on H.R. 7.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
(Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on
command and control. I have the feeling my argument will not change the
minds here today, but as someone who
[[Page H1791]] traveled to Somalia four times and sincerely cares about
what happens there, I would like to provide some information for the
historic record of this debate.
Since Somalia seems to be the genesis of the command and control
issue, it would be helpful to review the events of the tragic loss of
the 18 U.S. Army Rangers.
It is my understanding that the U.N. Commander in Somalia was Turkish
General Bir who was in charge.
The operational commander was U.S. General Montgomery, who at the
time reported solely to General Bir.
The United States combat forces in Somalia were under the command of
General Garrison who reported to General Hoar, Commander in Chief, U.S.
Central Command in Miami.
As the Washington Post brought out in their investigative reporting,
U.S. General Montgomery assigned to the U.N. command did not encourage
the assault on the building were Aideed was thought to be on the day
the casualties occurred.
The Post reported U.S. unit commanders were saying ``our boys have
cabin fever''. They want to get out where the action is. The U.S.
Rangers force carried out this assault at the initiative of, and with
the approval of the U.S. central command in Miami.
In no way should we make the U.N. the scapegoat for this tragic
incident that killed 18 of our fine young men.
I would also remind Members that a larger number of Pakistani troops
gave their lives in previous actions. Bangladesh, India, Malaysia,
Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria and Zimbabwe also lost troops in Somalia.
But they did not call for withdrawal.
I was impressed that at the beginning of the Gulf war when President
Bush talked about a new world order in which the strong must protect
the weak. Congress also approved similar words.
If these words are to have any meaning, then I feel our participation
in peacekeeping and peacemaking is a responsibility the U.S. must bear.
And, in bearing this responsibility it makes sense to share the
burden with other countries through the United Nations.
What are we doing here today is to dismantle the peacekeeping
capability of the United Nations which has served with distinction for
50 years.
Surely, this is not the intention of America.
I urge the defeat of H.R. 7.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] have 11\3/4\ minutes; the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has 11\1/4\ minutes remaining;
and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has 16\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
(Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, men and women do not join the Armed
Forces to fight and die for the United Nations. They join to serve
their own country, the United States. In the past 2 years, the United
States has been involved in more peacekeeping missions under the U.N.
flag than ever before. Many of these missions are not in our best
national interest, they put our men and women in danger and inflate our
budget. Typically, we contribute 32 percent of the total funds of each
U.N. operation.
H.R. 7 would force the President to receive the authorization of
Congress before a peacekeeping mission and notify them of the
expenditures. It would also not allow for U.S. troops to be placed
under U.N. command. Mr. Chairman, we need to maintain our autonomy
throughout the world. We need to be responsible for securing our
national interests. H.R. 7 is a positive step toward a positive goal--
keeping our defenses strong. Let us pass H.R. 7.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this bill might be better known as the National
Security Retribution Act instead of the National Security
Revitalization Act.
It is a travesty of sound defense policy, wasting tens of billions of
dollars on a revived star wars effort while shorting funds for
readiness or truly needed procurement.
This legislation is a travesty of sound budget policy, proposing to
borrow tens of billions of dollars just after we have passed a balanced
budget amendment.
And this legislation is a travesty of sound international security
policy, undermining START II Treaty ratification and the ABM Treaty,
while jeopardizing our ongoing efforts to achieve further arms
limitations.
But even more fundamental, this legislation is a constitutional
tragedy, putting a power grab, driven by mindless bumper-sticker
politics, ahead of the historic and critical authority of the President
of the United States to manage our foreign relations and to command our
Nation's Armed Forces.
If the Democrats had been so unprincipled as to try a stunt like this
when a Republican was in the White House, the Republicans would have
been absolutely and rightly outraged. Yet they have no shame in
perpetrating this today.
This bill is so deeply flawed that, if adopted, it would deprive this
President, any President, of his ability to protect and promote our
national interests. It should be defeated.
This legislation should better be titled the National Security
Retribution Act.
This legislation is a travesty of sound defense policy, wasting tens
of billions of dollars on a revived star wars effort while shorting
funds for readiness or truly needed procurement.
This legislation is a travesty of sound budget policy, proposing to
borrow tens of billions for star wars when we just passed a balanced
budget amendment.
This legislation is a travesty of sound international security
policy, undermining START II treaty ratification and Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty compliance while jeopardizing our ability to achieve
further arms limitations agreements.
But even more fundamental, this legislation is a constitutional
tragedy, putting a power grab, driven by mindless bumper-sticker
politics, ahead of historic and critical authority of the President to
manage the Nation's foreign relations and to command its armed forces.
If the Democrats had been so unprincipled as to try a stunt like this
against a Republican President, the Republicans would properly have
been outraged. Now, they show no shame.
This measure is deeply flawed and, if adopted, would unwisely deprive
the President--any President--of the ability and flexibility to protect
and promote our national interests. Like so much of the Republican's
Contract With America, this bill would shackle the Government and shred
the Constitution.
Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states that the ``President
shall be Commander in Chief'' of the U.S. Armed Forces. The bill
ignores the Constitution by placing severe limits on the President's
ability to carry out his central national security duties. It should be
defeated for this reason, if no other.
The bill's prohibition on the placing of U.S. troops under foreign
command plays to the frustration many citizens feel about increasing
U.S. participation in United Nations, but it ignores the real world
requirements of dealing with threats to international security. In most
of the conflicts we've been involved in since--and even during--the
Revolution, we have conducted joint military operations with allies,
and these arrangements have to work in both directions. We can't expect
to work effectively with our allies without sharing operational control
in appropriate cases.
Most recently in Operation Desert Storm, General Swartzkopf placed a
United States brigade under the operational control of the French, just
as other allied forces were under the operational control of United
States forces. By restricting the President's authority to share
operational command, this bill would have greatly hampered President
Bush's effort to bring the international community along with us in
meeting Saddam Hussein's challenge. Members should also be aware that
right now a United States Army division serves under the U.N. flag in
Korea under operational control of a South Korean general. If this bill
passes, this sort of arrangement, and the essential international
cooperation on security matters it facilitates, would be history.
A second huge problem is what the bill would do to U.N. peacekeeping
operations. The bill says we must count against our peacekeeping
contribution the cost of any separate U.S. military effort pursuant to
U.N. Security Council resolutions. The costs of these operations--
supporting humanitarian relief and deterring aggression in places like
Bosnia and
[[Page H1792]] Iraq--far exceed our annual peacekeeping assessment. So
this means we would no longer pay any of the peacekeeping costs we have
agreed by treaty to pay.
If we take this step, the other nations like France, the United
Kingdom, and
Japan, who also make major separate expenditures, would almost
certainly follow our lead in canceling their peacekeeping payments. And
U.N. peacekeeping would end. We would then face the option of doing
nothing in the face of serious threats to international peace and
security, or going it alone. America would be forced to play global cop
alone, or nobody would.

A third flaw in H.R. 7 is its attempt to legislate a timetable for
new states to obtain membership in NATO. The bill would attempt to take
away from America's most important national defense alliance the
ability to decide, through the agreement of the members of the
alliance, who can and should join the alliance. The legislative
timetable would also prevent the President from acting through normal
foreign policy channels to set standards for membership. All this is a
patently unconstitutional intrusion of Congress into the foreign policy
jurisdiction of the President. Reformers in countries not named would
be discouraged, and the governments of those named might become
complacent. Finally, by bringing NATO up against Russia's borders too
rapidly the bill could have serious unintentional consequences.
A final, and significant failing in this bill is its return to a
crash deployment of a national missile defense. More than $30 billion
has already been spent on the star wars initiative, and it is estimated
by the Congressional Budget Office that at least $30 billion more--
probably $50 to $100 billion more--would have to be spent to deploy the
system. Although star wars is claimed to promise a defense against
missile attacks for rogue states, it could be outflanked by an enemy
using any number of alternative delivery systems. The massive cost
would divert scarce defense dollars and other resources from more
pressing needs such as a theater-missile defense or military-readiness
programs. And both the bill and votes in committee, make it clear the
Republicans are willing to be cavalier about violations of the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty in their rush to test and deploy such a
system. That attitude would surely be the undoing of START II, and
other pending efforts to restrain weapons of mass destruction.
The National Security Revitalization Act is a hastily constructed
attempt to legislate a change in our national security strategy. Rather
than revitalize U.S. national security, it would undermine it. If
enacted, this bill will politicize national security and destroy the
Presidency's ability to make effective foreign policy decisions. If the
United States is to remain a leader on the world stage, Congress must
continue to allow the President--every President--the constitutionally
mandated authority in deciding how to deploy American forces, manage
alliances, and set strategic priorities.
This bill goes in precisely the wrong direction on almost all counts.
It deserves defeat.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, has, on this
date, received a letter from five former members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. In their correspondence they state, and I quote, ``This
legislation will impose onerous and unnecessary restrictions on the
President's ability to place U.S. forces under the operational control
of the Nation's military leaders for U.N. operations.''
It continues, ``Throughout our history, presidents have found it
advantageous and prudent for forces to participate in coalition
operations. During the Gulf War, Korea, and during 50 years of the NATO
alliance and in multilateral peacekeeping operations, our armed forces
have successfully worked side by side with those of other nations.''

{time} 1550

The letter concludes ``Mr. Chairman, this would force the
administration to choose between acting unilaterally and doing nothing.
Accordingly, we urge rejection of the restrictions on the President's
command and control,'' and his military authority, in this legislation.
It is signed by David C. Jones, General, U.S. Air Force; David E.
Jeremiah, U.S. Navy; Glen Otis, General, U.S. Army; W.E. Boomer,
General, U.S. Marine Corps; B.E. Trainor, Lieutenant General, U.S.
Marine Corps.
For the Record, Mr. Chairman, I include this letter in its entirety:

February 15, 1995.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: As retired flag and general officers, we
are writing to express our serious reservations about HR 872,
which is now under consideration by the House of
Representatives. We are especially concerned about provisions
in the bill that would impose onerous and unnecessary
restrictions on the President's ability to place U.S. forces
under the operational control of other nations' military
leaders for UN operations.
As you know, throughout our nation's history Presidents
have found it advantageous and prudent for U.S. military
forces to participate in coalition operations. During the
Gulf War, in the U.S.-led UN operation in Korea, throughout
the nearly 50 years of the NATO alliance, and in multilateral
peacekeeping operations, our armed forces have successfully
worked side-by-side with those of other nations to advance
our national security.
In the post-Cold War world, it will remain essential that
the President retain the authority to establish command
arrangements best suited to the needs of future operations.
As commander-in-chief, he will never relinquish command of
U.S. military forces. However, from time to time it will be
necessary and appropriate to temporarily subordinate elements
of our forces to the operational control of competent
commanders from allied or other foreign countries. As retired
military officers, we can personally attest that it is
essential to the effective operation of future coalitions
that the President retain this authority. Just as we will
frequently have foreign forces serving under the operational
control of American commanders, so must we be able to
negotiate reciprocal arrangements freely.
HR 872 would place unprecedented and, in our view,
burdensome limitations on this authority. By narrowing the
President's options and complicating the process of building
a coalition during a crisis, the bill could, in effect, force
the Administration to choose between acting unilaterally and
doing nothing. Accordingly, we urge rejection of the
restrictions on the President's command and control authority
contained in this portion of HR 872 as unnecessary, unwise,
and militarily unsound.
David C. Jones,
General, US Air Force (Ret).
David E. Jeremiah,
Admiral, US Navy (Ret).
Glenn K. Otis,
General, US Army (Ret).
W.E. Boomer,
General, USMC (Ret).
B.E. Trainor,
LtGen, USMC (Ret).

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
(Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, under the current administration, the defense of this
country has declined greatly. Defense spending has been dramatically
reduced to its lowest level since World War II and modernization
programs cut to a 45-year low. These defense cuts have put our military
forces at their lowest levels of readiness in over a decade, cut 15,000
reserve and civilian personnel every month and in addition, 1.2 million
defense-related private sector jobs will be eliminated. These cuts will
be used to fund wasteful social programs. The Republican Congress plans
to change all that.
Our Nation's security must not be neglected as it has been the past 2
years. Americans should have faith that their Armed Forces are ready
and equipped with the most modern defense systems. We need to keep our
promise to the American people. We need to keep our defenses strong. We
need to maintain our credibility around the world. We need to pass this
bill.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague who just
preceded me in the well.
Mr. Chairman, with the end of the cold war, with the demise of the
Warsaw Pact and the evisceration of the Soviet Union, what drove 70
percent of the budget is now no longer a major threat. Yet, in fiscal
year 1996 we are contemplating spending 75 percent of what we spent in
1990.
Stated a different way, Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 1996 we will be
spending almost as much as the entire world military budget combined in
1 year. If we add what we spend, what our allies in Asia and Europe
spend, we will be spending in excess of 80 percent of the world's
military budget allocation, so even those persons who potentially could
be adversaries to us are spending less than 20 percent of their
dollars. Where is the threat? To talk about some weak nation, we are
the No. 1 superpower in the world with the greatest military capability
in the
[[Page H1793]] world, with the greatest readiness in the world, and we
are spending exorbitant amounts of money on our military budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, title I of this bill professes alarm at the downward
spiral of defense spending. It raises the specter of hollow forces.
However, when we turn to title II of the bill, to see what it would do,
we find what it wants to do is sink billions of dollars into a new
national defense missile defense system.
Mr. Chairman, one sure way of fulfilling the dire prophecies in title
I, the preamble of this bill, is to sink huge sums into a national
defense, system especially if it deploys space-based interceptors at
the earliest practical date.
That is why, when the bill comes up for amendment, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and I
will offer three related amendments.
We support a strong defense. I support and believe in ballistic
missile defense. However, I first want to make sure that our forces,
although downsized smaller, are ready to fight. I want to make sure
that the equipment they fight with is second to none. I want to ensure
quality of life to our troops and their families.
Mr. Chairman, we offer these three amendments, because if title II
becomes law without them, it could be taken to mean that deployment of
a national missile defense system made up of space-based interceptors,
such a system could easily cost $25 billion, and that $25 billion can
only be funded at the expense of other priorities, like readiness and
theater missile defense.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to make sure that a national missile
defense system is not put ahead of other priorities. I do not mean to
preclude it, I simply mean to put it in its right order. My amendment
will require that readiness and modernization should be funded first
and should take priority over national missile defense; second, that
theater missile defense should take priority over national missile
defense, because it deals with a threat here and now; third and
finally, that any national missile defense system should start with a
ground-based system and not a space-based interceptor.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has a
disproportionate amount of time remaining. The Chair would ask if the
gentleman would like to yield some time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 7. The President
has charged this bill will unfairly inhibit the country's ability to
respond to international crises, that it will hamper his constitutional
responsibility. However, I am not aware of any clause in the
Constitution that states that when the U.N. decides that peacekeeping
troops are needed, that it is America that responds. We are not the
world's 911 emergency hotline.
Unfortunately, the President has bought into this thinking at grave
expense. U.S. troops should not be placed under foreign command. We are
not at war. U.S. taxpayers should not be expected to keep paying more
than our fair share of U.N. peacekeeping expenses. This bill takes a
huge step in curtailing both those misguided policies.
Passage of the National Security Revitalization Act is a good step
toward redefining our relationship with the United Nations, redirecting
precious U.S. tax dollars toward legitimate national security concerns,
and regaining the confidence of the American people. I urge a ``yes''
vote on H.R. 7.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
(Mr. QUINN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 7, I rise today in
strong support of its provision to urge the United States to do
everything possible to help Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and
other Eastern European nations, become members of NATO.
I think it is important to remember NATO's history while considering
this necessary resolution. On April 4, 1949, 10 European governments,
the United States, and Canada signed the North Atlantic Treaty,
creating NATO. The Organization was established to deter potential
Soviet aggression in Europe and to provide for the collective self-
defense of the alliance.
It is widely recognized that East Central European Nations,
particularly Poland, have often been caught between a hammer and an
anvil. This was seen not only in the historic expansion of the former
Prussian, Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires, but also during World
War II when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union divided the nations
between themselves. More recently, Russia's actions in Chechnya, and
its prior reluctance in withdrawing from the Baltic States, show the
need for NATO's expansion.
The inclusion of Eastern European Countries in NATO is a crucial step
toward creating stability in an important region of the world. Further,
it will provide the emerging democracies of those Eastern European
countries with an opportunity to flourish.
NATO was a stabilizing influence on Western Europe during the cold
war. The expansion of NATO to include Eastern European nations will
provide the same stabilizing influence during the post cold war era.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 7's
provision to help Poland, Hungary, and other Eastern European nations
gain membership in NATO, while cooperating closely with Russia.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], a new member of the Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 7.
First, let me commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gilman], for his leadership during the International
Relations Committee's leadership during the International Relations
Committee's consideration of H.R. 7. Our committee put considerable
effort into the crafting of this legislation and I believe we've
produced a sensible, responsible and much-needed effort to strengthen
our national defense and set a clear, new national security policy.
The America people have grave concerns about both the Clinton
administration's weakening of our military and its haphazard foreign
policy. The National Security Revitalization Act seeks to reverse the
dangerous trend of the last two years and refocuses U.S. defense and
foreign policy priorities.
Mr. Chairman, when we pass H.R. 7, we will be keeping another promise
we made to the American people. And it will serve as further notice
that this Congress is serious about revitalizing and strengthening U.S.
security policy.
I urge support of H.R. 7.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
(Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHAMBLIS. Mr. Chairman, what we are about today is at the very
heart of the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years--our Nation's
defense.
I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that our military has been cut too
deeply and too quickly. With U.S. troops being deployed more often and
to more locations, it is wrong to expect our military men and women to
do more with less.
In September, 1993, the administration released its recommendations
within the Bottom-Up Review and called for cuts of an additional 10
percent from the defense budget. I question the conclusions of the
Bottom-Up Review based on inconsistencies between the administration's
strategy, recommended force structure, and projected budgets. The
discrepancies have become increasingly evident as readiness problems
mount and as reports come in from military leaders in the field.
[[Page H1794]] It is time to call this administration to task for its
inadequate efforts to provide for this Nation's defense. Support H.R.
7, support the creation of a review commission, and send a message to
the White House.

{time} 1600

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a Democrat who has worked very
hard for the last 4 years to balance the budget and continue to make
that one of my highest priorities in this body. So oftentimes over the
last 4 years, balancing the budget has been like trying to take a sip
out of a fire hydrant, you are pushed back every time you think you are
making some progress.
We have made some progress in the last month. We have passed a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget and a line-item veto,
both of which I have voted for. But H.R. 7 firmly plants down now
additional fire hydrants, opening the gates to spend more money that we
do not have and spends this money in ways which is not in the best
interests of the taxpayer nor in the best interests of our national
defense.
Title II of this bill, the strategic defense initiative says, ``It
shall be the policy of the United States to deploy at the earliest
practicable date.'' Not evaluate, not analyze, deploy and spend the
money. That is $29 to $30 billion, $10 billion more than we currently
have in this bill. Where are we getting that $10 billion? Where did it
say in the Contract for America to spend $10 billion that you did not
have?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I will not yield at this time.
Second, title VI of the bill says that we want to expand NATO to the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, provide additional economic
support assistance, nonproliferation and disarmament assistance. Where
does it say that in the Contract for America, to increase foreign
assistance?
You have some good provisions in here that I might be able to
support. But if we are going to work on a balanced budget amendment, if
we are going to work to take away the fire hydrants of spending more
and more money in this place, H.R. 7 is not moving us in that
direction.
Let it be clear to Members on both sides of this aisle, this says we
are going to spend the money.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
(Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, the folks from the other side of the aisle
always knew we were different. But they could always put up with it
because we could not do anything about it.
The difference in this debate and previous years is that we think our
defense policy needs direction, and we think it needs a new direction.
Let me tell you why we think it needs direction.
Let me quote from the President's speech of January 25, 1994.
He said, ``The budget I send to Congress draws the line against
further defense cuts. It protects the readiness and quality of forces.
We must not cut defense further.''
Republicans on this side of the aisle stood and applauded that night.
Now, just 12 short months later, Congress received the President's
proposed budget which seeks to cut defense spending by 5.3 percent, to
the lowest level since 1950.
At the core of the Clinton national security strategy is a policy
which is in conflict with itself. That is why we need to set a new
direction.
On the one hand, the President has ordered our military engaged in
more peacekeeping missions around the world than any other President in
history. On the other hand, he has cut defense spending to the historic
and dangerous low.
We need to take care of our armed services, we need to take care of
our people, we need to provide for the national security of our
country. We note that a 12.8-percent gap exists between military pay
and comparable civilian pay. We note that last year the Clinton
administration did not request a military pay raise. We note that it is
estimated that 17,000 junior enlisted personnel have to rely on food
stamps.
How can we provide for the defense of our country and our national
security with facts like those emerging?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us cut through all of
the rhetoric we have heard here today. Why is H.R. 7 before us in this
body today? Is it only because of Republicans?
I think back to last summer when this bill was first drafted. It was
not drafted in January of this year. It was drafted because Members of
both sides of the aisle said the President made a fundamental mistake.
He cut defense spending by $128 billion over 5 years which Democrats
and Republicans alike acknowledged was not achievable, and we said we
had to do something about that. In fact, here we are today with the
General Accounting Office saying we are $150 billion short over 5
years, the Congressional Budget Office saying we are $67 billion short
over 5 years and our good colleague and friend Ike Skelton saying we
are $44 billion short over 5 years.
That is why we empower a commission. Because the leadership does not
know what shortcomings we have in terms of spending. No one can agree.
So we have to have an independent assessment look at that.
The President was wrong in the cuts that he made. While cutting our
defense spending over 5 years by 25 percent, he has increased
nondefense spending in the defense budget by 361 percent. Can you
believe that? The biggest increase in defense spending are non-defense
items. We could go through as our good friend suggested just a moment
ago who would not yield to me, our good friend from Indiana, we could
certainly free up $2 billion to $3 billion a year more just by cutting
the waste and the garbage out of the defense bill without adding one
dime more money in, and that is where we want to start.
This President also made a fundamental mistake when he abandoned
national missile defense. He is shortchanging the American people. They
think they are being protected from some kind of a rogue missile
attack. They are not. There is no protection.
Lest we misstate what has been said here, no one on our side is
talking about star wars. Our colleagues on the minority regret the
labeling that is occurring. I am announcing today as we go through this
debate, I am donating $1 to the Science Fiction Writers Foundation for
every time our colleagues on this side mention the term ``star wars.''
It has nothing to do with this debate.
We are talking about deploying a program that Secretary Perry has
said he could deploy over 5 years at a cost not to exceed $5 billion.
It is deployable and even the Secretary's own tiger term recommended to
him last week that it is doable. It will provide a layer of defense
that we do not now have for the entire Nation. We think we should move
forward on that.
Mr. Chairman, this debate is not and should not be a partisan debate.
This debate should be bipartisan as it was in the committee. Because
the reasons why this bill is before us, the reasons are that Members of
both sides feel that this administration has been shortchanging our
military, has been shortchanging our national defense in terms of
missile defense, has been shortchanging us in terms of an isolationist
defense budget trying to fund an internationalist foreign policy. It
just does not work.
I urge passage of H.R. 7.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, America just cannot afford H.R. 7 and it certainly
cannot afford star wars 2. Star wars 2 sounds like a movie sequel but
unfortunately
[[Page H1795]] it is a living nightmare. This is a program----
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Can the gentlewoman point to me where in
H.R. 7 the term star wars is?
Ms. FURSE. Reclaiming my time. This program, this star wars program
really makes me go ballistic. It is the biggest waste of taxpayers'
money around. We have already spent $30 billion and we have nothing to
show for it. What is even worse is, we are not the least bit safe with
it, nor safer than we were.
I am sure that all the new Members who put themselves out as security
experts would like to tell us why they need star wars.

{time} 1610

But I want to tell you what a real expert has said. Former CIA
Director William Colby said, ``The most likely way a nuclear warhead
will enter the United States in the next 10 to 20 years is in the hold
of a tramp freighter.''
Instead of wasting billions that the SDI will require, some tough
augmentation of antiterrorist intelligence would be a much more direct
defense.
Mr. Chairman, throwing money at star wars is like putting 10 locks on
the front door when the back door is left open.
Now, if we honestly want to revitalize national security, let us look
at some places where we could make our own armed services feel more
secure. We could pay them a living wage, for one thing, keep them off
food stamps. We could live up to the contract that we signed with our
veterans. We could live up to that contract. We could invest in things
like college loans; 6\1/2\ million students would invest back into this
country, make it more secure economically.
Star wars, star wars is a bill of goods. It is a bill of goods I am
not willing to pass on to the American people.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Leach], a distinguished member of our Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that while rooted in a quasi-
party platform, the contract, the issues in this bill must not be
considered partisan. There is a great Republican as well as Democratic
tradition of internatinalism.
As a Republican I would stress that my party should take great care
not to weaken the Presidency just because we have a weak President; not
to eviscerate the United Nations just because of one or another
mistaken U.N. policies; and above all, not ignore the Constitution's
separation of power doctrine just because we now control the
legislature.
For three quarters of a century, the United States has exercised
preeminent world leadership in cooperative efforts to build a civilized
international policy based on the rule of law. American leadership
conceived the League of Nations to replace a shattered European
balance-of-power system after World War I. American leadership was
crucial to the establishment of the United Nations system in the
aftermath of World War II.
Yet there is an ambivalence, if not tension, in the American psyche
between isolationism and internationalism, between hubristic go-it-
alone-ism and the sharing of global responsibilities. Thus an
isolationist America rejected the League in the 1920s. And in this bill
this Congress is contemplating the placement of profound roadblocks in
multilateral peacekeeping.
Conservatives, in particular, should support the United Nations
because it implies burdensharing in security relations as well as
development activities, thus shielding the United States from
disproportionately being accountable for global woes.
At issue with the philosophical debate covering this bill is whether
we want to be the policemen for the world or the leading member of an
international highway patrol. The second option is more realistic and,
I might add, cheaper.
In America today there should be no dominant place in either party
for self-centered isolationism. With a sense of sadness, I accordingly
urge the defeat of this legislative vehicle, which not only hamstrings
the constitutional prerogatives of the Presidency, but undercuts
serious prospects of expanding the rule of law.
In any regard, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman
Gilman for his efforts to ameliorate some of the extraordinary counter-
productivity of earlier drafts of this bill, and to accommodate some of
this Member's concerns.
For example, I am appreciative that the Chairman was willing to
accept this Member's modest suggestion that the findings section of the
bill underscore that credible and effective collective security
mechanisms are profoundly in the national interest of the United
States. After all, the principle of collective security has been a
linchpin of the U.S. national security policy of every administration
since 1945.
Nevertheless, I would stress as strongly as I can that the
legislation in its current form is in sharp contrast to the
philosophical precepts that shape this Member's view of responsible
internationalism and the conduct of American foreign policy.
There should be no misunderstanding. The intent of this bill is to
constrain U.S. involvement in multilateral military operations under
U.N. auspices. The effect of this bill, if left substantially
unamended, is to diminish U.S. leadership in the U.N. and elsewhere and
force Presidents in emergency settings to either do nothing or rely
exclusively on unilateral actions.
Let me just summarize my major disagreements with this bill:
It unnecessarily returns the United States to rapid development and
deployment of a costly strategic missile defense system that is not
justified by any exigent national security threat and in so doing,
gives a false impression that the nuclear beast can be constrained by
one technique of defending against one kind of delivery system;
It would cripple, if not destroy, financing for U.N. peacekeeping
operations, thus having the effect of requiring the United States
either to adopt an isolationist posture of doing nothing or bearing a
singular unilateral burden of maintaining international peace and
security;
It would impose unprecedented, unconstitutional, unnecessary and
capricious restrictions on the office of the presidency and the
President's authority to place U.S. troops under the operational
control of another country--even a NATO ally--for U.N. operations; and
By mistaking belligerent naysaying for genuine leadership and U.N.
reform it risks repudiating our own heritage, undercutting our own
self-interest, and tragically rending a half-century of bipartisan
consensus that has sustained a generally successful and effective U.S.
approach to multilateral diplomacy.
While the United States and other nations have increasingly turned to
multilateral institutions to deal with certain of the most intractable
problems of our time, the resulting costs and occasional policy
failures--such as Somalia--have renewed doubts at home and abroad about
the future of the United Nations.
While we may not like all that the United Nations or its individual
members do, we no longer have the capacity, even if we so desired, to
successfully go it alone. The manifest limits of American power and the
contrasting global reach of American interests; they make U.S.
leadership in an effective United Nations essential.
The realist critique of the American tradition of responsible
internationalism--the suggestion that multilateral diplomacy is doomed
to failure, that the United Nations is not a viable global body--offers
a profoundly unrealistic prescription for the advancement of American
interests. Members must understand that for the United States to
default leadership in the world's principal arena of multilateral
diplomacy amounts to nothing less than strategic retreat.
In the twilight of the 20th century nothing is more naive than to
suggest that the U.S. national interest should rely on the advancement
of a narrow, nationalistic foreign policy that shuns cooperative
problem solving, pooh-poohs peaceful resolution of disputes, pillories
attempts at political and economic institution-building and scorns
collective enforcement of the peace based on the rule of law.
With the health of the American and world economy dependent on open
markets and free trade, with the potential proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, and with ethnic, religious, and racial divisions
rising in the geographic cockpits of historical conflict, U.S. national
purpose cannot afford to be diverted by uncertain leadership or
ideological posturing.
An unbridled nationalist might contend that expanding international
law and building international institutions of conflict resolution is
unacceptable because it implies the ceding of slivers of sovereignty by
nation-states. Yet the
[[Page H1796]] reverse--the refusal to allow law to be established with
third-party arbitration and enforcement--entails jeopardizing that very
sovereignty because of the greater likelihood that disputes will be
resolved only through force. Just as peoples within nation-states have
come to understand the need for laws that impinge on individual
discretion so that basic liberties can be better safeguarded,
governments the world over must come to accept an obligation on behalf
of their citizens to accelerate rather than retard the development of
civilizing institutions of international polity.
This is not to suggest that the United Nations has an unblemished
track record, or that criticism of the world body and its individual
members should be stifled.
Yet the U.N. system is more than bricks and mortar in New York, more
than General Assembly debate and Secretariat bureaucracy-building. The
United Nations is a system based on the assumption that states and
peoples can work together to solve transnational problems. In one
sense, the United Nations symbolizes as much an idea and ideal as a
structure. Nevertheless, institutional arrangements are the crux of
governance, and just as shortcomings abound within the system, U.N.
institutional achievements stand out.
There is a profound debate in this country and abroad about the
nature of the unfolding post-cold-war world: Will it be hallmarked by a
strengthening of the bonds of international society or a disintegration
of those bonds within and between nation-states? Will forces of
localism, nationalism and regionalism abet or curb trends in favor of
an international society sharing common values? While the two great
``isms'' of hate of the century--fascism and communism--have been
defeated, a civilized international polity still begs establishment.
Any neutral assessment of the United Nations to date must record the
impressive strides that have been taken toward the development of a
framework in which international law is advanced and global problems
are addressed.
Writing in 1950, the theologian Reinhold Neibuhr noted that the price
of our survival was the ability to give leadership to the free world.
Today, the price of the prosperity of the free world still depends on
the willingness and ability of the United States to lead. No other
society has the capacity or inclination to light freedom's lamp in
quite the same way; is any other as capable of combining self-interest
with a genuine historically-rooted concern for others. For the United
States to deny its transnational responsibilities and thwart the
development of internationalist approaches to problem-solving is to
jeopardize a future of peace and prosperity for the planet.
In a country in which process is our most important product, the
challenge is to lead in expanding international law, economic as well
as political, to advance new approaches to conflict resolution and to
help institutionalize a civil international society capable of
peacefully managing change in such a way that all countries derive
benefit.
Never in the course of human events has it been more important for
individuals in public life to appeal to the highest rather than the
lowest instincts of the body politic. Whether the issues be social or
economic, domestic or international, the temptation to appeal to the
darker side of human nature must be avoided. The stakes are too high.
When it comes to national security the realist is always right to
prepare for the worst, but a policy rooted in cynicism too easily leads
to nihilism. With morality anchored in faith, man's destiny must be
understood to be in man's hands. The implicit duty of public officials
is to inspire hope rather than to manipulate fear. The health of
nations is directly related to the temperance of statecraft.
In the final measure the debate surrounding this bill involves issues
of vision, of internationalism, of leadership. This Congress has an
obligation, above all else, to understand the past and prepare for the
future. This legislation fails on both counts.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, one of the prime functions of the Federal
Government of the United States is to maintain a strong national
defense. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise to voice my
wholehearted support for this measure.
Passage of H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act, is a
vital step toward maintaining our Nation's military status in the
world. Its passage will assure that U.S. troops are only deployed to
support missions in the United States national security interests. It
also would reinvigorate the national missile defense system, and ensure
that there be no threat to our military readiness as we move toward the
next century.
U.S. defense spending--as a percentage of GDP--is at its lowest since
the end of World War II. Despite severe personnel reductions and
shortfalls in funding, U.S. troops are being deployed more often and
are taking part in more operations than ever before. This legislation
will ensure that our forces will be deployed under American command and
not under the flag of the United Nations or any other political entity.
We have the finest and most professional military force in the world,
and our country's security depends on their readiness. However, study
after study is beginning to describe our forces as ``hollow''.
Enactment of this measure is a good first step toward restoring our
national defense back to its proper levels.
As I went door-to-door in Oklahoma's Sixth District last fall, I
heard at every corner concerns about this Administration's defense
policies. I am sure most of my colleagues heard the same thoughts. I
would urge my colleagues to heed their calls for passage of this
measure.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National
Security Revitalization Act.
This bill is an important first step in the Congress reasserting its
constitutional prerogative to control the Nation's purse.
Currently, the American taxpayer is footing over half of the United
Nations peacekeeping bill. Last year alone, the American taxpayer paid
$2.9 billion to U.N. peacekeeping--$1.2 billion in direct payments, and
$1.7 billion in donations through the Defense Department.
Well, Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The United States can no longer
afford to be so generous. We want, and demand more equitable
burdensharing at the United Nations. This bill does just that, and I
applaud my colleagues, Mr. Spence, and Mr. Gilman, for their leadership
on this important issue. But, we must go further.
Some people believe peacekeeping is an entitlement, and are treating
it as such. The administration obligates us to a new mission, and sends
the Congress the bill, with no concern over whether the funding is
available.
Just last week, at the same time the United States was voting for yet
another peacekeeping mission, the administration requested that
Congress provide a $672 million emergency supplemental for U.N.
peacekeeping, without any offsets, because it had run out of money.
Well, peacekeeping is not an entitlement. Peacekeeping, like any
other program, must be based on the availability of funds to pay for
the program. If the Congress has not already provided funds for the
mission, please understand that there can be no assurance that the
United States will be able to pay the bill.
In 1945, the Congress passed the U.N. Participation Act on the
understanding that we would be a full partner in financing decisions
for the United Nations, as our Constitution provides.
This bill represents an important first step in Congress exercising
its constitutional prerogative to control the Nation's purse. And, I
can assure my colleagues, that, as the subcommittee chairman
responsible for U.N. peacekeeping assessments, we will not treat
peacekeeping as an entitlement. And, we will continue to exercise our
power over the purse as we proceed with the difficult task of matching
domestic and international priorities with shrinking budgetary
resources.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on International Relations.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to emphasize the point that H.R. 7 undercuts the President's
authority to conduct foreign policy, undercuts his ability as Commander
in Chief.
Trying to micromanage command-and-control policies as we do in this
bill is a bad idea whether it is under a Democrat President or a
Republican President. This bill, for example, requires an act of
Congress before the President can send a single military observer to
join a U.N. force, and the Congress has never, ever authorized a U.N.
peacekeeping mission. The bill dictates the terms and conditions for
U.S. military command and control.
We try to tell the United States military in this bill how to do
their job,
[[Page H1797]] and that is why the flag and general officers that the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] cited a moment ago say that
H.R. 872 is unnecessary, unwise, and militarily unsound.
Now, we ought not to try to substitute our judgment about military
command and write the details into this bill. That is a very unwise
thing to do. It is one thing to criticize the policy of the U.S.
Government on foreign policies. We all do that. We should do it. It is
part of our responsibility.
But it is quite another thing to enact into law constraints,
restrictions on the President of the United States to act as Commander
in Chief, and that is what we are doing here. Under sections 401 and
402, it prohibits any U.S. troops from serving under U.N. command, even
if the U.N. commander is an American, without prior congressional
approval. We have got to give them congressional approval before a
President can move one soldier into U.N. peacekeeping.
If this were in effect, we would have to pull out our people from
Korea, from the Western Sahara, from Georgia, from Kuwait, from
Jerusalem. We would have said President Bush could not carry out Desert
Storm and Desert Shield. I think we are right about that, because one
of the things that happened there is we had the 82d Airborne Brigade
which served under French command. That is a judgment our military
commanders in the field and in Washington made was in our national
interest to let that happen.
Now, I do not know, militarily, whether that was the right or the
wrong decision. But the point is let us not restrict our commanders to
the point where they do not have these options. I think this bill
greatly constrains and restrains the President in the exercise of
Commander in Chief powers.

{time} 1620

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our
committee, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].
(Mr. LONGLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, when this administration took
office, they commissioned a study of the military and our defense needs
from the bottom up. The Bottom-Up Review sought to identify
specifically the objectives that the administration wanted to protect
this country against in order that we might have an adequate defense
strategy.
Now, 2 years later. Independent studies are showing that that
strategy has been unfunded to the tune of anywhere between $65 and $150
billion over the prospective budgets.
At the same time, we were just presented with a defense budget which,
for the 11th consecutive year, presented real cuts in defense spending,
or $10.6 billion below the current year's fiscal authorization.
That is a real cut in defense spending of almost 40 percent over the
last 10 years, at the very same time that vital installations and
programs are being threatened because of drastic underfunding. This
administration has committed at the end of the last year over 70,000
U.S. personnel in places like Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Macedonia, the
Adriatic Sea, Rwanda, Haiti, Cuba; and if the press is to be believed,
shortly we will have Americans back on a temporary mission in Somalia.
Mr. President, you cannot have it both ways. If there is a deep
concern about defense, let us see that it is adequately funded, and if
it is not going to be adequately funded, then let us not send American
forces hither and yon all over the world. One way or the other, our
defense spending and our needs should be consistent with our resources,
or our resources need to be consistent with our commitment. You cannot
have one without the other.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to admonish any Member to keep
from making statements instructing the President or making similar
references to the President.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is in fact a very strange debate, and I can fully
understand why 62 percent of the American people did not bother to vote
in November and why millions and millions of Americans have so little
respect for this situation.
Mr. Chairman, as we discuss today spending ten's and ten's of billion
dollars more on star wars and other military gadgetry, there are
congressional leaders in this building today who are talking about
major cutbacks in nutritional programs for hungry children, who are
talking about cutbacks in Medicare for the elderly, in Medicaid for the
sick, who are talking about cutbacks in veterans programs.
I sincerely hope that my friends who are proposing billions more for
star wars tell the veterans of this country why they want to cut back
on their programs so that the quality of service in the VA hospitals
will deteriorate. Have the courage, get up here and tell the parents of
kids who are attending the Head Start Program that we do not have
enough money for them but we have more money for military spending.
Mr. Chairman, I have a startling revelation to make which will
clearly change the nature of this debate. I am hereby announcing to my
friends who have not yet heard about it, the cold war is over. I know
you did not know that. The Soviet Union does not exist. China is now
our trading ally.
Mr. Chairman, we are now spending 17 times more than all of our
enemies--so called enemies--combined. Enough is enough. Let us defeat
this bill.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there is an old adage that politics stops at the
border. My colleagues, we would all be wise to remember that adage at
this time. Do not consider this bill as a Republican bill or as a
Democrat bill, but as an American bill.
This bill, in a dramatic and fundamental way, affects American
independence and liberty. It puts a stop to the U.N. commanding
America's fighting men and women.
Recently, some of our leaders have been lost, they have abandoned the
lessons of our past and allegiance to our traditions, and they have
forgotten or ignored America's chosen role as freedom's leader in this
world. Instead they have made America a follower, much like a dog
following its master, always loyal to every whim and command. So have
our leaders abandoned our independence and answered the call and the
demands of the United Nations, an organization unsuited to military
command and unable to take a firm position of principle.
Mr. Chairman, America's pride and tradition demand we assert our
independence. America's fallen heroes demand that America no longer
serve the whims of foreign tyrannies and dictators. America's destiny
to lead must never be compromised.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, there is a reality check that needs to occur. The
original draft to the bill included, frankly, NATO; could not operate
American forces under anybody else's command. But then they figured
NATO could cause us some trouble, so they restricted it to United
Nations. The U.N., where the United States has veto power, where the
United States designs most of the major actions of the last 4 decades,
and where today American soldiers operate under General Chang. When
General Luck is out of the country, American soldiers operating in the
Korean Peninsula are under the control operationally of a non-American.
You had better come forward and offer an amendment to exempt Korea, or
else, if this becomes law, you will find yourself in the position of
undercutting our military security on the Korean Peninsula.
If you read the language as you have drafted it from line 9 on page
34 to line
[[Page H1798]] 5 on page 36, it clearly states that if the American
soldiers are not controlled in every way by American commanders, it is
illegal under this act. This act, if it becomes law, is not simply a
statement of principles, it says the United States could no longer
operate the way we have operated since the Truman administration on the
peninsula of Korea.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a senior member of our
committee.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong
support for H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act. The facts
and figures set forth in the legislative findings to H.R. 872 make it
clear that the United States may well be on its way back to the hollow
forces of the 1970's. But this is not the whole story. Even as we have
committed less to the national defense, we have spent more and more of
these precious resources on operations which are at best peripheral to
the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces. During the first 100 days of this
Congress we can change this course and put America back on the road to
peace through strength--the successful strategy of the Reagan years,
which made the world both more peaceful and more free.
Mr. Chairman, we need the things this bill will provide and
encourages. We need to seriously pursue an anti-ballistic missile
system, which is not only more practical but also more moral than a
system of mutual assured destruction. Most Americans are woefully
unaware of the fact that we have no defense against incoming missile
attacks. We need to adapt NATO, which Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has
described as the most successful collective security arrangement in
modern history, to provide for the security of European nations which
are newly free. We need a relationship with the United Nations that
allows that organization to do the things it does best while also
preserving the sovereignty and effectiveness of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, nothing in this world is perfect. Many Americans would
say that things designed by Congress are even more imperfect than other
things. Members of the International Relations Committee, including
this member, made suggestions for improving this bill. Our
distinguished Chairman, Ben Gilman and members of the Committee staff
encouraged these suggestions and worked hard to accommodate them. We
amended the bill to meet many of the objections that are now being
reiterated on the floor. Mr. Chairman, the National Security
Revitalization Act as amended will go a long way toward the restoration
of a strong America. This, in turn, will make for a safer and freer
world. I hope we can move quickly to final enactment.

{time} 1630

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham], our top gun on the committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, why do many of us object to the
stringent control of our forces under the U.N.? First of all, I take a
look at Bosnia. We have men and women committed to war, and committed
and executed that war, and the President of the United States, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Vice President did not know that we had
troops at war until after the fact. That was in Bosnia, and that is a
fact.
Second, in Somalia. I resent the gentleman that suggested and
characterized our rangers as just wanting to get into action in
Somalia. A democratic majority extended Somalia. That cost us billions
of dollars. The administration changed that policy from humanitarian to
go after Aideed. That was wrong. The administration then reduced our
troops levels, making us very vulnerable. That was wrong.
Three times the commanders asked for help. Why? For armored help.
Because on two different occasions we had our troops captured, and cut
and quartered, and their quartered bodies drug through the streets of
Somalia. That was wrong.
Mr. Chairman, we had 100 rangers pinned down, that it took us 7 hours
to get to, and why? It is a 20-minute car ride to where they are. Take
a look at it. Why? Because the U.N. tanks that were there would not
commit. The U.N. troops had never used night goggles. Many of them were
not English-proficient. It cost us 22 dead rangers and 77 wounded. That
is wrong, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker.
I take a look at Haiti. Although a U.S. operation, the great
multinational force that we were supposed to have, not a single
multinational force was there when we hit Haiti, only U.S. troops. And,
Mr. Speaker, there are many of us that feel very strongly about not
having U.S. control, and it is logical it is not partisan.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], a member of our Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this legislation makes a loud and
clear statement to the world. As we have heard earlier, the cold war is
over. The United States bore the burden for decades. Our troops were
put in harm's way to save the peoples of the world from fascism and
then communism. In the postcold war world we will no longer require our
people to carry an unfair burden for the sake of the rest of humanity.
This is not isolationism. This is America comes first as policy. This
is not anti-United Nations. This is pro our national interests.
Americans have sacrificed their lives and well-being for an ungrateful
world for far too long.
Our troops should not be put under U.N. command because the United
Nations does not care as much about them as American commanders will
care about them. If our President does put them under U.N. command, we
should be informed.
That is what this legislation says, and, if our troops are sent on
long-term, costly operations, Congress should be in on the
decisionmaking. We will no longer be making military commitments like
we did in Somalia, or Rwanda, or Haiti unless Congress approves.
This administration has been depleting our limited defense resources
on United Nations and other missions that have little to do with our
country's security. The cold war is over. The American people deserve a
break. Our military personnel deserve our total support if they are put
in harm's way. We will not see the funds for their weapons or their
training drained for altruistic international adventurism of a liberal
elite.
This is our way of saying that we care about others, but our loyalty
is first to the American people, then to our defenders, and the United
Nations and international benevolence comes in a distant third.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, before we end this road race to the finish
line of H.R. 7, let us stop, look, and listen.
This bill takes something that is not broken and breaks it. This bill
moves from peacekeeping to war making. Where peace exists, this bill
creates conflict. Where order reigns, this bill creates chaos. This
bill makes false assumptions. It says where we have troops under
foreign command, and we all know that the President never relinquishes
his command. Where Congress has eliminated spending for star wars,
billions of dollars, this bill reinstates it. The Republicans say,
``Spend it.''
The worst part of this bill is to undermine the constitutional role
of the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy. It
says, ``If you don't like the President, cripple his powers.''
I say to my colleagues, Don't cripple our country. Don't retreat from
leadership. Reject this isolationist bill.
Mr. Chairman, the bill the Republicans bring before the House today
destroys the underpinnings of our country's dedication to peace around
the world.
By slashing the U.S. commitment to the United Nations, this bill says
to the world community: we don't care about maintaining peace. Got a
war? That's your problem.
The role of the United States in peacekeeping around the globe,
unilaterally and in concert with the United Nations, is far from an
exact science, but it is a system that works well and has worked well
within the construct
[[Page H1799]] of an international community dedicated to conflict
resolution.
But in a perverse twist on an old cliche, the Republicans today ask
us in H.R. 7 to take something that ain't broken, and break it.
Where peace exists, this bill creates conflict.
Where order reigns, this bill creates chaos.
This bill begins with a premise that is wholly false, then creates
solutions to problems that do not exist. For example:
Though we don't have troops under foreign command, this Republican
bill says: stop putting our troops under foreign command.
Though we don't have problems sharing in peacekeeping
responsibilities, this Republican bill says: no more peacekeeping--it
causes too many problems.
H.R. 7 ignores the Republicans' own plea to reduce the deficit by
calling for unnecessary and wasteful spending. For example:
Now that we have eliminated spending billions and billions on star
wars weapons system, this Republican bill says: spend it.
The gist of this bill is supposed to be to restore America's
leadership role in the world. But it does just the opposite. For
example:
Where we have played a leadership role in the United Nations--as we
should, given our status as the remaining global power--this Republican
bill says: no more United Nations involvement.
The worst part of this bill is that its real purpose is to undermine
the constitutional role of the President to conduct foreign policy. In
essence, if you don't like the person who is the Command in Chief, this
Republican bill says: cripple his powers.
Mr. Chairman, what are we doing here? What in the world is going on?
Has this body stooped so low that in order to flex its partisan
political muscle it will destroy the framework of peace that this
Nation has dedicated itself to for years and years?
This bill makes a mockery of the tenets of peace and accommodation
that men and women have died to enforce.
Mr. Chairman, to pass this bill is to bring shame on this House. To
pass this bill is to move from disarmament and peace and return to cold
war hostilities. To pass this bill is to leave the global community
without the benefit of American input to resolving international
conflict. To pass this bill is to snub the world community and retreat
into our own isolationist shell.
Mr. Chairman, this world has grown too small to ignore our neighbor's
problems, for surely if we do, they will spill over into our backyard.
America deserves better than what H.R. 7 offers. I urge my colleagues
to vote against this bill.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, through the myriad of provisions of this legislation
there is one common thread, one unmistakable common purpose, and that
is to reverse nearly one-half century of U.S. leadership, abdicating a
leadership that through some of the most dangerous times in history has
kept the peace, kept the peace through a system of international
security.
This is not, Mr. Chairman, a new debate in this Chamber. Democrats
and Republicans through our history exchanged the mantle of
isolationist leadership many times. But his legislation makes clear
that that unfortunate title of leadership now strongly belongs to the
Republican Party.
Our Republican colleagues have every reason to be proud of the
international leadership of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and
Bush. But there was another republican Party of Lodge who argued
against a League of Nations and brought it to its death, of Burrow who
argued against rearmament before the Second World War, and Vandenberg,
to the very day of Pearl Harbor, argued against American involvement in
the great international conflict. There is now no other interpretation
of H.R. 7 available than that this Republican Party, having abandoned
the traditions of the last generation, has returned to that earlier
age.
Mr. Chairman, there is no other interpretation because, when the
United States refuses to have our forces under international command,
not simply the nations of the Third World, with which I could identify
and sympathize, but even of our NATO allies, meaning the great struggle
in Korea and the Persian Gulf would no longer be possible.
Mr. Chairman in this great Chamber we reserve the honor of a portrait
to only two men in the history of our country, George Washington, our
first President, and General Lafayette, a French General who came to
these shores to secure our independence, but who by this legislation
would no longer be allowed to command our forces.
Mr. Chairman, ironically, as we debate this legislation, we celebrate
the 50th anniversary of Field Marshal Montgomery who led British and
American forces across the Rhine to defeat Nazi Germany. He would be
prohibited from leading those forces today under this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, as we speak we celebrate the fourth anniversary of the
Persian Gulf war, when Italian and French and British Generals of war
led our forces to victory in combined command, but would be prohibited
under this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, there is no other interpretation than that we are
losing our leadership to isolationism, because under this legislation
our U.N. contributions would virtually end for peacekeeping, ending our
ability to appeal to the Security Council to undertake peacekeeping in
our own national interests, and forgetting that the best defense for
the United States is no weapon system, but in the nuclear age it is the
ability to preserve the peace.
It is a great irony, Mr. Chairman, that the same people who would
spend anything on any weapons system would now propose to spend nothing
to keep the peace, even though a generation has proven that the
international system of peacekeeping through the United Nations works.
Just as we proved with the death of millions, the failure of the League
of Nations could consume as many lives.
Mr. Chairman, it is a great tradition in this country that
partisanship ends at the water's edge. With this legislation the
Atlantic and Pacific are merged, and this Nation is awash in a new
partisanship that consumes our foreign policy.

{time} 1740

Defeat H.R. 7.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the chairman of the procurement
subcommittee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Let me respond to my friend from New Jersey, who mentioned a number
of great Americans and characterized the Republicans as isolationists
in some way. Let me just respond that I can think of another great
American, and I think that his opposition, those who opposed his idea,
were in some way analogous to the Democrat Party today.
That gentleman was Gen. Billy Mitchell. And Gen. Billy Mitchell
dragged us kicking and screaming into the age of air power. And he did
that by proving that aircraft could sink ships. And when he did that,
it totally frustrated the thinking inside the Beltway, so-to-speak, in
Washington, DC, in the power establishment, when he sunk 4 ships,
including a major German battleship, with air power. It was greatly
resisted by the politicians of his time. They did not want to hear
that. They did not want to hear that we had entered the age of air
power.
Now, my friends, we have entered the age of missiles. And I
understand that it was the political position of the other side of the
aisle, of the Democrat Party, to refer to shooting down incoming
ballistic missiles as star wars, as if it was some kind of a divorced
contact and conflict that in no way defended people on this Earth. I
can remember Walter Mondale standing in the San Francisco convention
declaring he would have no part in what he called war in the heavens.
But I think that Walter Mondale, great Democrat that he was, if he was
watching CNN and watched those American Patriot missiles shooting down
ballistic missiles, very slow, but ballistic nonetheless, Scud
missiles, incoming to American troops, and he saw those destroyed in
midair by our Patriot missiles, would have said instead of saying I
will not participate in war in the heavens, he would have said thank
heavens.
H.R. 7 pulls the United States squarely into a reality that we live
in an age of missiles. And it is just as much a matter of readiness,
which a number of the Members on the other side have talked about,
clothing for our troops, quality of life for our troops, pay for our
troops, fuel and training exercises for our troops, I would offer to my
friends that it is just as important to our troops to be defended
against incoming ballistic missiles as it is to be
[[Page H1800]] well paid, well fed, and have good quarters for their
families.
Now, for those who said it would cost tens and tens of billions of
dollars to defend against incoming ballistic missiles, let me just
refer my friends to the statement made by the Secretary of Defense,
William Perry, a few days ago. He said we can have a national missile
defense for a relatively small cost, probably about $5 billion, in very
round figures; by the end of the decade, he said a few sentences later.
The fact is we are in the age of missiles, H.R. 7 recognizes that,
and I would call on all of my friends to support this bill, Democrats
and Republicans.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].
(Mr. EVANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is more nostalgia from the same people
who in the eighties gave us the skyrocketing Federal deficit.
The Soviet threat is long gone. The Russian military debacle in
Chechnya should be a clear reminder of this. Yet, this blueprint for
more defense spending would have us waste tens of billions of dollars
on cold war weapon systems that make no sense in this new era.
Billions on a star wars missile defense system that is not needed and
will never work. Billions on exotic cold war programs, and billions on
unnecessary operations funding when our forces are first rate and
combat ready. Billions that we all know we just don't have.
The Republican majority would like to have it both ways. They can
promise all the money in the world on a shopping spree of unneeded
programs and weapons. The hard part is coming up with the funds to do
it or a threat to justify spending it.
We have been down this road before. Let's not make the same mistake.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say to my distinguished
colleague from California, each of the last 2 years we have spent
nearly $3 billion per year on ballistic missile defense, $400 million
on national missile defense, $120 million on Brilliant Eyes, a space-
based sensor program, and all of the remaining of that nearly $3
billion has gone to theater ballistic missile defense. The point of the
statement is it is presently now the policy that theater ballistic
missiles is the priority. So that is my response to the gentleman.
In the remaining comments I would say, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a
national security bill, foreign policy bill and national intelligence
bill, with enormous budgetary implications, treaty implications,
constitutional implications and foreign policy implications. Yet we
have been reduced to the absurdity of yielding 1 and 2 minutes to each
of our coequal colleagues on the floor of Congress on a bill of this
gravity and a bill of this magnitude. I would continue to assert that 2
hours of general debate on a bill of this magnitude with such enormous
implications is wholly and totally inadequate, and 10 hours of debate
on substantive and critical issues that challenge our budget, challenge
our form of government, challenge our Constitution and our
relationships with the world, is totally inadequate to deal with these
issues. If you could break the crime bill down into six pieces, giving
them 10 hours apiece, how can you cram all of this together and give 10
hours of debate apiece and call that maintaining the fiduciary
responsibility to the American people. We are not doing it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of our
time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a senior member of our
Committee on International Relations.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question: Do you feel, do you think, that the
American people, the people that have placed their trust and confidence
in us, are treated fairly under the current system of United Nations
funding?
We have today $150 billion trade deficits. Other countries are
ravaging us. Other countries are very rich. Yet are you satisfied that
last year 80 percent, 80 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping costs,
according to your own General Accounting Office, 80 percent was paid by
your voters?
It is not only that the people you represent are paying the lion's
share of the bills. Their sons and daughters are doing most of the
fighting and most of the work, too. The Americans at the behest of this
Congress, you have the control, the American taxpayer and the American
soldier are doing all of the heavy lifting.
Do you think it is right that the American soldier carries the burden
in most of these operations? Do you really believe that all of these
peacekeeping activities have anything to do with national security? If
you really believe that the current system is fair to America, that it
is fair to your voters, that it is fair to your people, then vote for
this bill and bring in amendments on this legislation.

{time} 1650

But if you believe, as I do, as most of the American people do, that
we Americans are carrying just too much of the burden, that we have too
much of the cost, that we have too much of the risk, then you should
support this bill because this bill is only restoring basic fairness to
our role in the United Nations.
The criticisms you have heard here today are totally off the mark.
Jeane Kirkpatrick just had a news conference an hour and a half ago
where she said in no way does this legislation inhibit the President.
This bill, far from ending our peacekeeping role, merely sets a fair
distribution. We will still be paying 25 percent, yes, 25 percent of
all of the U.N. peacekeeping under this legislation. We are not
hamstringing the President of the United States. He has discretion in
every portion of this bill.
But there are some, I fear, in this body who would have our taxpayers
pay everything, who would have our soldiers do everything. Short of
that, nothing will satisfy the liberal elitists and the American people
said there is time for a change.
I and a vast majority of the American people say, yes, it is time for
a change. Vote for basic fairness. Vote for our taxpayers. Vote for our
troops. Vote for common sense. Vote for this bill.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support
for the Bereuter amendments which passed tonight. I think these
amendments remove a significant flaw in an otherwise sensible and
balanced approach to enhance the national security of this country. I
commend Chairman Spence and Chairman Gilman for their good work on this
legislation. As others have eloquently stated, the Bereuter amendments
are needed to ensure we do not cross the line--encroaching on the
President's constitutional power as Commander in Chief.
Having worked as a lawyer in the White House counsel's office at the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I may have a different perspective on
this issue than some of my colleagues. I have serious questions about
the War Powers Act, and section 508 of this bill seems to go even
further by requiring congressional approval of deployment of U.S.
troops without any grace period.
As a practical matter, I think this may even create a perverse
incentive on the part of the administration not to turn over U.S.
operations to the U.N. where such a transfer may well be in our
national interest. I give you 2 examples--one recent, one on-going.
In Somalia, I believe it was in our interest to move from unilateral
United States occupation to a U.N. operation. More immediately, at the
end of this month, it is my understanding that in Haiti the United
States command will become a U.N. peacekeeping operation. We don't want
to continue to occupy Haiti. The shift to the U.N. is in our national
interest and gives us a way out. Yet, were section 508 to be enacted
into law, I believe any administration would have every incentive not
to discontinue the unilateral U.S. mission in favor of U.N.
cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an inadvertent and very realistic
effect of section 508. I commend my colleagues for correcting this
problem tonight improving an otherwise good bill by passing the
Bereuter amendments.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7, as it is written, is bad
legislation. It should be defeated. If America insists on spending
countless billions on Star Wars at the expense of our troops, if
America retreats from global economic and military cooperation, if
America refuses to feed, educate, and house her own
[[Page H1801]] troops and citizens at risk--the children, the sick, and
the elderly--a bankrupt America will fall into economic and social
ruin.
For years, respected Members of Congress, such as former Congressman
Charles Bennett who represented some of my district, have opposed
funding for star wars. Instead, these members believed that troop
readiness was a top priority.
Currently, many of our troops live in substandard housing, they are
forced to use food stamps, because they cannot stretch their pay to
cover even the most basic needs for their families. This does not
contribute to our readiness.
Let's reassure America that we in Congress are an intelligent group
because we are interested in funding military programs that benefit our
troops and our military families. We want our military dollars spent to
keep our troops ready in every way.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has deployed
U.S. forces on more humanitarian missions per year than any other
administration in history. At the end of last year, over 70,000 U.S.
personnel were serving in unstable regions such as Iraq, Bosnia, and
Haiti--48,000 military men and women remain in these areas today.
The United States is supposed to be the world's only Super Power,
when in fact we are becoming nothing more than a paper tiger. H.R. 7
reverses the Clinton administration's drastic reduction of our Nation's
defense and revitalizes the United States military might.
Our military personnel are being stretched to the limit. They are
being sent to areas that are not in the United States national security
interests. Since Desert Storm, U.S. forces have been cut by 27 percent,
which means there are less people to do more jobs.
Some of the finest men and women serve in the Armed Forces in North
Carolina from Fort Bragg to Camp Lejeune, and numerous other facilities
across the state. U.S. defense spending is at its lowest level since
World War II and the President wants to cut $10.6 billion more from
defense. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, Republicans are working hard to keep our
Contract With America on track. We continue to keep our promises. We
passed our crime package to take back our streets. Now we will work to
restore our military.
The best defense is a strong defense. H.R. 7, the National
Restoration Act, ensures that our Armed Forces will be strong enough to
fight and win. Republicans pledge that our defenses will be prepared to
protect our country and national interests.
Providing for common defense is the first duty of the Federal
Government. The decline in military readiness over the past years must
stop. We must act now to prevent our military from becoming a hollow
force.
Military readiness funds should be used for just that--to keep our
American soldiers ready for military action. Dipping our hand into the
cookie jar for dollars to send our troops here, there, and everywhere
undermines American security and peace of mind. We cannot be the
world's peacekeepers.
Our Armed Forces are the best in the world. Our Republican defense
package makes sure that we remain that way. Defense spending has been
cut too far and too quickly in order to pay for expensive social
programs and frivolous international policing expeditions.
Republicans will set priorities and restore the vital elements our
defenses need to maintain our credibility around the world. We are
keeping our promise. American troops should not be used as a substitute
for sound foreign policy.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 872, the
National Security Revitalization Act. This bill serves to curtail the
cost and scope of U.N. missions, provide a framework for congressional
consultation, and discipline the seemingly haphazard deployment of
American troops.
If enacted, this legislation will allow the United Nations to focus
on missions and roles it is capable of fulfilling. Recently, the United
Nations has expanded its role, perhaps in response to prodding from the
Clinton administration, to include peacemaking, nationbuilding, and
even chasing warlords. This action does the United Nations and the
United States a disservice, as public confidence in international
operations declines and questions arise concerning the focus and intent
of U.S. foreign policy.
Members supporting H.R. 872 are not opposed to all U.N. operations,
because we do believe the United Nations is capable of achieving
limited missions on a reduced scale. The United Nations is quite
capable of delivering humanitarian aid and acting as a moderator when
all sides in a dispute request the U.N.'s presence. The United Nations
gets into trouble when it has attempted to expand its mission.
This bill will ensure that we receive credit for our expenditures on
behalf of U.N. operations, guarantee that U.S. troops are placed under
foreign command only in emergencies or when a pressing U.S. security
interest merits such a deployment, and should result in a reassessment
of the U.N.'s capabilities and limitations and U.S. involvement with
that organization. Throughout the process, we have attempted to
compromise on certain details to improve the legislation, but we have
refused to compromise on principle issues.
Fundamentally, the administration wants to enhance the power of the
United Nations and our participation in that organization. We want to
restrict our participation, temper our costs and involvement, and
discipline our foreign policy. If you support the aggrandizement of the
United Nations at the literal expense of United States, then you should
oppose this bill. But if you support a limitation on U.N. missions and
our participation in them, and desire the United Nations to focus on
missions it is capable of achieving, you should support the bill. I
urge all Members to approve this important legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of H.R. 872 is considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment and is considered as having been read.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
H.R. 872

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Security Revitalization Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--FINDINGS, POLICY, AND PURPOSES

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Policy.
Sec. 103. Purposes.

TITLE II--MISSILE DEFENSE

Sec. 201. Policy.
Sec. 202. Actions of the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 203. Report to Congress.

TITLE III--ADVISORY COMMISSION ON REVITALIZATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY

Sec. 301. Establishment.
Sec. 302. Composition.
Sec. 303. Duties.
Sec. 304. Reports.
Sec. 305. Powers.
Sec. 306. Commission procedures.
Sec. 307. Personnel matters.
Sec. 308. Termination of the Commission.
Sec. 309. Funding.

TITLE IV--COMMAND OF UNITED STATES FORCES

Sec. 401. Limitation on expenditure of Department of Defense funds for
United States forces placed under United Nations command
or control.
Sec. 402. Limitation on placement of United States Armed Forces under
foreign control for a United Nations peacekeeping
activity.

TITLE V--UNITED NATIONS

Sec. 501. Credit against assessment for United States expenditures in
support of United Nations peacekeeping operations.
Sec. 502. Codification of required notice to Congress of proposed
United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 503. Notice to Congress regarding United States contributions for
United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 504. Revised notice to Congress regarding United States assistance
for United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 505. United States contributions to United Nations peacekeeping
activities.
Sec. 506. Reimbursement to the United States for in-kind contributions
to United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 507. Limitation on payment of United States assessed or voluntary
contributions for United Nations peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 508. Limitation on use of Department of Defense funds for United
States share of costs of United Nations peacekeeping
activities.
Sec. 509. Codification of limitation on amount of United States
assessed contributions for United Nations peacekeeping
operations.
Sec. 510. Buy American requirement.
Sec. 511. United Nations budgetary and management reform.
Sec. 512. Conditions on provision of intelligence to the United
Nations.

TITLE VI--REVITALIZATION AND EXPANSION OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
ORGANIZATION

Sec. 601. Short title.
[[Page H1802]] Sec. 602. Findings.
Sec. 603. United States policy.
Sec. 604. Revisions to program to facilitate transition to NATO
membership.

TITLE VII--BUDGET FIREWALLS

Sec. 701. Restoration of budget firewalls for defense spending.
TITLE I--FINDINGS, POLICY, AND PURPOSES

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Dramatic changes in the geo-political and military
landscape during the last decade have had significant impacts
on United States security.
(2) Those changes include the breakup of the Warsaw Pact
alliance, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and an
increase in regional instability and conflict.
(3) While the magnitude and implications of these and other
changes continues to evolve, the world remains an unstable
and dangerous place. This uncertainty mandates the need for
an on-going process to establish an appropriate national
security strategy and the forces needed to implement that
strategy.
(4) The centerpiece of the defense strategy of the
Administration, the review of the Department of Defense
conducted by the Secretary of Defense in 1993 known as the
``Bottom Up Review'', determined that United States forces
must be--
(A) prepared to fight and win two nearly simultaneous Major
Regional Conflicts;
(B) able to sustain robust overseas presence in peacetime;
(C) prepared for a variety of regional contingencies; and
(D) able to deter and prevent attacks with weapons of mass
destruction against United States territory and forces and
the territory and forces of our allies.
(5) The Bottom Up Review also recommended significant
reductions in military forces, including reduction in the
number of Navy ships by one-third, the number of Air Force
wings by almost one-half, and the level of funding for
missile defenses by over 50 percent.
(6) The General Accounting Office and the Congressional
Budget Office have estimated that the mismatch between even
the restrictive Bottom Up Review force and the Administration
defense budget may be up to anywhere from $65,000,000,000 to
$150,000,000,000.
(7) Since January 1993, presidential budgets and budget
plans have set forth a reduction in defense spending of
$156,000,000,000 through fiscal year 1999.
(8) The fiscal year 1995 budget is the 10th consecutive
year of reductions in real defense spending and, with the
exception of fiscal year 1948, represents the lowest
percentage of gross domestic product for any defense budget
since World War II.
(9) During fiscal year 1995, the number of active duty,
reserve component, and civilian personnel of the Department
of Defense will be reduced by 182,000, a rate of over 15,000
per month or over 500 per day. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that 1,200,000 defense-related private sector jobs
will be lost by 1997.
(10) Despite severe reductions and shortfalls in defense
funding and force structure, since 1993 United States
military forces have been deployed more often and committed
to more peacetime missions per year than ever before. Most of
these missions involve United Nations peacekeeping and
humanitarian efforts. At the end of fiscal year 1994, over
70,000 United States personnel were serving in such regions
as Iraq, Bosnia, Macedonia, the Adriatic Sea, Rwanda, and the
Caribbean Sea for missions involving Haiti and Cuba.
(11) Despite the dramatic increase in the pace of
operations and the diversion of training and exercise funds
to cover the costs of unbudgeted contingency operations, the
Armed Forces of the United States remain the most capable,
motivated, and effective military force in the world. The
ability to successfully deploy and maintain support for the
range of on-going contingency operations demonstrates the
continued quality and professionalism of our troops.
(12) However, persistent indictations of declining
readiness demonstrate that military units are entering the
early stage of a long-term systemic readiness problem. This
downward readiness trend risks a return to the ``hollow
forces'' of the 1970s.
(13) At the end of fiscal year 1994, one-third of the units
in the Army contingency force and all of the forward-deployed
and follow-on Army divisions were reporting a reduced state
of military readiness. During fiscal year 1994, training
readiness declined for the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific
fleets. Training funding shortfalls also resulted in a
grounding of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft squadrons and
cancellation and curtailment of Army training exercises.
Marine and naval personnel are not maintaining the standard
12- to 18-month respite between six-month deployments away
from home.
(14) The significant increase in deployments in support of
peacekeeping, humanitarian, and contingency operations has
placed great personnel tempo stress on many critical
operational units.
(15) A real commitment to equitable compensation and
protection of quality-of-life programs for servicemembers and
their families is an esssential component to ensuring high
personnel morale and sustaining force readiness. However, as
of January 1, 1995, military pay is approximately 12.8
percent below comparable civilian levels. As a result, it is
estimated that close to 17,000 junior enlisted personnel have
to rely on food stamps and the Department of Defense will
soon begin providing supplementary food benefits to an
estimated 11,000 military personnel and dependents living
overseas.
(16) Critical long-term modernization programs continue to
be delayed or cancelled as resources are diverted to cover
short-term personnel and readiness shortfalls resulting from
an underfunded defense budget and an overextended force,
threatening the
technological superiority of future United States forces.
(17) The fiscal year 1995 defense budget failed to meet the
current force structure goal of 184 modern long-range
bombers, as established in the Bottom-Up Review. Unless this
long-range bomber capability shortfall is addressed promptly,
the Nation's ability to project force will be undermined and
the existing bomber industrial base may be placed at risk.
(18) The Administration has initially agreed to or proposed
treaty limitations, or has unilaterally adopted positions,
that prohibit the United States from testing or deploying
effective missile defense systems.
(19) United Nations assessments to the United States for
peacekeeping missions totaled over $1,000,000,000 in 1994.
The United States is assessed 31.7 percent of annual United
Nations costs for peacekeeping. The next highest contributor,
Japan, only pays 12.5 percent of such costs. The Department
of Defense also incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in
costs every year for United States military participation in
United Nations peacekeeping or humanitarian missions, most of
which are not reimbursed by the United Nations. For fiscal
year 1994, these Department of Defense costs totaled over
$1,721,000,000.
(20) Credible and effective collective action on
international security concerns through the United Nations
and regional organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization can, in appropriate cases, advance world peace,
strengthen the national security of the United States, and
foster more equitable burden-sharing with friends and allies
of the United States in military, political, and financial
terms.
SEC. 102. POLICY.

The Congress is committed to providing adequate resources
to protect the national security interests of the United
States, including the resources necessary--
(1) to provide for sufficient forces to meet the national
security strategy of being able to fight and win two nearly
simultaneously major regional conflicts;
(2) to provide pay and benefits necessary for members of
the Armed Forces (including members of the National Guard and
Reserve as well as active duty members) to begin closing the
gap between rates of civilian pay and rates of military pay;
(3) to maintain a high quality-of-life for military
personnel and their dependents;
(4) to maintain a high level of military readiness and take
all necessary steps to avoid a return to the ``hollow
forces'' of the 1970s;
(5) to fully provide for the necessary modernization of
United States military forces in order to ensure their
technological superiority over any adversary; and
(6) to develop and deploy at the earliest practical date
highly effective national and theater missile defense
systems.

SEC. 103. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish an advisory commission to assess United
States military needs and address the problems posed by the
continuing downward spiral of defense spending;
(2) to commit the United States to accelerate the
development and deployment of theater and national ballistic
missile defense capabilities;
(3) to restrict deployment of United States forces to
missions that are in the national security interest of the
United States;
(4) to maintain adequate command and control by United
States personnel of United States forces participating in
United Nations peacekeeping operations;
(5) to reduce the cost to the United States of United
Nations peacekeeping activities and to press for reforms in
United Nations management practices; and
(6) to reemphasize the commitment of the United States to a
strong and viable North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
TITLE II--MISSILE DEFENSE

SEC. 201. POLICY.

It shall be the policy of the United States to--
(1) deploy at the earliest practical date an antiballistic
missile system that is capable of providing a highly
effective defense of the United States against ballistic
missile attacks; and
(2) provide at the earliest practical date highly effective
theater missile defenses (TMDs) to forward-deployed and
expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United
States and to friendly forces and allies of the United
States.

SEC. 202. ACTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

(a) ABM Systems.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop
for deployment at the earliest practical date a cost-
effective, operationally effective antiballistic missile
system designed to protect the United States against
ballistic missile attacks.
[[Page H1803]] (b) Advanced Theater Missile Defenses.--The
Secretary of Defense shall develop for deployment at the
earliest practical date advanced theater missile defense
systems.

SEC. 203. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a plan for the
deployment of an antiballistic missile system pursuant to
section 202(a) and for the deployment of theater missile
defense systems pursuant to section 202(b).
(b) Congressional Defense Committees.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``congressional defense committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on National Security and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
TITLE III--ADVISORY COMMISSION ON REVITALIZATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY

SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT.

There is hereby established an advisory commission to be
known as the ``Revitalization of National Security
Commission'' (hereinafter in this title referred to as the
``Commission'').

SEC. 302. COMPOSITION.

(a) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 12
members, appointed as follows:
(1) Four members shall be appointed by the President.
(2) Four members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, one of whom shall be appointed upon
the recommendation of the minority leader of the House of
Representatives.
(3) Four members shall be appointed by the president pro
tempore of the Senate, three of whom shall be appointed upon
the recommendation of the majority leader of the Senate and
one of whom shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the
minority leader of the Senate.
(b) Qualifications.--The members of the Commission shall be
appointed from among persons having knowledge and experience
in defense and foreign policy.
(c) Term of Members; Vacancies.--Members of the Commission
shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy
on the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be
filled in the same manner as the original appointment was
made.
(d) Commencement.--The members of the Commission shall be
appointed not later than 21 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. The Commission shall convene its first
meeting to carry out its duties under this section 14 days
after seven members of the Commission have been appointed.
(e) Chairman.--The chairman of the Commission shall be
designated jointly by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate (after
consultation with the minority leader of the House of
Representatives and the minority leader of the Senate) from
among members of the Commission appointed under subsection
(a)(2) or (a)(3).

SEC. 303. DUTIES.

(a) Comprehensive Review.--The Commission shall conduct a
comprehensive review of the long-term national security needs
of the United States. The review shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the need for a new national security
strategy and, if it is determined that such a new strategy is
needed, identification of such a strategy.
(2) An assessment of the need for a new national military
strategy and, if it is determined that such a new strategy is
needed, identification of such a strategy.
(3) An assessment of the military force structure necessary
to support the new strategies identified under paragraphs (1)
and (2).
(4) An assessment of force modernization requirements
necessary to support the new strategies identified under
paragraphs (1) and (2).
(5) An assessment of military infrastructure requirements
necessary to support the new strategies identified under
paragraphs (1) and (2).
(6) An assessment of the funding needs of the Department of
Defense necessary to support the long-term national security
requirements of the United States.
(7) An assessment of the adequacy of the force structure
recommended in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review in executing the
national military strategy.
(8) An assessment of the adequacy of the current future-
years defense plan in fully funding the Bottom-Up Review
force structure while maintaining adequate force
modernization and military readiness objectives.
(9) An assessment of the level of defense funds expended on
non-defense programs.
(10) An assessment of the costs to the United States of
expanding the membership of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
(11) An assessment of the elements of military pay and
allowances constituting the regular military compensation of
members of the Armed Forces and the development of
recommendations for changes in those elements in order to end
the dependence of some members of the Armed Forces and their
families on Federal and local assistance programs.
(12) An assessment of the need to revise the command and
control structure of the Army Reserve.
(b) Matters To Be Considered.--In carrying out the review,
the Commission shall develop specific recommendations to
accomplish each of the following:
(1) Provide members of the Armed Forces with annual pay
raises and other compensation at levels sufficient to begin
closing the gap with comparable civilian pay levels.
(2) Fully fund cost-effective missile defense systems that
are deployable at the earliest practical date following
enactment of this Act.
(3) Maintain adequate funding for military readiness
accounts without sacrificing modernization programs.
(4) Maintain a strong role for Guard and Reserve forces.
(5) Provide a new funding system to avoid diversions from
military readiness accounts to pay for peacekeeping and
humanitarian deployments such as Haiti and Rwanda.
(6) Support security enhancing measures in the Asia-Pacific
region, including support for the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum.
(7) Reduce the level of defense expenditures for non-
defense programs.

SEC. 304. REPORTS.

(a) Final Report.--The Commission shall submit to the
President and the designated congressional committees a
report on the assessments and recommendations referred to in
section 303 not later than January 1, 1996. The report shall
be submitted in unclassified and classified versions.
(b) Interim Report.--The Commission shall submit to the
President and the designated congressional committees an
interim report describing the Commission's progress in
fulfilling its duties under section 303. The interim report
shall include any preliminary recommendations the Commission
may have reached and shall be submitted not later than
October 1, 1995.
(c) Designated Congressional Committees.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``designated congressional
committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on National Security, the Committee on
International Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate.
(d) Limitation Pending Submission of Interim Report.--The
Secretary of the Army may not, during the period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the date
on which the interim report under subsection (b) is
submitted, take any action to implement the plan to
reorganize the Army Reserve's continental United States
headquarters structures that was announced by the Secretary
on January 4, 1995.

SEC. 305. POWERS.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of
carrying out this section, conduct such hearings, sit and act
at such times, take such testimony, and receive such
evidence, as the Commission considers appropriate.
(b) Assistance From Other Agencies.--The Commission may
secure directly from any department or agency of the Federal
Government such information, relevant to its duties under
this title, as may be necessary to carry out such duties.
Upon request of the chairman of the Commission, the head of
the department or agency shall, to the extent permitted by
law, furnish such information to the Commission.
(c) Mail.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as the
departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(d) Assistance From Secretary of Defense.--The Secretary of
Defense shall provide to the Commission
such reasonable administrative and support services as the
Commission may request.

SEC. 306. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

(a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet on a regular basis
(as determined by the chairman) and at the call of the
chairman or a majority of its members.
(b) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

SEC. 307. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission shall
serve without compensation, but shall be allowed travel
expenses including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code,
when engaged in the performance of Commission duties.
(b) Staff.--The Commission shall appoint a staff director,
who shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate of
basic pay under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code,
and such professional and clerical personnel as may be
reasonable and necessary to enable the Commission to carry
out its duties under this title without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and without regard
to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
53 of such title, or any other provision of law, relating to
the number, classification, and General Schedule rates. No
employee appointed under this subsection (other than the
staff director) may be compensated at a rate to exceed the
maximum rate applicable to level 15 of the General Schedule.
(c) Detailed Personnel.--Upon request of the chairman of
the Commission, the head of any department or agency of the
Federal Government is authorized to detail, without
[[Page H1804]] reimbursement, any personnel of such
department or agency to the Commission to assist the
Commission in carrying out its duties under this section. The
detail of any such personnel may not result in the
interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege of
such personnel.

SEC. 308. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall terminate upon submission of the final
report required by section 303.

SEC. 309. FUNDING.

Of the funds available to the Department of Defense,
$1,500,000 shall be made available to the Commission to carry
out the provisions of this title.
TITLE IV--COMMAND OF UNITED STATES FORCES
SEC. 401. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FUNDS FOR UNITED STATES FORCES PLACED UNDER
UNITED NATIONS COMMAND OR CONTROL.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 20 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 404 the following
new section:
``Sec. 405. Placement of United States forces under United
Nations command or control: limitation

``(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsections (b)
and (c), funds appropriated or otherwise made available for
the Department of Defense may not be obligated or expended
for activities of any element of the armed forces that after
the date of the enactment of this section is placed under
United Nations command or control, as defined in subsection
(f).
``(b) Exception for Presidential Certification.--(1)
Subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of a proposed
placement of an element of the armed forces under United
Nations command or control if the President, not less than 15
days before the date on which such United Nations command or
control is to become effective (or as provided in paragraph
(2)), meets the requirements of subsection (d).
``(2) If the President certifies to Congress that an
emergency exists that precludes the President from meeting
the requirements of subsection (d) 15 days before placing an
element of the armed forces under United Nations command or
control, the President may place such forces under such
command or control and meet the requirements of subsection
(d) in a timely manner, but in no event later than 48 hours
after such command or control becomes effective.
``(c) Exception for Authorization by Law.--Subsection (a)
shall not apply in the case of a proposed placement of any
element of the armed forces under United Nations command or
control if the Congress specifically authorizes by law that
particular placement of United States forces under United
Nations command or control.
``(d) Presidential Certifications.--The requirements
referred to in subsection (b)(1) are that the President
submit to Congress the following:
``(1) Certification by the President that--
``(A) such a United Nations command or control arrangement
is necessary to protect national security interests of the
United States;
``(B) the commander of any unit of the armed forces
proposed for placement under United Nations command or
control will at all times retain the right--
``(i) to report independently to superior United States
military authorities; and
``(ii) to decline to comply with orders judged by the
commander to be illegal, militarily imprudent, or beyond the
mandate of the mission to which the United States agreed with
the United Nations, until such time as that commander
receives direction from superior United States military
authorities with respect to the orders that the commander has
declined to comply with;
``(C) any element of the armed forces proposed for
placement under United Nations command or control will at all
times remain under United States administrative command for
such purposes as discipline and evaluation; and
``(D) the United States will retain the authority to
withdraw any element of the armed forces from the proposed
operation at any time and to take any action it considers
necessary to protect those forces if they are engaged.
``(2) A report setting forth the following:
``(A) A description of the national security interests that
require the placement of United States forces under United
Nations command or control.
``(B) The mission of the United States forces involved.
``(C) The expected size and composition of the United
States forces involved.
``(D) The incremental cost to the United States of
participation in the United Nations operation by the United
States forces which are proposed to be placed under United
Nations command or control.
``(E) The precise command and control relationship between
the United States forces involved and the United Nations
command structure.
``(F) The precise command and control relationship between
the United States forces involved and the commander of the
United States unified command for the region in which those
United States forces are to operate.
``(G) The extent to which the United States forces involved
will rely on non-United States forces for security and self-
defense and an assessment on the ability of those non-United
States forces to provide adequate security to the United
States forces involved.
``(H) The timetable for complete withdrawal of the United
States forces involved.
``(e) Classification of Report.--A report under subsection
(d) shall be submitted in unclassified form and, if
necessary, in classified form.
``(f) United Nations Command or Control.--For purposes of
this section, an element of the armed forces shall be
considered to be placed under United Nations command or
control if--
``(1) that element is under the command or operational
control of an individual acting on behalf of the United
Nations for the purpose of international peacekeeping,
peacemaking, peace-enforcing, or similar activity that is
authorized by the Security Council under chapter VI or VII of
the Charter of the United Nations; and
``(2) the senior military commander of the United Nations
force or operation--
``(A) is a foreign national or is a citizen of the United
States who is not a United States military officer serving on
active duty; or
``(B) is a United States military officer serving on active
duty but--
``(i) that element of the armed forces is under the command
or operational control of subordinate commander who is a
foreign national or a citizen of the United States who is not
a United States military officer serving on active duty; and
``(ii) that senior military commander does not have the
authority--

``(g) Interpretation.--Nothing in this section may be
construed--
``(1) as authority for the President to use any element of
the armed forces in any operation;
``(2) as authority for the President to place any element
of the armed forces under the command or operational control
of a foreign national; or
``(3) as an unconstitutional infringement on the authority
of the President as commander-in-chief.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter I
of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:

``405. Placement of United States forces under United Nations command
or control: limitation.''.

(b) Report Relating to Constitutionality.--No certification
may be submitted by the President under section 405(d)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, as added
by subsection (a), until the President has submitted to the
Congress (after the date of the enactment of this Act) a
memorandum of legal points and authorities explaining why
the placement of elements of United States Armed Forces
under the command or operational control of a foreign
national acting on behalf of the United Nations does not
violate the Constitution.
(c) Exception for Ongoing Operations in Macedonia and
Croatia.--Section 405 of title 10, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), does not apply in the case of
activities of the Armed Forces as part of the United Nations
force designated as the United Nations Protection Force
(UNPROFOR) that are carried out--
(1) in Macedonia pursuant to United Nations Security
Council Resolution 795, adopted December 11, 1992, and
subsequent reauthorization Resolutions; or
(2) in Croatia pursuant to United Nations Security Council
Resolution 743, adopted February 21, 1992, and subsequent
reauthorization Resolutions.
SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON PLACEMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED
FORCES UNDER FOREIGN CONTROL FOR A UNITED
NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITY.

(a) In General.--Section 6 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287d) is amended to read
as follows:
``Sec. 6. (a) Agreements With Security Council.--(1) Any
special agreement described in paragraph
(2) that is concluded by the President with the Security
Council shall not be effective unless approved by the
Congress by law.
``(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is an
agreement providing for the numbers and types of United
States Armed Forces, their degree of readiness and general
locations, or the nature of facilities and assistance,
including rights of passage, to be made available to the
Security Council for the purpose of maintaining international
peace and security in accordance with Article 43 of the
Charter of the United Nations.
``(b) Limitation.--(1) Except as provided in subsections
(c) and (d), the President may not place any element of the
Armed Forces under United Nations command or control, as
defined in subsection (g).
``(c) Exception for Presidential Certification.--(1)
Subsection (b) shall not apply in the case of a proposed
placement of an element of the armed forces under United
Nations command or control if the President, not less than 15
days before the date on which such United Nations command or
control is to become effective (or as provided in
[[Page H1805]] paragraph (2)), meets the requirements of
subsection (e).
``(2) If the President certifies to Congress that an
emergency exists that precludes the President from meeting
the requirements of subsection (e) 15 days before placing an
element of the armed forces under United Nations command or
control, the President may place such forces under such
command or control and meet the requirements of subsection
(e) in a timely manner, but in no event later than 48 hours
after such command or control becomes effective.
``(d) Exception for Authorization by Law.--Subsection (b)
shall not apply in the case of a proposed placement of any
element of the Armed Forces under United Nations command or
control if the Congress specifically authorizes by law that
particular placement of United States forces under United
Nations command or control.
``(e) Presidential Certifications.--The requirements
referred to in subsection (c)(1) are that the President
submit to Congress the following:
``(1) Certification by the President that--
``(A) such a United Nations command or control arrangement
is necessary to protect national security interests of the
United States;
``(B) the commander of any unit of the Armed Forces
proposed for placement under United Nations command or
control will at all times retain the right--
``(i) to report independently to superior United States
military authorities; and
``(ii) to decline to comply with orders judged by the
commander to be illegal, militarily imprudent, or beyond the
mandate of the mission to which the United States agreed with
the United Nations, until such time as that commander
receives direction from superior United States military
authorities with respect to the orders that the commander has
declined to comply with;
``(C) any element of the Armed Forces proposed for
placement under United Nations command or control will at all
times remain under United States administrative command for
such purposes as discipline and evaluation; and
``(D) the United States will retain the authority to
withdraw any element of the Armed Forces from the proposed
operation at any time and to take any action it considers
necessary to protect those forces if they are engaged.
``(2) A report setting forth the following:
``(A) A description of the national security interests that
require the placement of United States forces under United
Nations command or control.
``(B) The mission of the United States forces involved.
``(C) The expected size and composition of the United
States forces involved.
``(D) The incremental cost to the United States of
participation in the United Nations operation by the United
States forces which are
proposed to be placed under United Nations command or
control.
``(E) The precise command and control relationship between
the United States forces involved and the United Nations
command structure.
``(F) The precise command and control relationship between
the United States forces involved and the commander of the
United States unified command for the region in which those
United States forces are to operate.
``(G) The extent to which the United States forces involved
will rely on non-United States forces for security and self-
defense and an assessment on the ability of those non-United
States forces to provide adequate security to the United
States forces involved.
``(H) The timetable for complete withdrawal of the United
States forces involved.
``(f) Classification of Report.--A report under subsection
(e) shall be submitted in unclassified form and, if
necessary, in classified form.
``(g) United Nations Command or Control.--For purposes of
this section, an element of the armed forces shall be
considered to be placed under United Nations command or
control if--
``(1) that element is under the command or operational
control of an individual acting on behalf of the United
Nations for the purpose of international peacekeeping,
peacemaking, peace-enforcing, or similar activity that is
authorized by the Security Council under chapter VI or VII of
the Charter of the United Nations; and
``(2) the senior military commander of the United Nations
force or operation--
``(A) is a foreign national or is a citizen of the United
States who is not a United States military officer serving on
active duty; or
``(B) is a United States military officer serving on active
duty but--
``(i) that element of the armed forces is under the command
or operational control of subordinate commander who is a
foreign national or a citizen of the United States who is not
a United States military officer serving on active duty; and
``(ii) that senior military commander does not have the
authority--

``(I) to dismiss any subordinate officer in the chain of
command who is exercising command or operational control over
United States forces and who is a foreign national or a
citizen of the United States who is not a United States
military officer serving on active duty;
``(II) to establish rules of engagement for United States
forces involved; and
``(III) to establish criteria governing the operational
employment of United States forces involved.
``(h) Interpretation.--Except as authorized in section 7 of
this Act, nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as
an authorization to the President by the Congress to make
available to the Security Council United States Armed Forces,
facilities, or assistance.''.
(b) Report Relating to Constitutionality.--No certification
may be submitted by the President under section 6(e)(1) of
the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended by
subsection (a), until the President has submitted to the
Congress (after the date of the enactment of this Act) a
memorandum of legal points and authorities explaining why the
placement of elements of United States Armed Forces under the
command or operational control of a foreign national acting
on behalf of the United Nations does not violate the
Constitution.
(c) Exception for Ongoing Operation in Macedonia and
Croatia.--Section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act
of 1945, as amended by subsection (a), does not apply in the
case of activities of the Armed Forces as part of the United
Nations force designated as the United Nations Protection
Force (UNPROFOR) that are carried out--
(1) in Macedonia pursuant to United Nations Security
Council Resolution 795, adopted December 11, 1992, and
subsequent reauthorization Resolutions; or
(2) in Croatia pursuant to United Nations Security Council
Resolution 743, adopted February 21, 1992, and subsequent
reauthorization Resolutions.
TITLE V--UNITED NATIONS

SEC. 501. CREDIT AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR UNITED STATES
EXPENDITURES IN SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS
PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

(a) In General.--The United Nations Participation Act of
1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 10. (a) Credit Against Assessment for Expenditures
in Support of Peacekeeping Operations.--
``(1) Limitation.--Funds may be obligated for payment to
the United Nations of the United States assessed share of
peacekeeping operations for a fiscal year only to the extent
that--
``(A) the amount of such assessed share exceeds--
``(B) the amount equal to--
``(i) the total amount identified in the report submitted
pursuant to paragraph (2) for the preceding fiscal year,
reduced by
``(ii) the amount of any reimbursement or credit to the
United States by the United Nations for the costs of United
States support for, or participation in, United Nations
peacekeeping activities for that preceding fiscal year.
``(2) Annual report.--The President shall, at the time of
submission of the budget to the Congress for any fiscal year,
submit to the designated congressional committees a report on
the total amount of incremental costs incurred by the
Department of Defense during the preceding fiscal year to
support or participate in, directly or indirectly, United
Nations peacekeeping activities. Such report shall include a
separate listing by United Nations peacekeeping operation of
the amount of incremental costs incurred to support or
participate in each such operation.
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) United nations peacekeeping activities.--The term
`United Nations peacekeeping activities' means any
international
peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace-enforcing, or similar
activity that is authorized by the United Nations Security
Council under chapter VI or VII of the Charter of the
United Nations, except that such term does not include any
such activity authorized under chapter VII of such Charter
with respect to which the President has certified to the
Congress that the activity is of such importance to the
national security of the United States that the United
States would undertake the activity unilaterally if it
were not authorized by the United Nations Security
Council.
``(B) Designated congressional committees.--The term
`designated congressional committees' includes the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The limitation contained in section
10(a)(1) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as
added by subsection (a), shall apply only with respect to
United Nations assessments for peacekeeping operations after
fiscal year 1995.
SEC. 502. CODIFICATION OF REQUIRED NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF
PROPOSED UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Required Notice.--Section 4 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287b) is amended--
(1) by striking the second sentence of subsection (a);
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
[[Page H1806]] (3) by inserting after subsection (d) a new
subsection (e) consisting of the text of subsection (a) of
section 407 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), revised--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``in written form not later than the 10th day of'' after
``shall be provided'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by inserting ``(including
facilities, training, transportation, communication, and
logistical support, but not including intelligence activities
reportable under title V of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 413 et seq.))'' after ``covered by the
resolution''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(iv) A description of any other United States assistance
to or support for the operation (including facilities,
training, transportation, communication, and logistical
support, but not including intelligence activities reportable
under title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
413 et seq.)), and an estimate of the cost to the United
States of such assistance or support.'';
(B) by striking paragraph (3);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3) and in
the last sentence of subparagraph (A) of that paragraph by
striking ``and (ii)'' and inserting ``through (iv)'';
(D) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(4) New united nations peacekeeping operation defined.--
As used in paragraphs (2) (B) and (3), the term `new United
Nations peacekeeping operation' includes any existing or
otherwise ongoing United Nations peacekeeping operation--
``(A) that is to be expanded by more than 25 percent during
the period covered by the Security Council resolution, as
measured by either the number of personnel participating (or
authorized to participate) in the operation or the budget of
the operation; or
``(B) that is to be authorized to operate in a country in
which it was not previously authorized to operate.''; and
(E) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by striking ``(5) Notification'' and all that follows
through ``(B) The President'' and inserting ``(5) Quarterly
reports.--The President''; and
(ii) by striking ``section 4(d)'' and all that follows
through ``of this section)'' and inserting ``subsection
(d)''.
(b) Conforming Repeal.--Subsection (a) of section 407 of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), is repealed.
(c) Designated Congressional Committees.--Subsection (f) of
section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22
U.S.C. 287b(f)), as redesignated by subsection (a), is
amended to read as follows:
``(f) Designated Congressional Committees.--As used in this
section, the term `designated congressional committees' has
the meaning given such term in section 10(f).''.

SEC. 503. NOTICE TO CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING
ACTIVITIES.

Section 10 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
is amended by adding after subsection (a), as added by
section 501, the following new subsection:
``(b) Notice to Congress Regarding Contributions for
Peacekeeping Activities.--
``(1) Notice regarding united nations billing request.--Not
later than 15 days after the date on which the United States
receives from the United Nations a billing requesting a
payment by the United States of any contribution for United
Nations peacekeeping activities, the President shall so
notify the designated congressional committees.
``(2) Notice regarding proposed obligation of funds.--The
President shall notify the designated congressional
committees at least 15 days before the United States
obligates funds for any assessed or voluntary contribution
for United Nations peacekeeping activities, except that if
the President determines that an emergency exists which
prevents compliance with the requirement that such
notification be provided 15 days in advance and that such
contribution is in the national security interests of the
United States, such notification shall be provided in a
timely manner but no later than 48 hours after such
obligation.''.

SEC. 504. REVISED NOTICE TO CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES
ASSISTANCE FOR UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING
ACTIVITIES.

Section 7 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287d-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``other than subsection
(e)(1)'' after ``any other law''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), at
least 15 days before any agency or entity of the United
States Government makes available to the United Nations any
assistance or facility to support or facilitate United
Nations peacekeeping activities, the President shall so
notify the designated congressional committees.
``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
``(A) assistance having a value of less than $1,000,000 in
the case of nonreimbursable assistance or less than
$5,000,000 in the case of reimbursable assistance; or
``(B) assistance provided under the emergency drawdown
authority contained in sections 506(a)(1) and 552(c)(2) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1),
2348a(c)(2)).
``(3) If the President determines that an emergency exists
which prevents compliance with the requirement in paragraph
(1) that notification be provided 15 days in advance and that
the contribution of any such assistance or facility is in the
national security interests of the United States, such
notification shall be provided in a timely manner but not
later than 48 hours after such assistance or facility is made
available to the United Nations.
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term
`assistance'--
``(A) means assistance of any kind, including logistical
support, supplies, goods, or services (including command,
control or communications assistance and training), and the
grant of rights of passage; and
``(B) includes assistance provided through in-kind
contributions or through the provision of support, supplies,
goods, or services on any terms, including on a grant, lease,
loan, or reimbursable basis; but
``(C) does not include the payment of assessed or voluntary
contributions or intelligence activities reportable under
title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413
et seq.).''.

SEC. 505. UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED NATIONS
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

Section 4(d)(1) of the United Nations Participation Act of
1945 (22 U.S.C. 287b(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) A description of the anticipated budget for the next
fiscal year for United States participation in United Nations
peacekeeping activities, including a statement of--
``(i) the aggregate amount of funds available to the United
Nations for that fiscal year, including assessed and
voluntary contributions, which may be made available for
United Nations peacekeeping activities; and
``(ii) the aggregate amount of funds (from all accounts)
and the aggregate costs of in-kind contributions that the
United States proposes to make available to the United
Nations for that fiscal year for United Nations peacekeeping
activities.''.

SEC. 506. REIMBURSEMENT TO THE UNITED STATES FOR IN-KIND
CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING
ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 7 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287d-1), as amended by
section 504, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
(B) by striking ``United States: Provided,'' through
``Provided further, That when'' and inserting ``United
States. When''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement
for reimbursement under paragraph (1) if the Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, determines that an
emergency exists which justifies waiver of that requirement.
Any such waiver shall be submitted to the designated
congressional committees, as defined in
section 10(a)(3)(B), at least 15 days before it takes
effect, except that if the President determines that an
emergency exists which prevents compliance with the
requirement that the notification be provided 15 days in
advance and that the provision under subsection (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of personnel or assistance on a nonreimbursable
basis is in the national security interests of the United
States, such notification shall be provided in a timely
manner but no later than 48 hours after such waiver takes
effect.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) The Secretary of State shall ensure that goods and
services provided on a reimbursable basis by the Department
of Defense to the United Nations for United Nations
peacekeeping operations under this section or any other
provision of law are reimbursed at the appropriate value, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense.''.
(b) Initial Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Representative of the United
States to the United Nations shall submit to the designated
congressional committees a report on all actions taken by the
United States mission to the United Nations to achieve the
objective described in section 7(f) of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945, as added by subsection (a)(2).
(2) Designated congressional committees defined.--As used
in this subsection, the term ``designated congressional
committees'' has the meaning given such term in section
10(a)(3)(B) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945,
as added by section 501.
SEC. 507. LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF UNITED STATES ASSESSED OR
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNITED NATIONS
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 10 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945 is amended by adding after
subsection (b), as added by section 503, the following new
subsection:
``(c) Limitation on Payment of Assessed or Voluntary
Contributions for Peacekeeping Activities.--
[[Page H1807]] ``(1) Limitation.--Appropriated funds may
not be used to pay any United States assessed or voluntary
contribution during any fiscal year for United Nations
peacekeeping activities until the Secretary of Defense
certifies to the designated congressional committees that the
United Nations has reimbursed the Department of Defense
directly for all goods and services--
``(A) that were provided to the United Nations by the
Department of Defense on a reimbursable basis during a
previous fiscal year after fiscal year 1994 for United
Nations peacekeeping activities, including personnel and
assistance provided under section 7 (except to the extent
that the authority of subsection (b)(2) of such section to
waive the reimbursement requirement was exercised with
respect to such personnel or assistance); and
``(B) for which a request for reimbursement has been
submitted to the United Nations in accordance with paragraph
(2).
``(2) Request for reimbursement.--The President shall
establish procedures for the submission to the United Nations
of requests for reimbursement for goods and services provided
to the United Nations by the Department of Defense on a
reimbursable basis for United Nations peacekeeping
activities. Such procedures shall ensure that each such
request for reimbursement is submitted in a timely manner.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The limitation in section 10(c)(1) of
the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as added by
subsection (a), shall apply only with respect to fiscal years
after fiscal year 1995.
SEC. 508. LIMITATION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS
FOR UNITED STATES SHARE OF COSTS OF UNITED
NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 20 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 405, as added by
section 401 of this Act, the following new section:
``Sec. 406. Use of Department of Defense funds for United
States share of costs of United Nations peacekeeping
activities: limitation

``(a) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Payment of
Assessments and Voluntary Contributions.--(1) Funds available
to the Department of Defense may not be used to make a
financial contribution (directly or through another
department or agency of the United States) to the United
Nations--
``(A) for the costs of a United Nations peacekeeping
activity; or
``(B) for any United States arrearage to the United
Nations.
``(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1)(A) applies to
voluntary contributions, as well as to contributions pursuant
to assessment by the United Nations for the United States
share of the costs of a peacekeeping activity.
``(b) Limitation on Use of Funds for Participation in
United Nations Peacekeeping Activities.--Funds available to
the Department of Defense may be used for payment of the
incremental costs associated with the participation of
elements of the armed forces in a United Nations peacekeeping
activity only to the extent that Congress has by law
specifically authorized the use of those funds for that
purpose.
``(c) Covered Peacekeeping Activities.--In this section,
the term `United Nations peacekeeping activity' means a
peacekeeping activity carried out pursuant to a resolution of
the United Nations Security Council for which costs are met
(in whole or in part) through assessments by the United
Nations to its member nations.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``406. Use of Department of Defense funds for United States share of
costs of United Nations peacekeeping activities:
limitation.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 406 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
October 1, 1995.

SEC. 509. CODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF UNITED
STATES ASSESSED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNITED
NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 10 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945 is amended by adding after
subsection (c), as added by section 507, the following new
subsection:
``(d) Limitation on Assessed Contribution With Respect to a
Peacekeeping Operation.--Funds authorized to be appropriated
for `Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities'
for any fiscal year shall not be available for the payment of
the United States assessed contribution for a United Nations
peacekeeping operation in an amount which is greater than 25
percent of the total amount of all assessed contributions for
that operation, and any arrearages that accumulate as a
result of assessments in excess of 25 percent of the total
amount of all assessed contributions for any United Nations
peacekeeping operation shall not be recognized or paid by the
United States.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The limitation contained in section
10(d) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as
added by subsection (a), shall apply only with respect to
funds authorized to be appropriated for ``Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities'' for fiscal years
after fiscal year 1995.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 404(b) of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995
(Public Law 103-236) is amended by striking paragraph (2).

SEC. 510. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT.

Section 10 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
is amended by adding after subsection (d), as added by
section 509, the following new subsections:
``(e) Buy American Requirement.--No funds may be obligated
or expended to pay any United States assessed or voluntary
contribution for United Nations peacekeeping activities
unless the Secretary of State determines and certifies to the
designated congressional committees that United States
manufacturers and suppliers are being given opportunities to
provide equipment, services, and material for such activities
equal to those being given to foreign manufacturers and
suppliers.
``(f) Designated Congressional Committees Defined.--As used
in this section, the term `designated congressional
committees' means--
``(1) the Committee on International Relations and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives;
and
``(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate.''.

SEC. 511. UNITED NATIONS BUDGETARY AND MANAGEMENT REFORM.

(a) In General.--The United Nations Participation Act of
1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is further amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``Sec. 11. (a) Withholding of Contributions.--
``(1) Assessed contributions for regular united nations
budget.--At the beginning of each fiscal year, 20 percent of
the amount of funds made available for that fiscal year for
United States assessed contributions for the regular United
Nations budget shall be withheld from obligation and
expenditure unless a certification for that fiscal year has
been made under subsection (b).
``(2) Assessed contributions for united nations
peacekeeping.--At the beginning of each fiscal year, 50
percent of the amount of funds made available for that fiscal
year for United States assessed contributions for United
Nations peacekeeping activities shall be withheld from
obligation and expenditure unless a certification for that
fiscal year has been made under subsection (b).
``(3) Voluntary contributions for united nations
peacekeeping.--The United States may not during any fiscal
year pay any voluntary contribution to the United Nations for
international peacekeeping activities unless a certification
for that fiscal year has been made under subsection (b).
``(b) Certification.--The certification referred to in
subsection (a) for any fiscal year is a certification by the
President to the Congress, submitted on or after the
beginning of that fiscal year, of each of the following:
``(1) The United Nations has an independent office of
Inspector General to conduct and supervise objective audits,
inspections, and investigations relating to programs and
operations of the United Nations.
``(2) The United Nations has an Inspector General who was
appointed by the Secretary General with the approval of the
General Assembly and whose appointment was made principally
on the basis of the appointee's integrity and demonstrated
ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law,
management analysis, public administration, or investigation.
``(3) The Inspector General is authorized to--
``(A) make investigations and reports relating to the
administration of the programs and operations of the United
Nations;
``(B) have access to all records, documents, and other
available materials relating to those programs and
operations;
``(C) have direct and prompt access to any official of the
United Nations; and
``(D) have access to all records and officials of the
specialized agencies of the United Nations.
``(4) The United Nations has fully implemented, and made
available to all member states, procedures that effectively
protect the identity of, and prevent reprisals against, any
staff member of the United Nations making a complaint or
disclosing information to, or cooperating in any
investigation or inspection by, the United Nations Inspector
General.
``(5) The United Nations has fully implemented procedures
that ensure compliance with recommendations of the United
Nations Inspector General.
``(6) The United Nations has required the United Nations
Inspector General to issue an annual report and has ensured
that the annual
report and all other reports of the Inspector General are
made available to the General Assembly without
modification.
``(7) The United Nations has provided, and is committed to
providing, sufficient budgetary resources to ensure the
effective operation of the United Nations Inspector
General.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 11 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945, as added by subsection (a), shall
apply only with respect to fiscal years after fiscal year
1995.
SEC. 512. CONDITIONS ON PROVISION OF INTELLIGENCE TO THE
UNITED NATIONS.

(a) In General.--The United Nations Participation Act of
1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is further amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``Sec. 12. (a) Provision of Intelligence Information to the
United Nations.--Before
[[Page H1808]] intelligence information is provided by the
United States to the United Nations, the President shall
ensure that the Director of Central Intelligence, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense, has established guidelines governing the provision
of intelligence information to the United Nations which shall
protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized
disclosure in accordance with section 103(c)(5) of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-3(c)(5)).
``(b) Periodic and Special Reports.--(1) The President
shall periodically report, but not less frequently than
semiannually, to the Committee on International Relations and
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations and
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate on the
types of intelligence provided to the United Nations and the
purposes for which it was provided during the period covered
by the report. The President shall also report to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of
the Senate, within 15 days after it becomes known to him, any
unauthorized disclosure of intelligence provided to the
United Nations.
``(2) The requirement for periodic reports under the first
sentence of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply
to the provision of intelligence that is provided only to,
and for the use of, United States Government personnel
serving with the United Nations.
``(c) Delegation of Duties.--The President may not delegate
or assign the duties of the President under this section.
``(d) Improved Handling of Intelligence Information by the
United Nations.--The Secretary of State (or the designee of
the Secretary), in consultation with the Director of Central
Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, shall work with
the United Nations to improve the handling, processing,
dissemination, and management of all intelligence information
provided to it by its members.
``(e) Relationship to Existing Law.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to--
``(1) impair or otherwise affect the authority of the
Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence
sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure pursuant to
section 103(c)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 403-3(c)(5)); or
``(2) supersede or otherwise affect the provisions of title
V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 et
seq.).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect 45 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
TITLE VI--EXPANSION OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``NATO Expansion Act of
1995''.

SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) has helped to guarantee the security, freedom, and
prosperity of the United States and its partners in the
alliance.
(2) NATO has expanded its membership on three different
occasions since its founding in 1949.
(3) The steadfast and sustained commitment of the member
countries of NATO to mutual defense against the threat of
communist domination played a significant role in
precipitating the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the demise
of the Soviet Union.
(4) Although new threats are more geographically and
functionally diverse and less predictable, they still imperil
shared interests of the United States and its NATO allies.
(5) Western interests must be protected on a cooperative
basis without an undue burden falling upon the United States.
(6) NATO is the only multilateral organization that is
capable of conducting effective military operations to
protect Western interests.
(7) The valuable experience gained from ongoing military
cooperation within NATO was critical to the success of joint
military operations in the 1991 liberation of Kuwait.
(8) NATO is an important diplomatic forum for discussion of
issues of concern to its member states and for the peaceful
resolution of disputes.
(9) Admission of Central and East European countries that
have recently been freed from Communist domination to NATO
could contribute to international peace and enhance the
security of those countries.
(10) By joining the Partnership for Peace, a number of
countries have expressed interest in NATO membership.
(11) The Partnership for Peace program is creating new
political and military ties with countries in Central and
Eastern Europe and provides the basis for joint action to
deal with common security problems. Active participation in
the Partnership for Peace will also play an important role in
the evolutionary process of NATO expansion.
(12) In particular, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic,
and Slovakia have made significant progress toward
establishing democratic institutions, free market economies,
civilian control of their armed forces, police, and
intelligence services, and the rule of law since the fall of
their previous Communist governments.

SEC. 603. UNITED STATES POLICY.

It should be the policy of the United States--
(1) to continue the Nation's commitment to an active
leadership role in NATO;
(2) to join with the Nation's NATO allies to redefine the
role of the alliance in the post-Cold War world, taking into
account--
(A) the fundamentally changed security environment of
Central and Eastern Europe;
(B) the need to assure all countries of the defensive
nature of the alliance and the desire of its members to work
cooperatively with all former adversaries;
(C) the emerging security threats posed by the
proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of
mass destruction and the means to deliver them;
(D) the continuing challenges to the interests of all NATO
member countries posed by unstable and undemocratic regimes
harboring hostile intentions; and
(E) the dependence of the global economy on a stable energy
supply and the free flow of commerce;
(3) to affirm that NATO military planning should include
joint military operations beyond the geographic bounds of the
alliance under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty when
the shared interests of the United States and other member
countries require such action to defend vital interests;
(4) to expeditiously pursue joint cooperation agreements
for the acquisition of essential systems to significantly
increase the crisis management capability of NATO;
(5) that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia
should be in a position to further the principles of the
North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of
the North Atlantic area in the near future, and, in
accordance with Article 10
of such Treaty, should be invited to become full NATO
members, provided these countries--
(A) meet appropriate standards, including--
(i) shared values and interests;
(ii) democratic governments;
(iii) free market economies;
(iv) civilian control of the military, of the police, and
of the intelligence and other security services, so that
these organizations do not pose a threat to democratic
institutions, neighboring countries, or the security of NATO
or the United States;
(v) adherence to the rule of law and to the values,
principles, and political commitments set forth in the
Helsinki Final Act and other declarations by the members of
the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
(vi) commitment to further the principles of NATO and to
contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area;
(vii) commitment and ability to accept the obligations,
responsibilities, and costs of NATO membership; and
(viii) commitment and ability to implement infrastructure
development activities that will facilitate participation in
and support for NATO military activities; and
(B) remain committed to protecting the rights of all their
citizens and respecting the territorial integrity of their
neighbors;
(6) that the United States, other NATO member nations, and
NATO itself should furnish appropriate assistance to
facilitate the transition of Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, and Slovakia to full NATO membership;
(7) to reaffirm article X of the North Atlantic Treaty and
the policy decision of the North Atlantic Council on December
1, 1994, that--
(A) each new member nation may be admitted to NATO only by
amendment to the North Atlantic Treaty; and
(B) each current NATO member nation will have to complete
the treaty amendment ratification process for the admission
of each new member nation to NATO, subject to the internal
legal processes of each current NATO member nation, and that
in the case of the United States, the treaty amendment
ratification process will require advice and consent of two-
thirds of the members of the United States Senate present and
voting;
(8) that the expansion of NATO should be defensive in
nature and should occur in a manner that increases stability
for all nations of Europe, including both NATO member nations
and non-NATO member nations;
(9) that NATO and its member nations should cooperate
closely with Russia on security issues and work to strengthen
other structures of security cooperation in Europe, including
the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and
(10) that other European countries emerging from communist
domination may be in a position at a future date to further
the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute
to the security of the North Atlantic area, and at the
appropriate time they should receive assistance to facilitate
their transition to full NATO membership and should be
invited to become full NATO members.
SEC. 604. REVISIONS TO PROGRAM TO FACILITATE TRANSITION TO
NATO MEMBERSHIP.

(a) Establishment of Program.--Subsection (a) of section
203 of the NATO Participation Act of 1994
(title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Establishment of Program.--The President shall
establish a program to assist in the transition to full NATO
membership
[[Page H1809]] of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and
Slovakia and any other European country emerging from
communist domination that is designated by the President
under subsection (d)(2).''.
(b) Eligible Countries.--
(1) Designated countries.--Subsection (d) of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Designation of Eligible Countries.--
``(1) Specified countries.--The following countries are
hereby designated for purposes of this title: Poland,
Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.
``(2) Authority for president to designate other european
countries emerging from communist domination.--The President
may designate other European countries emerging from
communist domination (as defined in section 206) to receive
assistance under the program established under subsection
(a). The President may make such a designation in the case of
any such country only if the President determines, and
reports to the designated congressional committees, that such
country--
``(A) has made significant progress toward establishing--
``(i) shared values and interests;
``(ii) democratic governments;
``(iii) free market economies;
``(iv) civilian control of the military, of the police, and
of the intelligence and other security services, so that
these organizations do not pose a threat to democratic
institutions, neighboring countries, or the security of NATO
or the United States;
``(v) adherence to the rule of law and to the values,
principles, and political commitments set forth in the
Helsinki Final Act and other declarations by the members of
the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
``(vi) commitment to further the principles of NATO and to
contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area;
``(vii) commitment and ability to accept the obligations,
responsibilities, and costs of NATO membership; and
``(viii) commitment and ability to implement infrastructure
development activities that will facilitate participation in
and support for NATO military activities; and
``(B) is likely, within five years of such determination,
to be in a position to further the principles of the North
Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the
North Atlantic area.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsections (b) and (c) of such section are amended by
striking ``countries described in such subsection'' and
inserting ``countries designated under subsection (d)''.
(B) Subsection (e) of such section is amended--
(i) by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting
``subsection (d)(2)''; and
(ii) by inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2394)'' before the period at
the end.
(C) Section 204(c) of such Act is amended by striking ``any
other Partnership for Peace country designated under section
203(d) of this title'' and inserting ``any country designated
under section 203(d)(2)''.
(c) Types of Assistance.--
(1) Economic support assistance.--Subsection (c) of section
203 of such Act is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph (3):
``(3) Assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to the Economic Support
Fund).''.
(2) Additional assistance.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (f) of such section is amended
to read as follows:
``(f) Additional Assistance.--In carrying out the program
established under subsection (a), the President may, in
addition to the security assistance authorized to be provided
under subsection (c), provide assistance to countries
designated under subsection (d) from funds appropriated under
the `Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund' account.''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A)
does not apply with respect to funds appropriated before the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Disqualification From Assistance for Support of
Terrorism.--Section 203 of such Act is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Prohibition on Providing Assistance to Countries That
Provide Defense Articles to Countries Supporting
International Terrorism.--The President may not provide
assistance to a country under the program established under
subsection (a) if such country is selling or transferring
defense articles to a state that has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism, as determined by
the Secretary of State under section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979.''.
(e) Report Prior to Obligation or Expenditure of Funds.--
Section 203 of such Act (as amended by subsection (d)) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Report Prior to Obligation or Expenditure of Funds.--
Prior to providing assistance to a country for the first time
through the program established under subsection (a), the
President shall transmit to the designated congressional
committees a report with respect to that country that
contains a description of the following:
``(1) The cost of membership in NATO for the country and
the amount that the country is prepared to contribute to NATO
to pay for such cost of membership.
``(2) The amount that the United States will contribute to
facilitate transition to full NATO membership for the
country.
``(3) The extent to which the admission to NATO of the
country would contribute to the security of the United
States.
``(4) The views of other NATO member nations regarding the
admission to NATO of the country and the amounts that such
other NATO member nations will contribute to facilitate
transition to full NATO membership for the country.''.
(f) Annual Report.--Section 205 of the NATO Participation
Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928
note) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``annual'' in the section heading before
the first word;
(2) by inserting ``annual'' after ``include in the'' in the
matter preceding paragraph (1); and
(3) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``and other''
and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting ``and any country designated by the
President pursuant to section 203(d)(2).''.
(g) Definitions.--The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title
II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 206. DEFINITIONS.

``For purposes of this title:
``(1) NATO.--The term `NATO' means the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization.
``(2) Other european countries emerging from communist
domination.--The term `other European countries emerging from
communist domination' means any full and active participant
in the Partnership for Peace that--
``(A) is located--
``(i) in the territory of the former Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics; or
``(ii) in the territory of the former Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia; or
``(B) is among the following countries: Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, or Albania.
``(3) Designated congressional committees.--The term
`designated congressional committees' means--
``(A) the Committee on International Relations, the
Committee on National Security, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
``(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on
Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate.''.
TITLE VII--BUDGET FIREWALLS

SEC. 701. RESTORATION OF BUDGET FIREWALLS FOR DEFENSE
SPENDING.

It is the sense of the Congress that, in order to protect
against the diversion of defense funding to domestic
discretionary accounts, so-called ``budget firewalls''
between defense and domestic discretionary spending should be
established for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill will be considered for amendment under the 5-
minute rule for a period not to exceed 10 hours.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as having
been read.
The time for the 10-hour debate is beginning at 4:50 p.m., and we
will keep track of that.
Are there any amendments to the bill?

amendment offered by mr. spence

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 39, printed in
the Congressional Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Spence: At the end of title II
(page 12, after line 25), add the following new section.

SEC. 204. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE AND
THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE (ARM) TREATY.

(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States and its allies face existing and
expanding threats from ballistic missiles capable of being
used as theater weapon systems that are presently possessed
by, being developed by, or being acquired by a number of
countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North
Korea.
(2) Some theater ballistic missiles that are currently
deployed or are being developed (such as the Chinese CSS-2
missile and the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile) have
capabilities equal to or greater than the capabilities of
missiles that were determined to be strategic missiles more
than 20 years ago under the Strategic Arms Limitation
Agreement I (SALT I) Interim Agreement of 1972 entered into
between the United States and the Soviet Union.
(3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was not
intended to, and does not, apply to or limit research,
development, testing or deployment of missile defense
systems, system upgrades, or system components that are
designed to counter modern theater ballistic missiles,
regardless of the capabilities
[[Page H1810]] of such missiles, unless those systems, system
upgrades, or system components are tested against or have
demonstrated capabilities to counter modern strategic
ballistic missiles.
(4) It is a national security priority of the United States
to develop and deploy highly effective theater missile
defense systems capable of countering the existing and
expanding threats posed by modern theater ballistic missiles
at the earliest practical date.
(5) Current United States proposal in the Standing
Consultative Commission (SCC) would multilateralize the ABM
Treaty, making future amendments or changes to the Treaty
more difficult, and would impose specific design limitations
on United States theater missile defense (TMD) systems that
would significantly compromise the United States TMD
capability.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that further formal negotiations in the Standing Consultative
Commission (SCC) and any informal discussions or negotiations
on either the demarcation between theater missile defense
(TMD) systems and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, or
any other effort that bears on the viability of the ABM
Treaty, including multilateralization of the treaty, should
be suspended until the One Hundred Fourth Congress has had
the opportunity to review those matters.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to title II of
H.R. 872.
One of the highest priority defense capabilities currently under
development by the Department of Defense is theater missile defense.
The U.S. theater missile defense systems are designed to defend our
U.S. military forces deployed overseas, along with friendly forces and
allies, from ballistic missile attack.
The threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles is
expanding. Several countries, including North Korea, are developing
missiles of increasing range and accuracy. Others, such as Iran, have
purchased missiles and production technology from North Korea. Such
proliferation underscores the importance of fielding, at the earliest
practical date, advanced TMD systems, as advocated in title II of this
bill.
Unfortunately, our ability to field high-effective TMD systems is in
jeopardy. Specifically, under the guise of ``clarifying'' the terms of
the 1972 anti-ballistic treaty, this administration has proposed in
talks with Russia and others to impose specific design limitations on
two theater missile defense systems that will significantly compromise
our United States capability.
They have also proposed to multilateralize the ABM Treaty, making
future amendments or changes to the treaty, such as those to deploy an
effective missile defense of our country, more difficult.
Based on these concerns, I cosigned a letter to President Clinton on
January 4, along with the entire House Republican leadership,
suggesting that further negotiations be suspended until the new
Congress had an opportunity to examine those issues in detail.
Unfortunately, the President's reply rejected our suggestion and stated
his intention to continue negotiating such an agreement.
I would note that, according to a February 13, 1995, Washington Times
article, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch also has grave
misgivings about the current U.S. negotiating approach, as does our
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili. According to
the Times, Mr. Deutch in a February 6 memorandum, affirmed that
countering missile proliferation was ``an urgent defense requirement.''
But he also suggested that in light of Russian intransigence in these
negotiations, we should ``shift our proposal to a more principled
demarkation position.'' I strongly agree with Secretary Deutch's
alleged statements.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to more explicitly communicate
our deep concerns about the administration's position in these
negotiations and the adverse impact they would have on our missile
defense programs.
My amendment does just that. Specifically, the amendment expresses
the sense of Congress that further formal negotiations in the standing
consultative commission and any informal discussions or negotiations on
either the demarkation between the theater missile defense systems and
ABM systems or any other effort that bears on the viability of the ABM
Treaty, including multilateralization of the ABM Treaty, should be
suspended until the 104th Congress has had the opportunity to review
those matters. It is a statement of principle and not binding language.
Nevertheless, my hope is that the President will listen more carefully
this time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment offered by our committee chairman.
This is a sense-of-the-Congress amendment so it is not binding, but
it is a very important one because it gets at the heart of what is now
going on between our administration and Russia in terms of the ABM
Treaty.
As our chairman pointed out, both the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in
a memo that I will include for the Record, as well as the comments by
General Shalikashvili that we are concerned about the administration
policymakers not adopting treaty changes which would prohibit the
Defense Debarment from deploying new theater defense systems that meet
U.S. requirements.
What is important for our colleagues on the minority side is that one
of their basic contentions is that theater missile defense is of the
highest priority.
Now, your Deputy Secretary of Defense, or, I should say, ours and our
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are both raising a red flag saying, let us
not let those negotiators move too fast. So this is an extremely
important amendment.
I want to get at the heart of why I think it is so important. My
first amendment on the floor of this House in 1987, when many of the
more liberal Members of our Congress were saying that we should adhere
to the strictest possible interpretation of the ABM Treaty, I offered
an amendment that acknowledged that the Kransnowarsk radar system in
Siberia was in fact a direct violation of the ABM Treaty.
Guess what we have found out, Mr. Chairman, after in fact the Russian
military leaders have retired and reported what there intent was with
that radar?
In a recent article in the Russian military historical journal,
written by retired General Votintsev, who said the ABM and space
defense troops of the National Air Defense Forces, from 1967 until
1985, he states that it was clearly the Soviet Union's intent to break
out and violate the ABM Treaty.
Many of the more liberal Members in this body, during that debate,
were saying, oh, this is wrong. It is just an accident. It is just
being used for radar. It is not being used for defensive operations. In
fact, here is the general, who was in charge of that system at the
time, not publicly stating what we said on this House floor.
He said, furthermore, that he was ordered to do this by the Chief of
Staff, Marshall Ogarkov and was told that if he did not locate this
radar in Krasnowarsk that General Ustinov, the Minister of Defense,
directed that anyone who continued to object would be removed of his
duties.
Mr. Chairman, all of us want to work with the Russians. I cochair the
Russian Energy Caucus. I am working with them on their nuclear waste
problem.
But as Ronald Reagan said, we must trust but verify.
{time} 1700

What we are saying is that should be the hallmark of our negotiations
with the Russians now. We should not let our negotiators bargain away
the ability for us to develop a continued theater defense system which
the minority side feels so strongly about. This amendment protects
that. I applaud my chairman for the amendment, and I would be happy to
support it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work and leadership
on this issue.
I think it is important for Members to realize what we are doing
here. The administration, according to our own senior military
officials, is trying to
[[Page H1811]] negotiate into the ABM Treaty, which is between the
United States and the Soviet Union, some limitations on our ability to
put out systems that will defend our troops, like those that were in
Iran or in Iraq, against incoming theater ballistic missiles.
There are two parties to the ABM Treaty, us and the Soviet Union, yet
there are countries like Libya, North Korea, China, and others that are
developing theater ballistic missiles that could be targeted on our
troops. They are not signatories to the ABM agreement and they do not
care what kind of restrictions we must put on. In fact, they would like
us to put restrictions on our defensive systems.
What the gentleman is talking about, Mr. Chairman, is a total
curtailment of theater ballistic missile defense systems that Democrats
and Republicans agree are very, very important to the survivability of
our troops. That means that when we have a troop concentration, whether
it is Marines or Army units in the Middle East, in Europe, in Southeast
Asia, and we need to put a footprint, a defensive footprint around
them, whether it is the THAAD system or a Patriot system, upgraded
Patriot, or the Navy lower tier system, all those systems are little
theater missile defense systems that can shoot down incoming missiles.
When we try to put those up, we are now going to be facing limitations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon] has expired.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania be allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, we are
trying to figure out exactly what this amendment does. We are kind of
worried, when the gentleman is taking a lot of time here, and we really
do not have a chance to do that.
Mr. HUNTER. I will be happy to strike the requisite number of words
on my own.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I appreciate very much the gentleman doing that.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record
these articles and this information.
The information referred to is as follows:

Deputy Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, February 7, 1995.
Memorandum for: Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy;
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy;
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy; Director, Ballistic Missile Defense; Senior
Deputy General Counsel, International Affairs and
Intelligence.
Subject: BMD program logic.

Here is a revised outline based on your inputs and pulled
together by Ash Carter. As always, your suggestions have been
helpful.
Attachment.

ballistic missile defense

I. BMD Program is determined by:
A. The threat--present and anticipated.
B. Technical and Program Options.
C. Cost and affordability--more resources for BMD means
some other modernization opportunities must be forgone.
D. ABM (and other) treaty implications.
II. The Threat
A. Present threat against CONUS (AK and HI slightly
different)
1. Russian ICBM and SLBM threat.
2. China--CSS4.
3. No Rest of World (ROW) BM threat to CONUS expected
before 2005 at the earliest. (Clapper testimony)
4. Vulnerability to surreptitiously delivered or air-
delivered nuclear device.
B. Future threat against CONUS
1. Russia and China.
2. ROW Proliferator indigenous development, e.g., North
Korea, Iran, Libya.
3. Delivery by BM or air breathers, e.g., cruise missile.
C. Effective CONUS defense against determined Russian
attack (several thousand RVs) problematic. Responses to this
threat are vigorous deterrent (NPR) plus priority on
preventing reemergence of threat (CTR).
against accidental or small attack (< 50 RVs without
sophisticated penaids) possible.
D. Theater Ballistic Missile Threat
1. Here today--for US and Allies; SCUDs NO DONG, CSS-2,
etc.
2. TBM can carry nuclear or unitary/submission CW/BW
warheads.
3. If unchecked, significant problem for U.S. forward
operations, esp. SWA, ROK.
4. ROW by purchase or SLV conversion.
5. Urgent defense requirements for US and Allies.
III. TBM Defense first priority ($2 billion/year)
A. Core Program (deployment planned):
1. PAC-3 First Unit Equipped (FUE) 1998
2. THAAD FUE 2002
3. Navy Lower Tier FUE 2000
B. Enhanced Program (technology development):
1. Navy Upper Tier
2. Boost Phase Intercept
3. Corps SAM (MEADS)
C. International cooperation emphasized.
D. Depending upon performance, any effective TBM system
(especially with the over-the-horizon threat cueing) will
have some marginal capabilities against faster strategic
incoming BM targets in one-on-one engagement.
E. U.S. will not accept limitations on TMD capabilities
that pose no threat to the basic principles of the ABM
Treaty.
IV. Technical and Program Options for National Missile
Defense (NMD)
A. System components include:
1. Early warning/Surveillance
2. Target acquisition and track--mix of ground based
multifunction radars, early-warning radars, space based EO/IR
sensors.
3. Interceptors--number, location, and performance.
4. Battle Management C3
B. An NMD system requires significant RDT&E before
deployment and the system may be either compliant or not
compliant with the ABM (and other) treaties.
C. The DoD NMD program consists of two elements
1. BMD Technology. R&D on BMD components that could
eventually be part of an advanced NMD or TMD system and
growth of TMD system for limited NMD capabilities.
a. Technology; Kinetic energy Boost Phase Interceptors,
advanced sensors, high powered lasers, advanced lightweight
projectile (LEAP), small business innovative research, and
innovative science and technology
b. Expenditures: $170M/year.
2. The Baseline Program. A treaty compliant three year R&D
program that will provide the option for deployment over an
additional three years, of an initial NMD system which might
or might not be treaty compliant. There is room for further
growth in system capabilities.
a. The system consists of a ground-based radar (GBR),
ground-based interceptor (GBI), and space based sensors
(SBIR-LEO) for cueing.
b. Expenditure: $520M/year (including $120M for SBIR-LEO).
D. The DoD budget does not fund an emergency response NMD
program that could be more rapidly deployed in case an
unanticipated threat emerges or capability was desired,
against accidental or inadvertent launch.
1. Such a system consists of 20-50 exo-kill vehicles (EKVs)
on MINUTEMAN II or III boosters with DSP, early warning
radar, and multifunction radar cueing.
2. This Emergency Response System would take two years to
develop (at a cost of $1 billion to the baseline) and two
years to deploy (at an additional cost of $2-4 billion to the
baseline)
3. The Emergency Response System would not be compliant
with either the ABM or START treaty.
4. ERS would be more effective to degree we know what
threat it would meet; therefore not wise to commit to
deployment until threat is clearer.
E. Summary Chart

NMD PROGRAM OPTIONS\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&D phase Deployment phase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BMD technology:
Advanced sensors................ Ongoing Not defined.
KE boost phase.................. $170M/year ................
DE boost phase.................. Treaty compliant ................
Innovative science and
technology.
2. Baseline NMD: Ground-based KE 3 year; $520M/ 3 years; not
interceptors with ground and space- year; treaty funded;
based cueing. compliant possibly treaty
compliant.
3. Emergency response: Ground-based 2 years; not 2 years; not
KE interceptors with early warning funded; funded; not
radar cueing. possibly not treaty
treaty compliant.
compliant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Treaty issues subject to review by Compliance Review Group.

F. Choices include:
1. Adding funds for NMD technology, to create more choices
for the future, such as strategic application of Navy
uppertier technology.
2. Adding funds for baseline system--risk reduction and,
schedule acceleration.
3. Adding funds for R&D phase of Emergency Response System.
V. Treaty Compliance
A. Purpose of ABM Treaty was to assure strategie stability
by prohibiting ABM deployment that had significant
capabilities against a retaliatory strategic missile attack.
The US stands by this purpose.
[[Page H1812]] B. The 1972 ABM Treaty does not reflect
either the changed geopolitical circumstances or the new
technological opportunities of today. We should not be
reluctant to negotiate treaty modifications that acknowledge
the new realities provided we retain the essential
stabilizing purpose of the treaty.
1. The ABM Treaty permits one particular ``thin'' system--
100 interceptors at Grand Forks ND with GBR and space based
sensor adjuncts. May be possible to deploy a satisfactory NMD
within these limits.
2. Other NMD configurations or TMD systems that do not meet
specific prohibitions of the treaty but are comparable to the
permitted ``thin'' system, e.g., the Emergency Response
system, would not undermine, the Treaty and should be
permitted.
C. TMD Demarcation--TMD is an essential defense capability
and we should pursue these programs diligently: we cannot let
Russian foot dragging on TMD demarcation issue slow TMD
programs.
1. Present US position proposes limits on demonstrated
capability of components (no testing against targets with
velocity 5 KM/sec or range 3500 km) and interceptor velocity.
This approach aimed at negotiability and prompt Russian
acceptance.
2. If Russians do not accept essential elements of US TMD
demarcation proposal soon, we should consider shifting our
proposal to a more technically straight forward position
based on the actual capability of a deployed TMD system to
defend against a substantial Russian retaliatory missile
strike.
____

Background.--The Spence amendment would modify Title II by
adding a new section that expresses the Sense of Congress
that negotiations with Russia and others to extend the ABM
Treaty to theater missile defense (TMD) systems be suspended
until the 104th Congress has had an opportunity to review
this matter.
Talking Points.--The U.S. ability to field effective TMD
systems is being jeopardized by the Clinton Administration.
In negotiations with Russia, the Administration has
proposed turning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
into an ``ABM-TMD Treaty''.
Additionally, they seek to ``multilateralize'' the Treaty,
so that instead of just two parties to the Treaty, there
could be ten or more. This would give Belarus or Uzbekistan a
veto or modifications/amendments to the Treaty, making it
more difficult to amend the Treaty were the U.S. to request
such changes.
They have also proposed to impose specific design
limitations on U.S. TMD systems (e.g., setting ``speed
limits'' on how fast U.S. TMD systems can fly). Such self-
imposed design limitations would have the effect of ``dumbing
down'' U.S. TMD systems and compromising the effectiveness of
U.S. TMD systems.
Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch in a recent
memorandum warned against the dangers of the Administration's
current approach to these negotiations.
Secretary Deutch suggested that, in light of Russian
intransigence in these negotiations, the U.S. should ``shift
our proposal to a more principled [demarcation] position''.
This clearly underscores the folly of the Administration's
current approach.
In a January 4 letter to the President, Mr. Spence, Mr.
Livingston, Mr. Gilman and the Republican Leadership in the
House suggested that these negotiations be suspended
temporarily. Unfortunately, the President has thus far
refused to budge.
The Spence amendment once again puts the Congress on record
as having deep concerns about the Administration plans and
the adverse impact they would have on national security.
I urge my colleagues to vote YES on the Spence amendment.
____

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 15, 1995.
Dear Colleague: One of the highest priority defense
capabilities currently under development and being fielded by
the Department of Defense (DoD) is theater missile defense
(TMD). U.S. TMD systems are designed to defend U.S. military
forces deployed overseas, along with friendly forces and
allies, from ballistic missile attack.
The threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles
is expanding. Several countries, including North Korea, are
developing missiles of increasing range and accuracy. Others,
such as Iran, have purchased missiles and production
technology from North Korea. Such proliferation underscores
the importance of fielding, at the earliest practical date,
advanced TMD systems--as advocated in Title II of H.R. 872,
the National Security Revitalization Act.
Unfortunately, the U.S. ability to field highly-effective
TMD systems is being jeopardized by the Clinton
Administration. Specifically, under the guise of
``clarifying'' the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty, U.S. negotiators have proposed in talks with
Russia and others to impose specific design limitations on
U.S. TMD systems that will significantly compromise U.S. TMD
capability. They have also proposed to ``multilateralize''
the ABM Treaty, making future amendments or changes to the
Treaty, such as those to deploy an effective ABM defense of
the United States, more difficult.
Based on these concerns, we sent a letter to the President
on January 4 suggesting that further negotiations be
suspended until the new Congress has had an opportunity to
examine these issues in detail. The President's reply
rejected our suggestion and stated his intention to continue
negotiating such an agreement. (The January 4 letter and the
President's response are attached for your information.)
It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to again communicate
our deep concerns about the Administration's position in
these negotiations and the adverse impact they would have on
U.S. missile defense programs. The amendment offered by Rep.
Floyd Spence, Chairman of the National Security Committee,
does just that. (A copy of the Spence amendment is printed
below.)
We strongly urge your support of both the Spence amendment
and Title II of H.R. 872 regarding missile defense.
Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich.
Floyd Spence.
Bob Livingston.
Dick Armey.
Ben Gilman.
Bill Young.
amendment offered by representative spence

At the end of Title II (page 12, after line 25), add the
following new section:
Sec. 204. Sense of Congress on Theater Missile Defense and
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States and its allies face existing and
expanding threats from ballistic missiles capable of being
used as theater weapon systems that are presently possessed
by, being developed by, or being acquired by a number of
countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North
Korea.
(2) Some theater ballistic missiles currently deployed or
are being developed (such as the Chinese CSS-2 missile and
the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile) have capabilities
equal to or greater than the capabilities of missiles that
were determined to be strategic missiles more than 20 years
ago under the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement I (SALT I)
Interim Agreement of 1972 entered into between the United
States and the Soviet Union.
(3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was not
intended to, and does not, apply to or limit research,
development, testing, or deployment of missile defense
systems, system upgrades, or system components that are
designed to counter modern theater ballistic missiles,
regardless of the capabilities of such missiles, unless those
systems, system upgrades, or system components are tested
against or have demonstrated capabilities to counter modern
strategic ballistic missiles.
(4) It is a national security priority of the United States
to develop and deploy highly effective theater missile
defense systems capable of countering the existing and
expanding threats posed by modern theater ballistic missiles
at the earliest practical date.
(5) Current United States proposals in the Standing
Consultative Commission (SCC) would multilateralize the ABM
Treaty, making future amendments or changes to the Treaty
more difficult, and would impose specific design limitations
on United States theater missile defense (TMD) systems that
will significantly compromise United States TMD capability.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that further formal negotiations in the Standing Consultative
Commission (SCC) and any informal discussions or negotiations
on either the demarcation between theater missile defense
(TMD) systems and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, or
any other efforts that bear on the viability of the ABM
Treaty, including multilateralization of the ABM
Treaty, should be suspended until the One Hundred Fourth
Congress has had the opportunity to review those matters.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 4, 1995.
Hon. Bill Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We appreciate your letter of October
22, 1994 responding to the letter of September 19, 1994
signed by a bipartisan group of legislators regarding the
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and constraints on
theatre missile defenses.
We welcome your assurances that your Administration is
``not going to rush'' the process of negotiating changes to
the 1972 ABM Treaty. It is our expectation that the new
Congress and relevant Congressional committees will want, as
an early order of business, to examine the wisdom of
expanding the ABM Treaty's limitations in the name of
``demarcating'' strategic and theatre missile defenses and
multilateralization this agreement. We also anticipate that
there will be considerable interest in reviewing the more
fundamental issue whether a treaty that is intended to
prohibit an effective defense of the United States against
missile attack is consistent with our Nation's vital security
interests and emerging threats.
Therefore, we respectfully suggest that further
negotiations on either the demarcation or multilateralization
efforts, or any other efforts that bear on the viability of
the ABM Treaty, be suspended until the new Congress has had
an opportunity to examine these questions with care.
Sincerely,
Richard K. Armey.
[[Page H1813]] Floyd Spence.
Newt Gingrich.
C.W. Bill Young.
Henry J. Hyde.
Benjamin A. Gilman.
Christopher Cox.
Larry Combest.
Tom DeLay.
Susan Molinari.
John A. Boehner.
Bob Livingston.
Jerry Lewis.
Joe Skeen.
Bill Paxon.
Joe Barton.
Joseph M. McDade.

The White House,

Washington, DC, January 26, 1995.
Dear Mr. Leader: Thank you for your recent letter
concerning theater missile defenses and the ABM Treaty. I
believe it is important for the Administration and the new
Congress to continue our dialogue on these important issues.
The Administration is firmly committed to two fundamental
objectives in the area of missile defenses. First, we believe
it is critical to preserve the viability and integrity of the
ABM Treaty. This important Treaty remains a cornerstone of
U.S. security policy and our new relationship with Russia. It
is also essential if we are to continue implementing the
dramatic reductions in strategic nuclear forces negotiated
during the Reagan and Bush Administrations (START I and START
II). Second, we are committed to deploying highly effective
theater missile defense systems (TMDs).
The key to preserving both the ABM Treaty and a robust TMD
program is the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations
in the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC). These
negotiations seek to clarify the distinction in the ABM
Treaty between TMDs (which are not limited by the Treaty) and
strategic ABMs (which are limited by the Treaty). This is not
a question of ``expanding'' the ABM Treaty's limitations.
Rather, we are acting in consonance with the sense of
Congress, as clearly expressed in the Missile Defense Act of
1991 (P.L. 102-190) and recently reaffirmed in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, that we
pursue negotiations to clarify the boundary between TMDs and
ABMs. The U.S. position in these negotiations is intended to
ensure that advanced U.S. TMD systems can proceed, even
though some of them may have a theoretical capability under
certain scenarios to intercept certain ballistic missiles.
Over the past year, we have made considerable progress in
the SCC towards achieving these objectives. All parties to
the negotiations agree on the need to clarify the TMD/ABM
boundary, and there appears to be an emerging consensus that
such important TMD systems as THAAD, CORPS SAM, Navy Lower
Tier and PAC-3 do not cross this boundary. There are,
however, still a number of substantive issues that need to be
resolved, including our commitment to secure specific
deployment options related to air-based TMD and Navy Upper
Tier. As I said in my letter of October 22, we will not rush
this process or enter into any agreement that does not meet
our national security requirements for highly effective TMDs.
This commitment was underscored by my recent decision to
proceed with demonstration/validation testing of the THAAD
TMD system.
I look forward to working closely with Congress as we
pursue our common objectives in this area.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise first of all, along with a number of other
Members on this side, to make inquiries as to exactly what the purpose
of this particular proposal is.
First of all, could I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter],
the particular objection we have, other than the fact that we are
multilateralizing the ABM Treaty, and I do not think we
multilateralized it, they did, when they splintered into a number of
different countries.
The former Soviet Union is no more, so countries which have missile
weapons, that missile defense system is still there.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the administration, by the President's own
admission, because he has sent a letter back to the Republican
leadership after they initiated a letter essentially asking the
President, having heard reports from the Pentagon that senior arms
negotiators were attempting to expand or were discussing with the
Soviet Union, with their negotiation team, the expansion of the ABM
Treaty to include limitations on theater defenses, and concerns with
that negotiation position were expressed by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, General Shalikashvili.
They were expressed at the hearing in which the gentleman sat in with
me when the Secretary of Defense appeared before us. My understanding
of his words, the transcript speaks for itself, is that he, too, was
concerned with negotiating limitations on theater defenses.
The Republican leadership sent a letter to the President and asked
him not to engage in negotiations that would limit theater defensive
systems. Let me say that the President responded with a letter, and I
can get the letter and we will have it before me, but as I recall, the
letter did not say or did not alleviate the concerns of the Republican
leadership.
Mr. SPRATT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to clarify the
question, the gentleman's real concern is not multilateralizing it,
because that is sort of a fact accomplished by the breakup of the
Soviet Union, but it is the fact that this administration seems to have
expressed concerns about the THAD in particular.
Mr. HUNTER. No, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman will continue to
yield, there were two concerns expressed by the Republican leadership.
One is multilateralization, bringing in the former Soviet States,
Byelorus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and others, but it was also the
limitations that are projected to be placed on the development of
theater defensive systems that has upset both our own military people,
who are concerned about protecting American military contingents in
theater, and a number of people, I think, on both sides of the aisle.
Therefore, the Chairman's resolution, as I understand, is a sense of
the Congress resolution advising the President that we do not wish him
to place constraints on theater ballistic missile systems through the
ABM Treaty.
Mr. SPRATT. The provision that is printed in the Record ends by
saying ``These negotiations should be suspended until the 104th
Congress has had the opportunity to review these matters.''
I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, does he have in mind simply
a hearing? What is the opportunity of review?
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, since I am the
world's greatest expert on my own opinion and my own perception, I
think it is a terrible mistake to enter in, when Navy upper tier, I
think the best theater defense system that the Navy is developing, is
possibly going to be constrained under what the President's negotiators
have proposed, I think it is a mistake to impose limitations on theater
defensive systems when we have a rapidly evolving threat coming from
China, from North Korea, from other sources.
My own opinion is I think we should not constrain theater defensive
systems. I think we need to have our intelligence personnel appear
before us. I think we need to see if Secretary Perry is going to
prevail, and if General Shalikashvili is going to prevail.
Mr. SPRATT. What the gentleman is seeking is just a hearing with the
relevant parties and interests before the committee so we could better
understand what is going on and express our opinion?
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would advise
my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, also to work with the
administration and try to change their opinion.
What I would like to do and what others would like to do is change
the position of the administration and not constrain theater missile
defense. I think it is a very difficult thing to do right now when the
threat is evolving rapidly, and I think also the multilateralization is
a problem.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for expressing some
clarification of what it is they seek. I have no particular problem
with it. I propose simply that we accept it and move on.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
I believe it is important to send a clear message to President Clinton
that a majority of Members in this Chamber do not agree with the
administration's position with respect to the ABM Treaty.
[[Page H1814]] Along with a number of other senior Republicans,
including Members of the Republican leadership, I requested the
President to suspend ongoing negotiations with regard to the ABM Treaty
until he consulted with the 104th Congress.
The President respectfully declined to do that. That's because the
administration is in the midst of negotiating changes to the treaty
that could undercut our ability to deploy highly effective TMD's.
The administration is also seeking to add other countries as
signatories to the ABM Treaty. That could pose an obstacle to
deployment of effective missile defenses for our national territory.
This amendment is a shot across the bow to the administration,
sending a clear signal that we are serious about this issue.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Spence's amendment.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let us move on. This is about hearings. We ought to
have them. We are on the record saying we ought to explore these
insignificant questions.
Let us not debate this matter. Let us accept it, and move on to other
more substantial and substantive amendments. We are prepared to deal
with it. I would have hoped that my colleague would have alerted me
earlier about this amendment and we could have talked about it in
committee, we could have looked at it thoroughly in committee.
Notwithstanding that, let us get beyond this, accept the amendment,
and let us move on to other items.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important policy decision that
the administration is undertaking right now with respect to theater
defense limitations.

{time} 1710

I think it is an extremely important issue. I would like to get a
vote on it because I think it is important to have a sense of the
House, regardless of the final outcome of the bill, on this issue. I
think it is a very important arms control limitation amendment. And I
would like to have a vote.
Mr. SPRATT. We accept the amendment. Is that not sufficient?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has the
time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Let me first respond to my colleague by saying, look, we
all know there are very significant amendments here. Take the
amendment. Every time you call for a vote, you take out of the debate
much more significant amendments that we need to debate here. You are
going to win today. We thought you had written the bill the way you
wanted to write it in the first place. You have got the votes to do it.
Why now trample upon the little bit of time that we have to try to make
up for it here? You could have written this bill any way you wanted to.
We accept the amendment, and let us go forward.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Is the distinguished and esteemed gentleman
acknowledging, or am I hearing something incorrectly, that the policy
is flawed as stands and should be changed?
Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman knows that both of us are very articulate
people. We need not put words in each other's mouth. I am saying very
specifically, you have got the votes. Go on and accept the amendment.
Let's not filibuster this issue. Let's get on to other amendments that
are very important. That is exactly what the gentleman is saying.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend the gentleman for yielding.
Let me just say to him that if this were a motion to adjourn or some
kind of a delaying motion, I would agree with him completely. I am just
saying to my friend, and I hope he will accept this, I think this is a
very important part of arms limitation. It got a lot of us riled up
when we saw it happening. You and I know the difference between having
a vote in which you have real numbers on the scorecard instead of an
acceptance where we say, ``Well, we accepted it to get it off the table
and under the carpet.''
I do intend to call a vote on it because I think it is important to
have a vote. I guarantee my friend I will be short of words for the
rest of the day.
Mr. DELLUMS. If I might reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, then let's get
on with it. Call for the vote and let's do it.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the need to move on when both sides are in
agreement about who is going to win today here on an important
amendment. I have not criticized anybody on the other side of the aisle
for raising a little ruckus around here about the Republican Contract
With America and having the most unusual 100-day period we have ever
had here. The reason I have not objected to the passion of anybody on
the other side, from the new conscience of the minority, Harold
Volkmer, or to any other passion is that I spent one-third of my adult
life, no, one-third of my entire 60 years in the minority on this side
and I feel your pain, and I mean it. But this is a moment I have waited
for, for a long time.
Look, Mr. Chairman. We all know that over 1 million Americans are
following this debate on C-SPAN. That is the Rose Bowl filled 100
times, or 10 times. That is the Coliseum filled 10 times. And they
don't have close-up cameras all the time.
I want to make a few points as the self-appointed historian of this
body, and I don't know who takes that role in the Senate.
Fifty years ago today, the Nazi empire of Hitler's Fortress Europe
was pushing buttons and launching in this month of February, 50 years
ago, hundreds of ballistic missiles. Their guidance systems were
rudimentary, but they were good enough to kill innocent men, women, and
children all over southern England. And those that did not make the
route killed innocent people as they fell on the Netherlands or Belgium
working their way to wreak havoc. Hitler's V-1, a cruise missile in
today's terminology, and his V-2, a ballistic missile, were not named V
for victory, they were named V for vengeance. Believe me, we can, God
forbid, have in the future what one of the great liberal papers of
America calls a ``rogue missile'' coming at us.
Listen to what one of America's 3 major newspapers says in closing in
an editorial that I found much exception to on technological points,
but listen to this closely. And I will tell who it is afterward:
``While it remains a global power and within the limits of
technological and financial sense,'' and this is what we will debate
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] in his forceful and
articulate manner in hearings later in the year, ``the United States
must be able to protect forces that it sends on distant missions. And
also to protect our allies. There lies the irreducible rationale for an
effective theater missile defense.''
That is the liberal great Washington Post.
Now, while we possess the technology to defeat a threat, certainly at
the level of Hitler's vengeance weapons, we now have the ability to
detect, to intercept, and to destroy incoming missiles, but we still do
not have the ability to protect one single American city, not a
village, hamlet, or town, not an innocent man or woman anywhere in the
continental United States or our possessions from Guam, where our day
begins, to the Virgin Islands, from Alaska to Hawaii, nowhere can we
defend ourselves from missiles. And we still hear voices in this
Chamber defending the ABM treaty signed with an evil empire, an entity
that is gone. It does not exist anymore.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
[[Page H1815]] Mr. DORNAN. We must later in the year address this
ghastly problem of us failing the Preamble to our great Constitution,
the original contract, to provide for the common defense.
There are lots of statements people make around here out of polling,
from all sorts of great pollers on both sides of the aisle, and we say
it is true that most Americans are opposed to most abortions, then we
debate that ad nauseam.
Then we have all sorts of things, we say do Americans want this, do
they want that?
Here is a statement that I say that I know cannot be refuted. Not
0.1, not 1 percent of this Nation knows that with the trillions of
dollars spent under Reagan-Bush or a quarter of a trillion that we are
going to spend every year into the future, that is $1 trillion during
the Clinton years, that we are unable to defend ourselves from some
rogue missile sent by some terrorist group.
I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] carefully talks--
--
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]
has again expired.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30
additional seconds.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
with all due respect, we are operating here with a very tight time
constraint. We do appreciate your historical perspectives. But I think
we do have to move on and get to the substance of this bill. We have
real concrete concerns that we have got to view here with the American
public and with our colleagues and we have got to move on. We would ask
that we call for a vote on this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield, I would ask my colleagues
since we are going to call for a vote, I think a vote is important to
send a message to the President. I would ask my colleagues to refrain
from making more speeches so there is time left for the other side to
offer the amendments that they have planned in the next several hours.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, with the caveat that this
would be the last 30 seconds, that we are going to restrain ourselves
from the unanimous consent and ask for the vote immediately following
this 30 seconds, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DORNAN. The gentleman is so gracious, I will cut it to 15 seconds
to finish my point.
I look forward to a debate with one of the fairest former chairmen
ever, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] on the danger of
suitcase bombs being dumped out of old freighters into the mud of our
harbors. That is equally as dangerous as a rogue missile. We will
discuss that later. But we must fulfill this part of the contract on
theater missile defense.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 320,
noes 110, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 135]

AYES--320

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--110

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
LaFalce
Leach
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--4

Becerra
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Young (AK)

{time} 1738

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Young of Alaska for, with Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
against.

Mr. OWENS, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Messrs. ROSE, PALLONE, LaFALCE,
FOGLIETTA, DOGGETT, MATSUI, LUTHER, MOAKLEY, WARD, and EVANS changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WILSON, Mr. POMEROY, and Mrs. LINCOLN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H1816]] The result of the vote was announced as above
recorded.
{time} 1740

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?

amendment offered by mr. spratt

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 41.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt:
Strike out title II (page 11, line 12 through page 12, line
25) and insert the following:

TITLE II--POLICY REGARDING PRIORITY FOR MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. POLICY.

The following, in the order listed, shall be the policy of
the United States with respect to the priority for
development and deployment of missile defense programs:
(1) First, ensuring operational readiness of the Armed
Forces and accomplishing programmed modernization of weapons
systems.
(2) Second, as part of such modernization, completing the
development and deployment at the earliest practicable date
of more effective theater missile defense (TMD) systems by
adequately funding essential theater missile defense
programs.
(3) Third, developing as soon as practicable, subject to
the availability of funding, a ground-based interceptor
system capable of destroying ballistic missiles launched
against the United States.

Mr. SPRATT. As I said earlier, one sure way of fulfilling the dire
prophecies set out in the preamble of this bill in title I is to do
what is called for in title II of the bill and sink huge sums of money
into a so-called national missile defense system, especially if this
missile defense system employs space-based interceptors at the earliest
practical date. That is why I am offering this amendment to title II of
the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I support a strong defense, I believe in and support
ballistic missile defense, but I think we need to get our priorities in
order. I first want to make sure that our forces--and they are going to
be downsized and smaller--are ready to fight. I want to make sure the
equipment they take to battle is the best we can possibly give them and
I want to assure them off the battlefield, they and their families, a
quality of life.
Title II can be read to mean many things. If it means a missile
defense system that envelops the whole Nation and employs space-based
interceptors, the cost will put at risk all of our other priorities.
During markup of this bill, I tried to clarify title II with an
amendment which I filed in the Record, an amendment stating exactly
what sort of system it calls for, and specifying a system with a
ground-based interceptor.
What happened? The amendment that I offered was rejected by every
Republican member of the committee.
I filed that same amendment in the Record for consideration on the
floor, but rather than offering it, I have taken it and boiled it down.
I am offering instead the boiled-down version that really tries to set
straight the priorities set forth in title II.
I offer this amendment because I think if title II becomes law
without it, it could be taken to mean deployment of a national defense
system made up of space-based interceptors. Such a system could easily
cost $25 billion to deploy, and that $25 billion can only be funded at
the expense of other priorities, like readiness and theater missile
defense, with which we are all concerned. My amendment is to make sure
that a national missile defense system is not put ahead of other,
higher priorities. It requires, very simply, this: One, that readiness
and modernization should be funded first and should take priority over
national missile defense. Second, that theater missile defense should
take priority over national missile defense because it deals with a
threat that is here and now, one our forces will face if deployed to
almost any theater in the world today.
The third priority my amendment states is that any national missile
defense system developed should start with a ground-based, and not
space-based, interceptor.
I am not opposed to space-based interceptors, but if they are to be
used for ballistic missile defense, they should come later rather than
sooner. The right place to start with missile defense technically and
in terms of cost is on the ground.
So I offer this amendment to correct several concerns I have about
title II of the bill.
First, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about national defense and about
national defense spending. I would like to see more money be spent on
national defense, but I also think that $250 billion a year is real
money and that it will fund our requirements, provided we spend it
wisely.
In the 1980's we spent $25 billion on the strategic defense
initiative without fielding a single system. In the 1970's we spent
$115 billion, in today's money, fielding the Spartan and Sprint, only
to stand them down once they had been deployed. We cannot afford such
excesses in the 1990's. That is why we have to be sensible, prudent and
cost-effective and amend title II and set our priorities straight.
Readiness first and foremost, that is the first priority; theater
missile defense over national missile and national missile defense must
start with ground-based interceptors rather than space-based
interceptors.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about ballistic missile defense. I
believe in it, and I think we should perfect a ground-based missile
defense system. The amendment I offered in committee would call for
just such a system. But the system I called for would be complied with
the ABM Treaty. I think the time is coming when we will want to change
the ABM Treaty, amend it by agreement with the Russians. But now since
START-II sits in the Russian Duma waiting to be ratified, now is not
the time to talk of abandoning or scrapping the ABM Treaty. We believe
that we can develop the capability of intercepting incoming missiles,
but we cannot be certain. We can be certain of this: If START-II is
ratified, 4,000 to 5,000
warheads aimed at us will be intercepted, taken down, their delivery
systems destroyed, their silos filled up. Why risk ratification of
START-II by even obliquely proposing, as title II does, that we scrap
the ABM Treaty?

My amendment does not preclude national missile defense; far from it,
it simply puts funding for missile defense in the right order, and I
urge support of the amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. First of all, I have the highest respect
for our colleague on the other side who has offered this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps few in this body have spent as much time on
missile defense as our colleague from South Carolina. I want to
acknowledge that up front, and his leadership role.
I do have a clarifying question I would like to ask of our colleague
who offers this amendment, because there has been a lot of rhetoric
spoken on the House floor in terms of what we are talking about.

{time} 1750

If my colleagues listen to our gentleman speak, he never once used
the words ``star wars'' during his eloquent statements on the House
floor. Now I have counted at least over 60 times the Members on the
other side have used that term, which means I am donating $60 to the
Science Fiction Writers Foundation to help them in their activities,
but our distinguished colleague never used that because he understands
what we are talking about here, I think, as well as anyone. But what he
does not mention in his amendment when he talks about a ground-based
interceptor system is whether or not that includes or even allows for
space-based sensors.
Would the gentleman qualify that for me, please?
My question is, as we have heard all this rhetoric about space-based
and all, the gentleman knows well what we talk about when we say space-
based sensors which are not actual weapons, but is a method of
detecting when missiles are actually launched.
Does the gentleman's motion, for the record, his amendment--in fact
does he intend to acknowledge it even though he does not say it?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina.
[[Page H1817]] Mr. SPRATT. As the gentleman knows, when I offered an
amendment in committee, it was very specific as to what the system I
would propose would be, and it is in the record. It includes a ground-
based system, and it includes sensors, either ground-launched, pop-up
systems, or space-based systems, so-called----
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I think----
Mr. SPRATT. Those two are necessary to this. I voted for the last
particular amendment because I think that probably the theater missile
defense, to reach its optimal efficiency, will need some satellite
assistance to cue the missiles.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
that point, and I think that is a very important point for us to begin
on, that the gentleman from the other side offering this amendment
agrees that space-based sensors are important for what the Minority
side wants to pursue, and that is a theater missile defense system.
I say to my colleagues, ``So, when you hear rhetoric on the floor,
people talking about space-based weapons, even this amendment calls for
space-based sensors, which I think our colleague would also acknowledge
the Russians already have, and in fact have been using, as a part of
their operational ABM system around Moscow.''
Let me say the reasons why I have to--my added point would be:
``Why did not the gentleman include that in the text of the
amendment?''
Mr. SPRATT. I was simply trying to simplify. In my opinion, if the
gentleman will read the other amendment which I filed in the Record, a
ground-based system includes by definitions space-based sensors. It
could have ground pop-up sensors, as the gentleman knows. At one time
the ground-based system had pop-up sensors that would have been
launched only at a time of threatened attack.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for that, and I take back my time.
The key problem that I have with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is
that it does not get at the heart of what this debate is all about, and
that is asking the Secretary to report back to us within 60 days for as
soon as practicable deployment of the beginning of a national ballistic
missile system.
Now we have it on the Record, the tiger team that did the research
for Secretary Perry looked at three options and, in fact, reported to
the Secretary last week that they can begin to deploy a limited
national defense system for approximately $5 billion over 5 years. It
is not 10, it is not 20, it is not 25; $5 billion.
Furthermore, they have stated that technology will
give us a 90-percent effective rate for the kinds of targets that it
would focus on, namely the SS-25 and a conglomeration of three missiles
with three warheads.

But we do not want to specifically limit what the Secretary can go
back and recommend to us, which is one of the further reasons why I
have to object to this. We do not want to tell him what he should, in
fact, be looking at. We want to leave that up to him, and we have
confidence in the Secretary that within 60 days he will come back and
tell us what the parameters of that system should look like.
Mr. SPRATT. Excuse me; will the gentleman yield?
The gentleman is saying that title 2 should be read to be carte
blanche to the Secretary of Defense. Waiting on him to write the check
and say what is needed?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, what we are saying is
we want the Secretary to come back to us within 60 days to tell us as
soon as practicable when he can deploy the national missile defense
system, and he acknowledges publicly he can deploy for not $10 billion,
not $20 billion, but $5 billion over 5 years.
Now, in terms of the first title of this, readiness, we are all for
readiness. As a matter of fact, we were extremely critical of the
Secretary when we acknowledged in the committee when he came before us
that his defense budget for this year is $5 billion less than the
acquisition accounts, than what he told us it would be last year. So we
acknowledge that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon] has expired.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and hope I can add some clarity to
this debate.
I think that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has shown
great leadership on this subject, and what he offers today is intended
to take the inexact language of H.R. 7 and help us go in a much more
constructive direction.
I am an unabashed supporter of ballistic missile defense which I know
is in our national security. In fact, last year I joined with our
former colleague, Now Senator Kyl, to add money to the BMD account. We
were successful in committee, but lost on the House floor.
The Spratt amendment does the sensible thing, particularly because it
makes clear that our priority for the short term is theater missile
defense and not national missile defense. I would urge that we deploy
at the soonest practicable day TMD, not NMD, and I worry that if and
when this Contract passes, we will skew our priorities and spend our
money on the wrong thing first.
Missile proliferation is here. One only has to go to the country of
Israel to realize how vulnerable that ally is. A missile launched from
Syria can land anywhere on the continental soil of Israel in 1 minute.
A missile launched from Iran takes 5 minutes. Our ballistic missile
defense capability is not adequate, not adequate. But what we must do
first is protect against short- and medium-term launches, and we are
proceeding to do that.
I also believe I heard my colleague, the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spratt], say--I hope he said--that space-based
interceptors, interceptors, should come later. I am not against space-
based interceptors in our future, but I am against them right now as a
priority.

{time} 1800

I believe that that is the intent of the gentleman's amendment, and I
will oppose any amendment that would ban space-based interceptors for
the future.
I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon], who is now running his interesting contest here, that the
``S'' word I intend to use here is space-based, and not star wars.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Spratt amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues I would like to comment on this. I
agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] when he talked
about the seriousness of what we are debating. We are debating really a
change in policy in this country. So I was disturbed as I was sitting
in my office and kept hearing all the comments about Star Wars, Star
Wars, Star Wars.
I was not around. I was not here in the Congress when Star Wars came
up, and I know there is some political gamesmanship being used with
regard to a national missile ballistic defense. I can only share with
you from personal experience. The gentlewoman cited Israel. All of you
know I served in the Gulf war, and the first Scud that came in in
Dhahran was exploded by a Patriot interceptor above our head, and the
fuselage landed in a John Deere implement plant. So I understand what
theater missile ballistic defense is about, and I congratulate the
gentleman for his sincerity in his effort to move in further
development of theater ballistic defense. But I also share a concern
about national ballistic defense, and the present vulnerability that we
have and the present policy that this President has undertaken.
So I think that there is a major shift in policy, and one which this
Congress should debate about and one which we should in fact change.
To the reference to Star Wars, I do have to add this though to my
colleagues, that science fiction becomes science fact. Think of that.
Science fiction does become science fact. So when you use the word
``Star Wars'' and you throw that out there as if you are trying to say
we are going to throw some money down some rat hole and we
[[Page H1818]] never know what is going to happen, I want you to think
about a couple of things.
Those that say that a national missile ballistic defense is some
flight into fantasy, think of this: The use of a submarine I am sure
was a flight into fantasy for John Paul Jones; and I am sure that the
use of air power in the land battle was a flight into fantasy for
General Sherman, to utilize balloons in the Civil War; and I am sure
the use of an atomic weapon would have been a flight into fantasy for
General Pershing and General Summerall in World War I. And I am sure
that the use of satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles was a flight
into fantasy,
that we used in the Persian Gulf war, to in fact General Eisenhower.

Mr. Chairman, Jules Verne turned science fiction into science fact
when he foresaw man walking on the bottom of the ocean, for which we
have today. My gosh, even those of us that grew up in the George Jetson
era saw teleconferencing in the early 1960's on TV.
But the reason I bring that up is when you use star wars out there, I
think you are complementing America. You really are. You think you are
trying to tear down something. But when you refer to star wars, you are
buying into something. You are buying into the saying yes, America has
the innovation and the initiative and the drive to develop new
technologies.
So you can use star wars. Some people get offended by it. I think it
is a compliment. You are complimenting those of us that want to pursue
the development of technology. So use it. I am not offended.
I know what it is like to be there on the ground floor, under a
missile attack, and have it intercepted by a Patriot. Thank God there
were people here in this body that had the willingness to develop such
technologies. And if any of you were here that made those decisions,
God bless you, and I am thankful to you.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], requiring that readiness,
modernization of equipment and quality of life for military personnel
and their families are adequately funded and given priority over
national missile defense.
The cold war is over, and the threat of a large-scale nuclear war has
been greatly diminished. While I agree with my colleagues that there is
a need for missile defense programs, I do not believe that additional
funding should be placed in a space-based interceptor system at this
time.
Mr. Chairman, in the two previous administrations, we poured over $30
billion into programs like Brilliant Pebbles, gamma ray lasers, neutral
particle beams, and more, and all we have to show for it are the
engineering view graphs. After spending $30 billion we do not have one
weapons system to show for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
I have four military installations either in or on the edge of my
district. Moody Air Force Base, Albany Marine Logistics Base, Fort
Benning, the Army's premier infantry center, and Robins Air Force Base.
Most importantly, the military personnel, these young men and women,
are the first to deploy and leave their families in time of conflict.
They always stand ready to go on the call of the Commander-in-Chief,
professionals, trained to execute their military orders, and, if
necessary, they are willing to pay the ultimate price.
When visiting these installations, my conversations with the troops
focus around the issues of readiness, of modernization of equipment,
and the quality of life for their families. Many of them are concerned
about sufficient support for our military effectiveness. They question
whether we will truly be able to adequately fight two major conflicts
anywhere in the world at one time. They further question me about the
commitment of this Congress to replace outdated equipment, weapons
systems, computer systems, software and hardware, and, last but not
least, they express concern about the lack of adequate housing and the
other support for the welfare of their young military dependent
families.
Let there be no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman. These young men and
women are not complaining about serving their country. In fact, they
serve this country with great pride, dignity, and honor. At a time when
we pledge to balance the budget and to be more responsible in our
spending, let us be responsible to the readiness and the welfare of our
troops and their families.
Support the amendment that invests in readiness, in modernization,
and quality of life for our military personnel and their military
dependent families. Support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by the
gentlemen from South Carolina requiring that readiness, modernization
of equipment, and quality of life for military personnel and their
families are adequately funded and given priority over national missile
defense.
The cold war is over and the threat of a large scale nuclear war has
been diminished. While I agree with my colleagues that there is a need
for a Missile Defense Program, I do not believe that additional funding
should be placed in a space-based interceptor system at this time. Mr.
Speaker, in the two previous Administrations we poured over $30 billion
dollars into programs like Brilliant Pebbles, Gamma Ray Lasers, Neutral
Particle Beams, and more, and all we have to show for it are the
engineering view graphs. After spending $30 billion, we do not have one
weapon system to show for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
I have four major installations in or on the edge of my District:
Moody Air Force Base, Albany Marine Logistics Base, Fort Benning, the
Army's premier Infantry training facility, and Robins Air Force Base.
Most importantly, the military personnel, these young men and women,
are the first to deploy and leave their
families during a time of conflict. They always stand ready to go on
the call of the Commander in Chief. Professionals, trained to execute
their military orders and if necessary pay the ultimate price.

When visiting these installations, my conversations with the troops
focus around the issues of readiness, modernization of equipment, and
the quality of life for their families. Many of them are concerned
about sufficient support for military effectiveness. They question
whether we will truly be able to adequately fight two major conflicts
anywhere in the world at one time. They further question me about the
commitment of Congress to the replacement of outdated equipment,
computer systems, software, and hardware; and, last but not least, they
express concern about the lack of adequate housing and support for the
welfare of their young military dependent families. Let there be no
misunderstanding, these young men and women are not complaining about
serving their country. In fact, they serve this country with great
pride, dignity, and honor.
At a time when we've pledged to balance the budget and be more
responsible in our spending, let's be responsible to the readiness and
welfare of our troops and their families. Support the amendment that
invests in readiness, modernization, and quality of life.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, like all members of our Committee on National Security,
I have the greatest respect for my friend from South Carolina, and I
want to thank him for all of his efforts and work with respect to
missile defense.
I want to also thank Members on the Republican side, and I know I am
looking at Mr. Weldon, and I think of him and Mr. Hefley and Hal Rogers
and others that signed a letter to Israel in 1987 saying that although
you have great fighter aircraft and you have great armor and great
ground troops, if a missile was launched, a Russian missile from a
neighboring Arab country, you would have no defense against it, and we
asked them to drop the LAVI fighter system and start developing a
theater ballistic missile defense system.
I want to thank them for that letter to our SDI leaders and to
Israel, because it had an effect in turning Israel away from building
fighter aircraft and doing what they knew they had to do for national
survival, and that is defend against incoming missiles. And I might say
to my colleagues that that projection turned out to be an accurate
projection. While we projected Russian missiles might come from Syria,
they came from another Arab country. The truth of the matter that we
have to be able to stop incoming ballistic missiles was not lost on
them.
Let me go straight to what I think are the fatal defects in the
Spratt
[[Page H1819]] amendment. First, it competes readiness and missile
defense, and readiness and missile defense should not be competed. I
can tell the gentleman that under this Republican House, and I think
with the gentleman's help, the readiness budget that the President
submitted will be increased this year. I can say as the chairman of the
procurement subcommittee that the procurement budget that Secretary
Perry cut again, just 12 months ago, from $48 billion to $39 billion,
will be increased this year. I think I can tell the gentleman that with
some confidence. This is not an either/or situation. In competing these
systems, it is like telling an infantry commander, you cannot have any
defense against mortars until you can certify to me you have a total
defense against machine guns. The point is that missile defense does
contribute to readiness because your soldiers in the rear area, if it
is theater
defense, know they have some knowledge they are going to be defended
against incoming missiles. I would submit there also is an increase in
morale if they know their communities back home have some defense
against a Libya or against an Iraq or against another adversarial
country.

So the point is we are not going to decrease readiness, we are not
shopping readiness versus theater defense, we are not going to decrease
procurement, shopping procurement against theater defense. And, lastly,
the gentleman leaves out the word ``deploy.'' The Republican policy is
to deploy a national missile defense.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk about the cost. This is a
statement that Secretary Perry made, and I have tried to give it a
couple of times. But he said:

We have a national missile defense program. That is the
program the Secretary is funding, which will lead I think in
a timely way to a deployed system. It will be at a relatively
small cost, probably $5 billion in very round figures for the
cost of the system.

Mr. Chairman, we are spending 10 times that amount in environmental
costs in the defense budget. So if the gentleman put up something that
said maybe we should shop environmental costs off in favor of national
missile defense, I might be inclined to accept the Spratt amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
{time} 1810

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding.
I just want to add that in that assessment done for the Secretary,
General O'Neill tells us that we can get a 90 percent effective rate
against three SS-25s that would be the likely scenario of a third world
nation getting SS-25 capability. Some would argue that is not possible.
I would remind my colleagues, as I know my colleague in the well
knows, that it was just a few short months ago that the Russians
offered to Brazil to take an SS-25 and use it for a space launch
effort. So they in fact are looking at the availability of making the
SS-25 architecture available for other countries.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell my
colleagues also that two representatives from two of our national
nuclear laboratories were here last week stating that they can build a
space system for about 50 percent more. That is about $7.5 billion. And
that, once again, is roughly less than 1/100th of the defense budget on
an annual basis and less than half of what we spend on environmental
matters in the defense budget.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. I just wanted to have the gentleman clarify, as he just
did, that the chart does not refer to star wars. It is a ground-based
missile defense system and that some estimates for a star wars space-
based system go from $11 billion to $50 billion and even Gen. Colin
Powell has said that the national missile defense system would take
away funds from other important defense programs.
Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me just answer the
gentleman by saying that two of the most prestigious scientists in this
country, one from Livermore National Laboratory, one from Los Alamos,
said that a space-based system could be achieved for $7.5 billion.
Let me just say further to the gentleman that the term ``star wars,''
at least as used by a lot of people who have used it for the last 20
years, means anything that shoots down an incoming ballistic missile.
If they have a problem with that, I do not understand it. But certainly
this system that Dr. Perry talked about is a system that engages
incoming missiles in space.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I want to clarify what Dr. Evers, the
Deputy Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Office with the
administration said yesterday in my office. The maximum amount for a
full-blown ballistic missile defense system for our Nation would be $20
billion. So where these numbers are coming from, I do not know. But
using the estimates of your officials in your administration, Dr.
Evers, he said the maximum amount would be $20 billion, Dr. Evers, in
my office.
Mr. HUNTER. Let me just say to my friend, we have people with varying
ideas. Our point to the gentleman from South Carolina is, doggone it,
let us have some hearings. Let us bring the Secretary in. Let us bring
our experts from the national labs in. And let us make a decision. But
let us not go with the gentleman from South Carolina's own choice, his
own favorite choice, a ground-based system.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Does the gentleman know the cost of the Patriot system,
all of them, from 1967 forward? He is not here to tell the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] that it was LBJ's program.
Mr. HUNTER. I would answer my friend that the Patriot system probably
cost us a fortune. Almost everything that we did under our procurement
regulations did.
Mr. SPRATT. Over $16 billion.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Listening to all this, I was wondering, about where
these missiles come from, I was wondering if the gentleman from
California has even seen the movie ``The Russians are Coming, The
Russians are Coming''?
Mr. HUNTER. Let me just answer my friend and tell him that when our
troops were in Desert Storm, had incoming ballistic missiles, although
those were not Russians, those were Russian-made missiles. And
according to our best estimates of our intelligence officers, the
weapon of choice of these Third World terrorist nations is missiles.
And the Russians have let the technology out of the box.
There are Middle Eastern nations shopping in the Soviet Union right
now for scientists who will sell anything, including fissile materials
for a few bucks. If you believe your own Director of the CIA, Mr.
Woolsey, it is time for us to move forward. Mr. Woolsey, it is time for
us to move forward. Mr. Woolsey said that a number of these terrorist
nations will have some ICBM capability. That means the ability to reach
American cities a little bit after the beginning of this next decade.
That means within 6 or 7 years.
As the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] just pointed out,
it took us 20 years to develop the Patriot missile. So I think the
message for us is, let us get started. That is what the Republican
contract does. It says, ``shall deploy.'' And the fatal flaw of the
amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is it does
not say shall deploy. It simply says ``develop.''
[[Page H1820]] Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, it appears to me that this whole agenda that I am
seeing here and all these scare tactics and everything reminds me that
perhaps I am right in the conclusion that the John Birch Society now
controls the Republican agenda on the floor of the House.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
Mr. SPRATT. I just wanted to ask the gentleman, who had generously
offered to reduce environmental funding in order to fund ballistic
missile defense, if he had seen the letter from his Governor of
California, Governor Wilson, chastising the Secretary of Defense for
not fully funding environmental restoration in this budget and for
rescinding some environmental money and saying that he would pursue the
Secretary of Defense to the full extent of the law. I do not want to
pit the gentleman against his own Governor.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from South
Carolina, I think when Governor Wilson looks at what this member of the
committee has done with defense funding and in the defense bill, he is
going to be very disappointed on an environmental basis. He is going to
be very happy on a strategic defense basis.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague from California made a very
important statement. He said that there are a number of figures
floating around here, so let us hold hearings. Let us talk about that
for a moment.
When the Secretary of Defense came before the House Committee on
Armed Services at this gentleman's request, the Secretary of Defense
said that to put in place a limited ground-based system would cost
between $5 and $10 billion. That is one figure. My distinguished
colleague in the well from southern California said $20 billion for a
space-based system. Some of our staff came to the conclusion that it
would be in excess of $25 billion.
The Pentagon said that to go into space, a system could cost anywhere
between $30 and $40 billion. The point is that we do not know.
But what does this bill say? This bill says, Mr. Chairman, it
``shall'' be the policy. We are able to handle the English language. It
does not say it ``may be'' the policy. It says it ``shall be'' the
policy of the United states to deploy at the earliest practicable date
a national missile defense system, and it says that within 60 days the
Secretary of Defense shall report back to Congress on a plan to
implement such a policy.
But when asked, are you embracing the present administration's policy
with respect to ballistic missile defense, they say no. We want to go
beyond that.
So let us not be disingenuous with each other. Let us be candid.
Now, if we are saying that we want the present administration's
limited ground-based ballistic missile defense system for $5 or $10
billion, then say that and not quote it out of context. If we want a
space-based system, then say that as well. But my colleagues said, let
us hold hearings.
This gentleman's entire argument on the committee and on the floor
has been, when we move from campaign promise to legislative initiative,
allow the process to be deliberative and substantive and thoughtful.
This is not a deliberative and substantive process, Mr. Chairman. We
only had one half-day hearing on this issue at this gentleman's request
and calling of the Secretary of Defense. We got another half-day
hearing that, in part, dealt with this and the entire range of the
bill, H.R. 7, which was the original vehicle, for 2 half-days of
hearings. That is not a substantive deliberative process.
{time} 1820

Mr. Chairman, this gentleman knows, and so does this gentleman, a
more deliberative process would be to raise these issues in the context
of the DOD authorization bill allowing the gentleman's subcommittee and
others in a deliberative, substantive, thoughtful way to hold detailed
hearings, to look at the implications, and arrive at a more intelligent
view as to what it is we want and how much it is going to cost.
We are sitting here today, Mr. Chairman, in the afternoon looking at
$5 or $10 billion on the low end and $40 billion on the high end. We
are just throwing figures around. I would want to underscore what my
colleague, the gentleman from California, said. Why not slow down this
process and let us hold hearings, and let us carry out our fiduciary
responsibilities to the voters and the taxpayers that we quote so
regularly around here, and do something responsible.
Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is place the policy before the
budget consideration. That just flies in the face of logic and
rationality. It makes no sense.
In a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, on the next amendment, there is going
to be a motion to prohibit funds for a space-based interceptor. That is
either a laser system or Brilliant Pebbles. That is something that
shoots down weapons systems. We all know that, if we go to space-based
interceptors, we are talking about tens of billions of dollars. The
Secretary of Defense said that and so did the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs. That is a verbatim quote in the transcript that we all know,
because we were all there and we all heard it.
Why, Mr. Chairman, should we be rushing to judgment, putting the cart
before the horse? This can be dealt with in the normal course of
things, and my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Hunter], and I can deliberate intelligently, rationally, and
substantively.
Why do we have to rush to judgment in the context of this contract
with a 10-hour debate on the substantive initiative?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the one place where I disagree with the gentleman in
his statement is this. It was a judgment, a political judgment, I think
of this Nation, I think it is the will of this Nation, and it was I
think a major referendum in the election.
It is the will of the Republican Party in putting the contract
together and I think the will of Republicans and Democrats across the
country to do one thing that does not require hundreds of hearings and
does not require our participation in the process, and that is this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dellums
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the one thing is manifested in two words,
``shall deploy.'' I would say to the gentleman, once we have made the
policy decision to deploy, at that point we then go through the process
of what type of deployment will take place. I think that is reasonable
and logical.
I would offer to my friend that when President Kennedy said ``We are
going to go to the moon,'' he did not first try to decide what kind of
rocket it was going to take, he did not have the analysts come in and
try to cost the thing out for 20 years. He set that as a policy, and we
fleshed the policy out. I do think it is relevant that the Secretary of
Defense said ``You can fulfill this thing for $5 billion if you do it
against a thin attack,'' so once we have made the policy judgment to
deploy, and this is a very important amendment, because the Republican
bill, the House bill, the Armed Services bill, does say ``shall
deploy,'' and we then flesh that out.
Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I have given the
gentleman the opportunity to fully discuss this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
has expired.
[[Page H1821]] (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dellums was allowed to
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a colloquy here.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did not react adversely to the assertion
that this gentleman made that we are throwing figures around here and
we ought to have a hearing, but the gentleman said it was a political
judgment. Let me speak to that for a moment.
If they walk into a room of people and say to them ``Did you know we
do not have a defense against a ballistic missile system,'' I would bet
my last dollar they would say, ``Wow, no.'' Then they would say, ``And
we don't have one.'' They would say, ``Gee, we don't? Maybe we
should.''
However, if I were able to enter the room, I could say several
things: One, ``Folks, we are spending $3 billion a year on theater and
national ballistic missile defense, $400 million on national missile
defense, $120 to $130 million on Brilliant Eyes, a space-based sensor
program that my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania alluded to
earlier, and over $2 billion on theater ballistic missile defense.''
The last time I looked that was not chump change. That was a
significant commitment of billions of taxpayer dollars.
The second point, Mr. Chairman, if I entered that room and said to
the American people assembled ``Look, folks, what makes you think that
some third world country, even if they had the capacity to spend
billions of dollars to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile
capacity, would launch a missile toward the United States?''
We could see it on radar. Within seconds we could pinpoint who it is
and render them a hole in the planet Earth, within seconds. Do you know
what they could do? The easiest thing they could do? Hide a nuclear
bomb in a bale of marijuana. We have not been able to catch that very
well. It is easy to sneak it into the country.
You can backpack a nuclear missile into this country. You can bring a
nuclear weapon into the coast of the United States with a commercial
carrier. You can bring a nuclear weapon into the United States piece by
piece, put it in the Empire State Building, and explode it.
What makes anyone think that spending billions of dollars on some
absurd program with dubious value is going to deal with the terrorist
effort? If we do, and heaven forbid if we ever do, if we do experience
a nuclear bomb, it is not going to come from some international effort,
it is going to come from a terrorist attack. This program does not
address that issue whatsoever.
When Mr. Perle, one of their witnesses, came before the committee, I
asked Mr. Perle ``Wouldn't it be easy to bring a nuclear weapon in a
bale of marijuana,'' and his exact response was ``That would be the
safest way to bring it into the United States.''
They can go into these kaffeeklatsches and scare people, but our
responsibility, once you have knowledge, you have the burden of your
knowledge. There are people in this room who know what the facts are
and who have knowledge.
We have the burden of the responsibility not to exploit ignorance,
but to communicate education.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman, I
think, supports theater defenses. That is the capability in theater to
shoot down slow-moving ballistic missiles, Scud type ballistic missiles
that are coming into troop concentrations.
Mr. DELLUMS. We have theater ballistic missile programs coming out of
the ears. The gentleman knows it, and so do I.
Mr. HUNTER. Let me just ask my friend, if he relies on a policy of
deterrence based on the idea that we are going to destroy anyone who
launches a ballistic missile against the United States, why wouldn't he
use the same rationale and rely on the policy of deterrence against
anyone who would shoot a slow-moving missile, and say to Iraq, ``If you
shoot a slow-moving missile at Rijadh, we are going to use a nuclear
weapon against you?''
Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating,
because the gentleman is shifting ground.
Mr. HUNTER. No, I am asking a question.
Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman is now talking about theater ballistic
missiles, and Mr. Chairman we already just pointed out that we are
spending in excess of $2 billion.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
has expired.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. ROEMER. Reserving the right to object, I have a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ROEMER. Is this debate taken off the 10-hour time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, it is carving into the 10
hours.
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the Chair, and I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I again ask unanimous consent to proceed
for 1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman now raises a question about
theater ballistic missiles. The proponent of the amendment before the
body at this point has squarely put that issue before us, saying that
that is a significant priority.
However, the gentleman's discussion in this bill is about national
missile defense systems, and we are saying that is tens of billions of
dollars, and it is going in the wrong direction, because it does not
speak to the likelihood of what might be a provocation. That is a
terrorist provocation, not an over the horizon missile.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would my friend yield for one brief
question?
Mr. DELLUMS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. My question was, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to rely on
deterrence, as the gentleman has suggested with national missile
defense, and not have a national missile defense, why does not that
same reliance on deterrence, why is it not being used in the theater,
and why does the gentleman not endorse it in the theater?
Instead of having a theater ability to shoot down an incoming
missile, why not just say ``We are going to launch on Baghdad when you
send a Scud at us?'' I think that is a legitimate question.
Mr. DELLUMS. My quick response to the gentleman is that deterrence
has worked. We have not thrown nuclear weapons at each other, but we
are fighting out there in regions of the world. We fought in Desert
Storm. That is a reality.
This missile exchange between us and some other person is a serious
flaw. There has been no nuclear exchange.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, because I
believe it embraces the policy of vulnerability. We have heard over and
over that the cold war is over, that the threat is gone, but Mr.
Chairman, the public does not believe that.
They realize that the former countries within the U.S.S.R. still have
developed and deployed threats, missiles out there, to the tune of tens
of thousands. How many of those have been taken out of service since
the breakup of the U.S.S.R.? Dozens, or perhaps hundreds?
No, Mr. Chairman, they have not. They are still out there, they are
still deployed. We are still vulnerable to those missiles.

{time} 1830

Not only that, their technology is now for sale. We know that it has
been sold. There is enough evidence that it has been sold to Third
World countries and that is has been deployed. We saw it during Desert
Storm. So we have a deployed threat in Third World countries.
[[Page H1822]] Over the last couple of years, Mr. Chairman, even this
country has sold high-speed processors, computers capable of designing
better and better guidance systems, once again increasing the
vulnerability of this country. This does not cover all the threats that
are out there. We know how quickly the mood can change internationally.
We know that this is a big problem.
But one of the problems with this amendment is that it addresses only
the development and not the deployment. We know that the threat is
deployed, not only in the former U.S.S.R. but in Third World countries.
So knowing that the threat is deployed and that we are vulnerable, I
think it makes a very simple choice. If you favor this, you favor a
continued policy of vulnerability. So if you vote for this amendment,
then you continue to vote for this policy of vulnerability.
It is time to vote ``no'' on this amendment offered by the gentleman
from South Carolina.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think there is an awful lot of debate, hot debate on
the House floor these days about where our priorities should be, and
what the threats to this country are, both domestic and
internationally.
One of the major concerns of the American people is our national
security. I do not question that their concerns are going to be
addressed fully in this bill. But the fact is that this country can
never be completely secure. There are always going to be threats.
The question before the committee that has to make these decisions is
whether or not the threat that is being posed by missile attacks is
going to be suitably addressed by the $2.9 billion that is currently in
the bill. You have got $400 million that is going to be spent on
national missile defense. What this legislation will do if the Spratt
amendment is not included will be to uncontrollably add to the cost of
the national missile defense program.
You talk about deploying a system. Nobody has any problem, it seems
to me, with suggesting that if there is a real threat to the United
States that can come either from a Third World country or it can come
from another nation that happens to have thousands of nuclear missiles
that can attack this country, that we ought not to take every step
possible to deter that attack. But if in fact the cost of that
deterrence rises so quickly that it cannot actually be achieved by any
reasonable level of defense spending, and if second to that there is no
technology that exists in the Nation or in the world today to be able
to offset that threat, then are we not just playing pie in the sky with
the emotions of the American people? That is ultimately what goes on
here.
I voted with many Republicans for a balanced budget amendment. But I
did not do that to see this kind of irresponsible spending take place
in this Chamber. We have got to be reasonable about what our priorities
are and stop suggesting that we are going to be able to pay for the
kinds of additional costs that this bill will have if we do not contain
both the Spratt amendment and the Edwards amendment that is going to be
coming up that say, yes, we ought to have a national defense against
nuclear missiles that can attack this country, but we ought to do it
with smarts, we ought to do it assessing what the existing technologies
are, and we ought to do it with the costs in mind that are going to
cripple this economy and cripple the people of this country, if we do
not in fact keep in mind the escalating costs of national defense.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
What this bill simply says, we do not put a dollar amount. We simply
say to the Secretary, come back to us within 60 days and tell us what
is doable in terms of implementing national missile defense. We then
have to take his recommendations and put them into the context of all
of our other priorities and there is an authorization process that
allows us to go through that. We are not saying spend any amount of
money. All we are saying is come back and tell us, that's all.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, if that is what
this bill said, I think you would get a lot more support.
What this bill says is that you are going to deploy the system.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No, it does not.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, it does say that you are going to
deploy the system.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. It does not say ``we.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And you do not have a system, there is
not a system that is designed in this country that can be deployed
today that will in fact in any way deter the Russians or the Brazilians
or anybody else for attacking America if they so desire through a
nuclear missile system.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Let me introduce an objective source. We passed in 1991
the Missile Defense Act calling for the deployment of a limited defense
system by 1996. It originated in the Senate. It also called for a study
by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office and by the Secretary of
Defense to be submitted to Congress in 6 months, and I have that study
here. It came in 1992 from the Bush administration.
On page 41, here is the conclusion: For a limited defense system,
according to SDIO estimates, acquiring six limited defense sites in
brilliant eyes is expected to raise the total cost of the limited
defense system, they recommended six sites, on the order of $35
billion, 1991 money.
This is a limited defense system, Bush administration, $35 billion,
and they say this is a preliminary estimate.
What happens if you add brilliant pebbles, which was not included,
next page?
The anticipated incremental cost of acquiring such a space-based
interceptor system involving 1,000 brilliant pebbles as part of the
overall architecture would be about $11 billion in 1991 money,
including associated technology-based activities. That is $46 billion.
This came from the Bush Defense Department, officially submitted to
Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy
of Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me just respond to my friend, if you accepted his numbers, and
once again we have representatives from the two laboratories saying we
can now do a brilliant pebbles deployment for about $7.5 billion. But
if you accept that, we spend more money in the defense budget for the
environment, for environmental compliance, than the total number that
the gentleman just put together.
I would say to you that I think this is a Republican position that
has been manifested ultimately in this contract that the American
people consider putting a missile defense up being more important than
spending environmental money in the Department of Defense bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, the fact of the
matter is, and the gentleman makes a good argument in terms of what the
priorities of the national defense of the country are. But the reality
is, there simply is not a technology available that can actually deter
the kind of threat that the gentleman is suggesting that we deploy a
system to combat. It just does not make any sense.
I do not have any problem, and I do not think that even people in as
liberal a district as mine have a problem with defending the United
States of America. We have to have the research done that this bill
calls for to end up designing a system that can actually accomplish the
threat.
What you are walking around doing is talking to everybody in the
American public about this threat that is going to occur to this
country and that
[[Page H1823]] you want to go ahead and deploy a system and you have
not even thought through what your system is. That is the problem that
you have got to end up solving.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. HUNTER. I just say to my friend, Secretary Perry just appeared
before us with the words I just showed him that said we can defend
against an attack for $5 billion----
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. A theater.
Mr. HUNTER. Not theater. National missile attack.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Against 20 missiles.
Are you telling me for $5 billion you can defend an all-out attack
from the Russians?
Mr. HUNTER. No. But Secretary Perry did not say a theater missile
attack. He said a national missile attack.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Rose and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of
Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. ROSE. I would like to ask the freshman Republicans to answer a
question for me. Did you all not meet with Edward Teller? Did you not
meet with Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, and did
Edward Teller not tell you freshman Republicans, ``You have got to
build star wars''? Is that not what this is all about?
Edward Teller knows tonight that the physics has not even been
discovered, ladies and gentlemen, to build this thing you are asking
the American taxpayer to deploy.
What in the world is this you are trying to sell to the American
people? I would like to be a subcontractor in this part of the Contract
With America. My God, it would be a great contract, ladies and
gentlemen.
Let us be careful here. Star wars is not what this county needs right
now.
{time} 1840

It is cops on the street, it is education for our children, it is the
other things that we know are on this planet that we need.
Please, support the amendment of my colleague from South Carolina and
my colleague from Texas.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a couple of points. Mr.
Chairman, in spite of all of the rhetoric and the issues that have been
discussed here in terms of dollars and all of these Star Wars
pronouncements and redirecting priorities and all of these things, this
debate really I think boils down to two subjects. The gentleman from
Massachusetts just suggested I think, as the gentleman from Missouri
did earlier, that there is no threat, and, therefore, we do not have to
worry, and we should be doing other things.
I would just like to remind the Members on the other side who may not
even be aware of this that on January 18 of this year the acting
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said these words. He said:

The proliferation relates to the nonproprietary nature of
technology. This means that what will be proliferated will be
new and more diverse forms of lethality, increasing threat
reach, that is longer ranges including ultimately ranges from
problem states that can reach the United States, toward the
end of this decade.

That is an appointment by President Clinton, the head of our Central
Intelligence Agency.
So, for the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from
Massachusetts to say we should not worry about this threat flies in the
face of the statement made by the chief intelligence officer of the
United States.
There is a threat. We all know there is a threat. Dick Cheney said
there would be a threat in 1991 when he predicted that the Soviet Union
was going to go away and we would have a whole new set of problems to
face, one of which is the proliferation of nuclear technology and
intercontinental ballistic missile technology.
The other issue that I would like to address has to do with the
misrepresentation of what this bill does. It is true that the bill
currently says it shall be the policy of the United States to deploy at
the earlier practical date an antiballistic missile system. I would say
to the gentlemen on the other side and the gentlewomen on the other
side that it is the unofficial policy of the United States today to
ignore this whole subject. And then the bill gets to saying what the
requirement is. That is the policy.
Now what is the requirement? It says the
Secretary of State shall be required to, in not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Congress, to the congressional defense committees,
a plan for the deployment of an antiballistic missile system. And when
we receive that system, that recommendation, Mr. Chairman, it will be
our duty to decide whether we want to move forward with it, whether we
want to accept it, whether we want to authorize it, whether we want to
fund it, and the representatives of the American people will have that
choice.

So, as my colleagues talk about $5 billion to $60 billion and all of
the numbers in between, we do not know what those numbers might be
because we are asking the Secretary of Defense to use his best judgment
to suggest to us the most appropriate path to take.
So, this bill does not spend any money for these things. It does
change the policy of the country from one that leaves us vulnerable to
a threat that your chief of the intelligence agency says exists, to a
policy to protect our country. And along the path to getting there we
will have many decisions to make, like the ones my colleagues talked
about today.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this debate, I know we are probably
reaching a point where we are going to have a vote on this, but I want
to say those things just from at least my point of view to clarify
these issues.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I know that when we talk about these different
technologies that this debate at times can be extremely confusing and
very complicated. But I think that these two approaches that we take,
one in the bill and one in the Spratt amendment, can be described, I
think, pretty easily and pretty simply.
The bill can be described as a blank check policy. It can be
described as saying putting the contract and everything else before the
horse and saying we are not sure how much this is going to cost, it
might be $5 billion, it might be $8 billion, it might be $15 billion or
$20 billion, but we shall deploy this system at the earliest possible
date.
You might even guess from the debate so far that we are not spending
a dime on this system, and I would remind everybody in the Chamber that
we are currently spending $2.9 billion each year, already, on these
systems. So we are spending money on pursuing these different systems
and giving a blank check to go forward with a system that is unproven,
extremely costly and untested.
Now what the Spratt amendment simply does is it
says we are not going to give you a blank check, we are going to
have some checks and balances to this system. It says two things: that
the system should be based on a ground-based interceptor, and second,
that if this ends up costing $5 or $10 or $15 billion, with a deficit
of $180 billion, we should not take this money out of defense and
threaten modernization, force structure, training to land fighters on
aircraft carriers and so forth and so on. This is the reasonable
approach.

I look over at this side of the aisle and many of the Members over
there on the Science Committee with me, and we have just finished
marking up legislation on risk assessment.
The gentleman from California was talking about environmental
problems in this country. I voted for legislation that will begin to
assess how much it is going to cost us to clean up the environment and
what the risks are. But now in this legislation, when it comes to this
very sophisticated technology, we are talking absolutely the opposite
approach, saying we are not really sure what it is going to cost, we
are not
[[Page H1824]] really sure if it is $5 billion or $15 billion but we
shall deploy this system.
And I have heard the argument from the gentleman over there too that
this does not really spend the money. How often have we heard that over
the last 4 or 5 years, this does not really spend the money? This tells
the authorizers and the appropriators what to do with a brand new
policy on a national missile defense system.
So I would encourage my colleagues, this is the commonsense approach.
This is the checks-and-balances approach to make sure we do not waste
precious taxpayers' money to make sure we balance our budget by the
year 2002, to make sure we do cost effectiveness and risk analysis
study on some of these things, that we do not bring a blank check. We
are spending billions each year on this already.
I would encourage from the commonsense point of view, from a
practical point of view, from a point of view where we make sure that
our fighting forces are ready and that if it is, that this $10 billion
or $15 billion not come out of their hide, that we take our time in
analyzing this and do not throw more money at the billions we are
already spending.
{time} 1850

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, when, some years ago, Henry David Thoreau was lamenting
what he thought was harm being done to the environment by mankind, he
said that if they could fly they would lay waste to the skies. It was
inconceivable to Henry David Thoreau that at one time mankind could
fly.
I submit that we are about in the position of Henry David Thoreau
relative to what is potentially available in terms of a defense against
ballistic missiles.
I think that it is just not credible to stand here today in the midst
of an exploding technology to say there is no way we could ever protect
ourselves against the threat of the second, third, and fourth largest
nuclear powers in the world.
I just think that this threat is so potentially real that the
consequences to our country are so overwhelmingly great that it is
incumbent upon us to do what we can, and I would submit that there is
no way that we should stand here today to say that there is no way we
can protect ourselves, therefore, we should not do anything, that we
should not do anything to study, to plan, to look at what technology is
available so that we can protect ourselves against this.
You know, the No. 1 requirement, I think most people agree, that we
have in representing our people is to protect them. If you look at the
Constitution, article I, section 8, you see there is probably more
space taken up with this requirement on the part of this Congress than
any other requirement in the Constitution, and I think it is absolutely
incumbent on us to take advantage of the opportunities that this
exploding technology provides, and that is all that this says.
It does not say as soon as we can do it. It says practicable. That
word is in there. What it means is we are not going to go off half
cocked. We are not going to do something totally irresponsible. I think
the totally irresponsible thing is to deny this threat exists.
That is in this bill.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BATEMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I will be very
brief.
This bill has elicited a great deal of rather passionate and
emotional debate. As important as the subject matter is, I think there
has been more passion and more emotion than the bill, by its terms,
certainly warrants. It is a bill that says we perceive there are
certain threats to the national security of the United States, and it
is a policy consideration that they should be addressed by the
deployment of a system as soon as practicable.
I can assure my friends throughout the Chamber, as the chairman of
the Readiness Subcommittee, I am not going to preside over the
sacrifice of our readiness to a ballistic missile system, theater or
national, that is not ready for deployment, is not proven, and
demonstrated to be practical and affordable in the context of our other
national security needs.
There is nothing in H.R. 7 that indicates otherwise. Were that not
the case, I would be joining you in opposition to this provision of
H.R. 7. But there is nothing in this bill that dictates any requirement
that we sacrifice other programs of priorities as we separate them out
as we go through the authorizing and appropriations process. This you
need not fear.
The language in this bill, whatever it started off to do, speaks in
terms of a practical deployment of a theater and a national missile
system. And in fact, with reference to the national missile system,
defensive system, it speaks in terms of its being cost-effective and
operationally effective. Now if it does not meet those standards, if
that does not come back to us as something that is doable, you do not
have anything to worry about. It will not go forward, because it will
be proven it is not practical.
So I would suggest that we calm down a little bit, deal with the bill
in terms of what it, in fact, says and contemplates and what the
hearing record and what the debates in committee made clear, that we
are talking about practical systems being deployed, only practical
systems, being deployed, and practical is in the context that includes
whether or not we are stripping other defense priorities of what they
should receive.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 212, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 136]

AYES--218

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--212

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
[[Page H1825]] Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Velazquez
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--4

Becerra
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Wilson

{time} 1912

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. LAZIO of New York, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr.
WHITFIELD, and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. GANSKE, Ms. McKINNEY, and Ms. FURSE
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendments offered by mr. bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate the debate on
title 2, to assure that all of the amendments are considered in
consecutive fashion so that we have a rational debate on the issue, I
ask unanimous consent that my amendments numbered 10 and 12 be
considered en bloc and passed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. Bereuter: At the end of title V
(page 60, after line 25), insert the following new section:

SEC. 513. REPORT REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS PAID BY
UNITED NATIONS FOR COSTS INCURRED BY NATIONS
AND CONTRACTORS FURNISHING PERSONNEL FOR
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

(a) Information Relating to Nations Furnishing Forces.--The
Secretary of State shall submit to the Congress a report on
the amounts paid by the United Nations during 1994 as
compensation for expenses incurred by nations which have
provided forces for United Nations peacekeeping activities.
The report shall set forth--
(1) the total amount paid to each such nation by the United
Nations during 1994 for such purpose; and
(2) with respect to each such nation, the total amount that
such nation spent for peacekeeping activities for which it
received a payment from the United Nations during 1994, with
separate displays for the portion of that amount spent for
pay and allowances for personnel of that nation's armed
forces (including credit for longevity and retirement), for
other perquisites relating to the duty of such personnel as
part of such peacekeeping activities, and to the extent
possible for related incremental costs incurred by such
nation as part of such peacekeeping activities.
(b) Information Relating to Contractors.--
(1) Compensation levels.--The Secretary shall include in
the report under subsection (a) a separate report on amounts
paid by the United Nations during 1994 under contracts
entered into by the United Nations for the provision of
civilian management services relating to United Nations
peacekeeping activities. The report shall include information
as the level of individual compensation received by those
contractors, or employees of those contractors, with respect
to those peacekeeping activities, including the level of
salary, benefits, and allowance.
(2) Contracting process.--The Secretary shall include in
the report a review of the process by which the United
Nations selects contractors for the provision of civilian
management services relating to United Nations peacekeeping
activities. That review shall describe the extent to which
that process permits competitive bidding.
(c) Plan for Reform.--The Secretary shall include in the
report under subsection (a) a plan for actions the United
States can take to encourage the United Nations to reform the
existing system for reimbursement to nations which provide
forces for United Nations peacekeeping activities. The plan
shall include recommended steps leading to a reimbursement
system in which nations contributing forces to a United
Nations peacekeeping activity are compensated by the United
Nations in a manner that more accurately reflects their
actual costs incurred in participating in that activity.
(d) Deadline for Report.--The report required by subsection
(a) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
Page 51, beginning on line 16, strike ``for Payment'' and
all that follows through ``Contributions''.
Page 51, line 18, strike ``(1)''.
Page 51, line 22, strike ``(A)'' and insert ```(1)''.
Page 51, line 24, strike ``(B)'' insert ``(2)''.
Page 52, line 1, strike ``(2)'' The prohibition in
paragraph (1)(A)'' and insert ``(b) Application of
Prohibition.--The prohibition in subsection (a)''.
Page 52, line 4, strike ``activity.'' and insert
``activity.'.''.
Page 52, strike line 5 and all that follows through line
19.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has asked
unanimous consent that his two amendments be considered en bloc.
Is there objection to that request of the gentleman from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska has also asked unanimous
consent that the two amendments be passed.
The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
The amendments were agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. edwards

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards: Page 11, line 18, after
``missile attacks'' insert the following: ``and that is
deployed without the inclusion of any space-based
interceptors''.
Page 12, line 6, after ``missile attacks'' insert the
following: ``without the inclusion of any space-based
interceptors''.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am a defense hawk, and I believe
national defense should be a nonpartisan issue.
{time} 1920

Even though defense should be a nonpartisan issue, I am disappointed
that the Republican rule has resulted in 204 Democrats only having 15
minutes to present our side on the issue of star wars, a multibillion-
dollar defense program. I think that is unfair, and I think it is
wrong.
But the good news is, Mr. Chairman, that some programs and some ideas
are so bad, they should not take that long to defeat, and star wars is
right at the top of that list.
My friend who spoke awhile ago, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon], suggested that Republicans are not interested in building star
wars. If that is correct, then every Republican should vote for my
amendment. My amendment does not stop a ground-based missile defense
system to protect the United States. It does not even stop space based
sensors. All my amendment does is say no to the deployment of a space-
based missile system known as star wars.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that our military leaders in this Nation do
not even want star wars, and our taxpayers cannot afford it. American
taxpayers have already spent $30 billion on this pie-in-the-sky
boondoggle, and we do not even have one brilliant pebble to show for
it. Thirty billion dollars, and 12 years later we do not even know if
star wars will work.
[[Page H1826]] Let me put this in perspective. A blue collar worker
paying $10,000 in taxes a year would have to work for 3 million years
to pay for what we have already wasted in star wars. The original cost
estimates for Brilliant Pebbles have been increased 200 fold. That is
not twofold, that is not 20 percent, but 200 fold. So nobody knows the
ultimate cost of the star wars deployment.
A star wars cost of $25 billion, a generally accepted estimate by
many experts, would basically fund the direct operating costs of the
United States Armored Army Division for some 200 years.
To put that $25 billion figure in perspective, Mr. Chairman, all the
talk about welfare reform, the AFDC program at the Federal level, if
reformers were to save 20 percent of that welfare program's cost, it
would take 10 to 15 years to pay for that star wars cost program.
Mr. Chairman, to promise a balanced budget, to reduce taxes, and to
say you are going to build star wars in space, is nothing but voodoo
economics, Part II. It does not add up, it does not make sense, and it
certainly will not work.
Star wars is not just fiscally irresponsible though. It presents a
false sense of security. It is like putting a $5,000 burglar alarm on
the front door of your house, and yet keeping the front windows of your
house open and the back door of your house locked. Now, surely some
thug or some terrorist smart enough to put a nuclear warhead on the top
of an ICBM missile, would have the intelligence to take that warhead,
rent a U-Haul truck, and deliver it to any city within the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, star wars will suck billions of dollars away from
theater missile defense, desperately needed dollars, from military pay
raises and weapons modernization, the reasons why so many military
leaders oppose star wars.
Republicans on the one hand are saying cut child nutrition, yes, even
cut education funding for the children of military families, but yet
let us write a blank check for star wars.
Mr. Chairman, that is wrong, and it is wrong-headed. Even Adm.
William Crowe, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under
President Reagan from 1985 to 1989, said star wars does not make sense.
Mr. Chairman, star wars is a budget buster, star wars is bad for
defense, star wars is an idea whose time has come and gone. It is time
to say no to star wars, and that is what this amendment does.
point of order

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, is there a time limit on this
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would say to the gentleman he is not aware of
a time limit.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard several times we are cutting children's
nutrition. That is in my subcommittee on education. I have kept
children's nutrition out of the welfare block grant so we will not cut
it, and I have protected it. If I hear it one more time, I am going to
include it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, once again I rise
unfortunately to object to this amendment offered by my good friend and
colleague.
Mr. Chairman, what we are asked to vote on right now is an amendment
that in fact would specifically detail to the Secretary what type of
plan he would bring back to us. We have heard from the other side that
the Congress should not be micro-managing what our defense posture
should be. What this amendment does is specifically state what kinds of
architecture in fact can be recommended by the appropriate people in
the Clinton administration.
Mr. Chairman, there is no one on the floor of the House tonight
advocating star wars, as we said earlier. What we are advocating is a
logical, systematic approach to ballistic missile defense technologies
that are recommended by those appropriate officials within the Clinton
defense establishment. That is in fact what we are asking for.
To say that we are somehow turning around and asking for some pie-in-
the-sky thing, with no dollar assessments, is absolutely wrong. And as
our good friend and colleague knows, whatever comes back in the form of
a recommendation has to go through an
authorization process and an appropriations process. As we heard from
our colleague from Virginia, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Readiness, state, none of us on this side, who fought to get the pay
raise put in when the President did not include it, who fought to up
the acquisition accounts, none of us are going to jeopardize raises. We
are going to fight to make sure funds are put back in for those cuts
that were made by the President in this year's budget. What we are
saying is allow the Secretary to come back and tell us what he would
recommend in terms of time and dollars and an architecture to allow us
to move toward a missile defense system. That is it. What this
amendment does is it limits it.

Let me just say for the Record, while I have been as critical as any
on the spending of dollars for SDI and programs in the past, we cannot
say there has been nothing achieved. That is really a misstatement that
I think all of our colleagues should acknowledge.
Any soldier who fought in Desert Storm and saw the benefit of the
Patriot system knows that was paid for. One of our colleagues earlier
said it was only a small amount of money. Well, let us talk about the
two upgrades to the Patriot. There is one of which is being announced
this week and another will be announced in a short period of time that
will quadruple the effectiveness of the Patriot system. That money was
obtained through the programs that the gentleman says nothing happened.
The Aegis system upgrades that are currently under way with our Navy
were all funded through these programs in the past.
A program called Talon Shield, many of our colleagues perhaps do not
realize that during Desert Storm the command officers had to keep in
touch with the theater by telephone. They had to stay on a telephone
line 24 hours a day. But because we have employed Talon Shield, we now
have the system in place that will avoid that in the future. Talon
Shield was directly developed by the dollars invested over the past
several years in ballistic missile defense. The Joint Tactical Air
Ground System will give us one further capability. So there have been
improvements, and these improvements are technologies that have in fact
given us dividends.

{time} 1930

But we are not saying that we should have a bottomless pit. All we
are saying is, allow the administration to come back to us and give us
their best recommendations. That is all. If they tell us that they do
not want to deploy in outer space, fine. That will be their
recommendation.
What the gentleman's amendment does is limits them even to the point
that if the Russians would break out and immediately pose a threat,
under the gentleman's amendment, we could not respond.
I think that is shortsighted.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is agreeing with me
in his earlier comments when he says he is not really interested in
deploying in the near term a star wars space-based interceptor system.
If that is correct and if that is the view of the majority side, the
Republicans in this body, then let us simply accept this amendment and
move on. My amendment simply stops star wars. It does not affect space-
based sensors. It does not stop the deployment.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if in a
year or two the Russians proceed to develop the capability of space-
based
[[Page H1827]] interceptors, would the gentleman still be supportive of
his amendment?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
in a year or two we will be debating the next year's authorization
bill. In a year or two, I will be happy, in the authorization bill, to
debate changes in it.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman's amendment further ties
the hand of the gentleman's administration and the Defense Department.
What we are saying is, let Secretary Perry come back and tell us what
he wants and then we can respond.
Mr. EDWARDS. I would just like to know, genuinely, whether the
gentleman is either interested in keeping open and wanting to build and
deploy Star Wars or not interested? If he does not want to build star
wars, then accept the amendment. If he does want to build it, then
admit that and let us continue the debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Weldon was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, what I would say to the
gentleman is, I do not know what the future holds. If I could somehow
have a crystal ball, perhaps I could predict that. What I am saying is
I am not the defense expert. The people in the Pentagon and our joint
chiefs are. If they come back and tell us that they want to have a
system that within 5 years we should deploy some kind of system in
space, that is something we will have to debate then. But we should not
handicap them. We should not tie their hands. That decision should be
left for another day.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
so the gentleman is saying he wants to keep open the option of star
wars, that is what I am trying to----
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. What I said is what I said. Do not put
words in my mouth. What I said is I want the Secretary of Defense to
come back within 60 days and make recommendations to us that we can act
on.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering whether we go
back to the cold war.
Mr. Chairman, I have supported this SDI research. I represent the Los
Alamos Laboratories. But today we do not need SDI. There is no
justifiable threat. The technology is not there. And we cannot afford
it. And we cannot afford readiness.
So the decision today is do we proceed with a system that we cannot
afford and we do not need? The answer is no.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Montgomery].
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding to me.
I rise in support of the Edwards amendment. The point I want to make
to the gentleman in the well and to my colleagues is that I am worried
about where will we get the billions of dollars to pay for this new
weapons system. I know where you are going to get it. We are going to
take part of the money from the National Guard and Reserve. We are
going to take it from the readiness of active forces.
We need the Edwards amendment. It will pin it down. It will be
ground-based missiles, and it will not be interceptors. And I am
worried again about taking the money away from the Reserves and from
the active forces on readiness.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I rise in support of the Edwards amendment.
This amendment precludes the deployment of space-based interceptors
as part of a national missile defense system such as Brilliant Pebbles.
This does not preclude the development of a national ballistic
missile system, it just limits it to ground-based missiles.
We don't need to return to the old so-called star wars concept of
past years. To do so would cost billions on a system that has a very
high-risk technology and limited potential.
I am told whatever elaborate star wars system you have, the engineers
cannot guarantee that an enemy ABM will not get through the screen.
We cannot afford to pour billions into space-based interceptors when
readiness of forces is being stretched to the limit, when modernization
of equipment is being delayed, and the quality of life of our personnel
is not up to even minimum standards.
What type of missile systems might be developed by Iran or Iraq? The
Chinese already have missile technology. Let's prevent the costly
mistakes of the past and vote yes on the Edwards amendment.
When you move billions of dollars into a new weapons system, you have
to take it from something else. I worry now about the National Guard
and Reserve getting enough funds to be in a category of readiness.
Listen to the figures: 38 percent of our military forces in 1996 will
be in the National Guard and Reserve, and the Reserve budget for 1996
is 7.6 percent of the defense budget.
The Guard and Reserve is a terrific buy for the taxpayer, but there
is a tendency when the active forces might need equipment or additional
funding you look at reducing the Reserve. Talking about this star wars
add-on in H.R. 7 could directly or indirectly affect the Reserve
forces.3
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. Tanner].
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, those of us who support the Edwards
amendment take a back seat to no one in supporting a strong national
defense. But we believe that setting the wrong priorities diverts
needed funding in a deleterious way for necessary technology and
equipment for our front-line men and women. Effective theater missile
defense systems are being built to protect our people here at home and
our U.S. and allied forces abroad.
Research and development must continue so we will be able to deploy a
national missile defense system whenever a threat to our shore emerges.
I strongly support that, research and development.
But this Contract With America provision will risk national security
when deployment of space-based interceptors diverts billions of scarce
defense dollars and resources from acquisition funds that provide our
soldiers and sailors protection from Scuds and other theater missile
attacks.
That is what our military leaders will tell us and that is what is
real national security.
Those of us who support the Edwards amendment take a back seat to no
one in supporting a strong national defense but we believe that setting
the wrong priorities diverts needed funding in a deleterious way from
necessary technology and equipment for our frontline men and women.
Effective theater missile defense systems are being built to protect
our people here at home, U.S. and allied forces abroad.
Research and development must continue so we will be able to deploy a
national missile defense system whenever a threat to our shores emerges
and I strongly support that--research and development.
But, this Contract With America provision will risk national security
when deployment of space-based interceptors diverts billions of scarce
defense dollars and resources from acquisition funds that provide our
soldiers and sailors protection from Scuds, and other theater missile
attacks. That's what our military leaders will tell you and that is
what is real national security.
I urge support for the Edwards amendment.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly changes the
direction of national defense. We do not need star wars. Readiness is
subordinate to star wars in this bill. Modernization is held hostage to
star wars. Troop and military family quality of life programs are held
hostage. And we think we need to make the message clear.
Troops are our responsibility. We absolutely must ensure their
readiness.
Now, the threat does not support deployment of a national missile
defense, but do not take my word for it.
The former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell said,
``at the moment the threat does not warrant a national missile defense.
Political, budget and security factors have combined to make national
missile defense a thing of the past.''
Let us not live in the past. Let us live in the future in the
military strategy of this Nation.
[[Page H1828]] Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, it is not bad enough that H.R. 7 represents a radical
assault on the ability of the President of the United States to conduct
foreign policy. But here we are, after all these years, revisiting the
issue of star wars when there is no appetite across this land for
taking up the star wars mechanism at this particular time.
I find it astounding that the Joint Chiefs of Staff could suggest
that this proposal is ill-conceived, and ill-timed and at the same time
we are bringing it up here tonight.
I am proud to stand here tonight in support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. He has spoken time and again in
support of a strong national defense system in this country, as have
other speakers tonight. At the same time, they both have suggested that
this proposal is unwise and unwarranted.
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Weldon].

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The amendment that is being offered is to
a section that is no longer in existence because of the passage of the
previous resolution. So what in fact are we amending?
Maybe I should address that to the parliamentarian. What are we
amending?
The CHAIRMAN. It is the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from
Texas has prepared a modification of his amendment to conform with the
Spratt amendment's adoption.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Where is that amendment? May I see it? I
have not seen it.
The CHAIRMAN. It has not been presented yet. This amendment is
pending and no point of order was raised against it.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman: Is it the correct understanding that the Chair is ruling that
this amendment is amending a section that is no longer in existence and
that is allowable?
The CHAIRMAN. At this point the Chair is not ruling on the
consistency or form of the amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. What section are we amending with this
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The modification may correct that amendment, but no
point of order was raised against the amendment when it was offered.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. It is allowable now to waive a point or
order?
The CHAIRMAN. No point of order was raised at the time the amendment
was offered. It is not appropriate to raise one now.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Can a point of order be raised when a
changed amendment is offered?
The CHAIRMAN. It is not appropriate to raise one now.

{time} 1940

Mr. EDWARDS. If the gentleman will yield, I have a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to say this to my friend, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Richardson] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Richardson was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. To answer the question of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] about the passage of the previous amendment,
in good faith, Mr. Chairman, I approached the Parliamentarians and
asked them if it would be necessary to have a perfecting amendment, so
my amendment would be in order.
At one point, I can say in good faith, the interpretation I received
was that would not be necessary. It is presently my intent to ask for
consent to have simply a technical, conforming amendment to see that
the exact same language we had had in my previous amendment would apply
correctly to this language.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman also
apply to the majority side for that technical change?
Mr. EDWARDS. In the 30 or 40 seconds I had, I simply went to the
Parliamentarian to see if technically, because of the passage of the
previous amendment, any changes needed to be made.
I was told, I believe in good faith, at one point it might not be
necessary.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we have no idea what the
gentleman is amending. That is our problem.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, today, we consider going back to the
cold war. Today, we consider spending billions on a system to defend
against a threat that no longer exists.

What is the use of a space-based system?

Who are we defending against? What is the threat that demands a
space-based missile defense system?
The last time star wars was considered in 1983 the Reagan
administration estimated its cost at $120 billion.
The threat to our security at home and abroad is not an ICBM attack;
it is tactical missiles. Our experience in the Persian Gulf war proves
the point.
A star wars system would have been useless to defend our troops
against Scud attacks in the gulf.
This political proposal has no legs. The Joint Chiefs do not consider
star wars a priority.

Budget Questions

We are talking about building a system that would cost billions
without having a hearing on it and with more glaring defense needs.
Ensuring funding for training, development, pay raises, and housing
will be impossible if we force feed this political program down DOD's
throat.
Since 1983, we have spent $30 billion on a space-based defense system
and there are few tangible results.
This is fiscal irresponsibility. This is jeopardizing troop readiness
and force modernization.
I would like to remind my colleagues what Gen. Colin Powell recently
stated about this issue: ``A national missile defense system would be
too expensive and impractical * * *'' He went on to say that ``* * * at
the moment the threat does not warrant a national missile defense.''
Today, we are considering a political proposal that puts both U.S.
security and global interests at risk. There have been no hearings.
There will not even be time to discuss the issues properly.

star wars vs. readiness

H.R. 7 threatens the readiness of our service women and men and
gambles on a star wars space based defense system. Star wars was an
idea born out of cold war concerns about an intercontinental missile
attack. Today, the risk of an all-out nuclear blitz is significantly
reduced but smaller threats have proliferated. This bill requires us to
make a blind wager on star wars. How much will it cost? What does it
mean to readiness? Will we have money to handle the real threats?

u.n. peacekeeping

This bill will needlessly put American soldiers at risk. By tying the
executives hands this political proposal would hinder U.S. involvement
in conflicts like the Persian Gulf war. This political proposal forces
the U.S. to act unilaterally when a global crisis erupts. It puts more
American lives at stake and, in the end, the U.S. will bear the entire
financial burden of any military actions.

expanding nato

This bill will force the U.S. to create an unspecified military
assistance program for former East European countries. How much will it
cost? Which countries will we allow into NATO? NATO should be expanded
in concert with our European allies. We must ensure collective security
and that the U.S. is not unilaterally committed to ensuring a secure
Europe.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page H1829]] Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to know precisely what
we are dealing with in terms of the parliamentary questions and
responses just made.
However, leaving aside those problems, and I know that the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Edwards] has proceeded in nothing but good faith, and I
would say also that the gentleman from Texas is one of the most
steadfast supporters of a strong national defense for this Nation, and
I commend him for it. I am grateful to him for that reason.
I cannot, however, Mr. Chairman, support his amendment. The reason I
cannot support the gentleman's amendment is it seeks to bar something
that no one has proposed to do.
I would support his amendment, Mr. Chairman, if all that he says as a
rationale for it is demonstrated to be correct at a point when someone
says ``We propose to go forward and deploy a space-based system.''
However, there is nothing in this bill that says ``Deploy a space-based
system.'' It says ``Deploy a practical system that is cost-effective.''
If a space-based system fits that criteria, I will be for it. If it
does not, and I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that it does not, then I will be
against it, and I will support the gentleman's effort not to authorize
or fund it at that point.
However, at this juncture, Mr. Chairman, we are simply saying to the
Department of Defense ``We want you to come back to us with
recommendations for the deployment at the earliest practical time of a
cost-effective, functional anti-ballistic missile system.''
There is nothing in it that says space-based or not space-based. If
space based is impractical, if that is not cost-effective, if that is
not the best technology and the most economical, then the heck with it.
We do not do it.
I support the gentleman in that. However, we are not at that point. I
would suggest that the amendment is actually not necessary.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. He
and I have worked together on many issues. I respect the gentleman's
leadership on our committee.
I would just say in this particular case, Mr. Chairman, I happen to
believe that after having spent already $30 billion and some 12 years
on star wars, enough is enough. Finally here is a time to say no. I
understand the gentleman's comments, but I would say to the Members, I
just think that after 12 years and $30 billion, and not one brilliant
pebble in space, it is time to end the program.
Mr. BATEMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if this little bill
proposed a nickel's worth further right now for star wars, I could see
the gentleman's point. However, it does not expend anything. It does
not put us at risk of expending anything.
I think genuinely the amendment, however well conceived and
supportable it may be at another time, really is unsupportable at this
time.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, of all the dubious proposals that are contained in this
particular bill, perhaps the most dubious is the space-based star wars
system which we are debating. I learned at West Point and in 8 years as
an infantry officer in the Army that you build a strategy around a
realistic assessment of the threat and then you use that strategy to
allocate scarce resources. This proposal does neither.
They do not have to take just my word for it. This is what the
Defense Budget Project has said about this particular proposal. I think
most Members are conversant with the fact that this is one of the most
well-respected, nonpartisan, analytical military think tanks operating
today in the United States.
Here is what they said, Mr. Chairman. Point 1, ``There is no
significant long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States,
nor is there likely to be such a threat over the foreseeable future.''
Point 2, ``A military revolution is underway. Information
technologies that are critical to the ballistic missile defense
activities, such as sensing, discrimination, and battle management, are
progressing rapidly. There is a danger that if we buy into national
missile defense too soon, it may rapidly obsolesce, leaving us with
another huge capital investment to make if and when a long-range
missile threat does emerge.''
Point 3, ``Perhaps nowhere is this danger greater than in the case of
space-based interceptors. A national missile defense system that
included space-based interceptors could cost tens of billions of
dollars to acquire and deploy. This is clearly not a commitment that
the United States should consider entering into in the foreseeable
future.''
Mr. Chairman, the final point, ``With deficit and tax reductions a
priority, funds for defense will almost certainly remain tight. A
national military defense system is an expensive proposition, and
defense systems often end up costing substantially more than projected
by initial estimates. This mix could, over time, have the effect of
presenting the Defense Department with an unfunded mandate; that is,
with a program requirement that cannot be fully offset with additional
resources necessitating substantial cuts from worthy DOD programs
already under considerable stress.''
Mr. Chairman, this is a nonpartisan group that thinks closely and
well about defense issues. Their conclusions are very dramatic. I urge
that they be considered and this amendment by the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Edwards] be supported.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REED. I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The question I want to ask is, why in the world would the Republicans
want to revive star wars? They'll use any euphemism to fool the
American people, but the bottom line is that among the other foolish
ideas presented in this bill, probably the most foolish idea is that we
need to knee-jerk ourselves all the way back to star wars.
Aside from totally upsetting all of the arms control agreements that
both Democratic and Republican Presidents have been able to hammer out
with nuclear nations, this bill might just encourage those missiles
that no longer are aimed at us, to make an about face.
The subject matter of national security policy is much too serious to
be cooked up by a few pollsters and spinmeisters.
Remember star wars. For the $36 billion already spent did we get our
invisible, global, protective shield against missiles? No.
For the $36 billion already spent, did we protect ourselves from
terrorist acts like the World Trade Center bombing? No.
And do we really want to go back to space-based ballistic missile
defense when there are other critical domestic needs that are tearing
at our own social fabric?
It was Dwight D. Eisenhower who said:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every
rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from
those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are
not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone;
it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its
scientists, and the hopes of its children.

This group of Republicans that came up with this bill make Dwight D.
Eisenhower look like a flaming liberal. The fact of the matter is,
however, that:
When we choose star wars over feeding the hungry; and
When we choose star wars over housing the homeless; and
When we choose star wars over even our own children.
We surely make a grave mistake. Let us support the Edwards amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

modification to the amendment offered by mr. edwards

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be modified by the form at the desk to conform to the adoption of the
Spratt amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H1830]] Modification to the amendment offered by Mr.
Edwards: At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. 203. DEPLOYMENT WITHOUT SPACE-BASED INTERCEPTORS.

The national missile defense system developed for
deployment shall be developed and deployed without the
inclusion of any space-based interceptor.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, if I might inquire of the author of the amendment, is it his
intent that that inclusion of ``any space-based interceptor'' also
includes the development and deployment of a ballistic missile system?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman say of a
ballistic missile system?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. A theater ballistic missile system.

{time} 1950

Mr. EDWARDS. In no way is this amendment intended to affect either a
national missile, continental ground-based national missile defense
system or--in fact, if anything it is intended to help save more money
to put into theater missile defense instead of putting it into star
wars.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. In other words, the gentleman is saying
that if it is determined that the theater ballistic missile system
should have space-based interceptors, it is OK?
Mr. EDWARDS. If the theater missile defense system would require
space-based interceptors, on that issue I am not aware of a particular
program that is recommending that.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am asking if that is in fact----
Mr. EDWARDS. Rather than deal with hypotheticals, let me let the
words speak for themselves. They basically would prohibit space-based
interceptors for a ballistic missile defense system.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Including theater ballistic missiles?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So it would apply across the board to
theater and ballistic. So the amendment is actually going further than
what we originally thought?
Mr. EDWARDS. No. In this perfecting amendment, as I mentioned a few
minutes ago based on the gentleman's request, this amendment does not
change the intent or the content in any way of my original amendment.
The only purpose of this change is to adapt my language to the Spratt
amendment that had been recently adopted.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right
to object, and I will not object because I respect the collegiality and
the past cooperation of the gentleman with whom we have worked. Even
though I may disagree with his amendment, I want him to have the right
to amend it. But I think it further shows that there is confusion about
what the intent of the language is, not in the gentleman's mind but the
application of the language of this amendment which I think comes about
when you try to micromanage what it is that is going to come back in
the form of a recommendation to us, but I will not object.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Amendment as modified, offered by Mr. Edwards: Page 11,
line 18, after ``missile attacks'' insert the following:
``and that is deployed without the inclusion of any space-
based interceptors''.
Page 12, line 6, after ``missile attacks'' insert the
following: ``without the inclusion of any space-based
interceptors''.
At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. 203. DEPLOYMENT WITHOUT SPACE-BASED INTERCEPTORS

The national missile defense system developed for
deployment shall be developed and deployed without the
inclusion of any space-based interceptors.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Secretary Perry came before us a few weeks ago and he
asked us not to micromanage his programs and he asked us to give him a
chance to bring forth his programs and explain them, explain the
options, and then we would make some decisions on exactly what we would
do with our spending authority.
We are cutting out options with this amendment by the gentleman from
Texas. What he is saying is this: It is okay to shoot down an incoming
ballistic missile with a missile that is launched from the ground.
I want everybody to understand the collision takes place in space. So
you do not stay out of space. So if your objection is doing something
in space, you cannot do that with any system. Because the collision
between the incoming ballistic missile and the defensive missile takes
place in space. It is above the Earth's atmosphere.
So if you believe, like Walter Mondale, that there should be ``war in
the heavens,'' then nothing fits your pistol on this particular
amendment.
Let me just say this to the gentleman from Texas, whom I respect
greatly. We are on the cutting edge of technology in many areas,
miniaturization of electronics, capability of our systems in space.
We had several experts from two of our national laboratories come and
tell us about a week ago that they could make space-based interceptors
very inexpensively.
What the gentleman from Texas is saying is, ``I don't even want to
hear your arguments. I don't even want to have a scientist come up and
testify to me as to what he can do with technology today.''
That is like President Kennedy saying, ``We are going to shoot a
missile to the Moon, we're going to land people on the Moon, but I
don't think we should use solid rocket fuel. I've been told that's very
expensive so I'm going to put in a prohibition against using solid
rocket fuel to go to the Moon.''
It does not make any sense. It does not make any sense to limit our
options.
We are asking Secretary Perry to come out and testify to us. We are
also going to ask people from our national laboratories. We are going
to ask these very intelligent people, who are a national resource,
``What's new in technology? How can you shoot down an incoming missile
better and cheaper than the guy who just testified?''
What the gentleman from Texas is saying is, ``I've seen it all. I
don't want to have anything in space because I heard that `War in the
Heavens' speech and it makes sense to me, and the only thing that I'll
go with is the old 6-gun shot from the ground. That's the only thing I
believe in.''
He is asking 435 of us to accept his judgment and not even allow
testimony on any other system before we make a decision.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. I am not asking this House to accept my judgment. I can
pull out all the experts you would like:
Gen. Colin Powell who said a national missile defense system is a
waste and would take money away from important defense priorities.
I could quote Admiral Crowe who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff for 4 years under President Reagan who said that this would be a
dangerous program.
This is not Chet Edwards' idea on February 15, 1995. This was debated
for 12 years, $30 billion was spent. This program was stopped. And now
in a short debate it is trying to be revived.
Mr. HUNTER. Let me take back my time and remind the gentleman, you
can buy about a million times as much computing power today as you
could in the 1960's for the same amount of money.
Now, when we have experts from our national laboratories that we put
there to come up with ideas on defending the country and they come to
us and say we would at least like to be heard on the issue of how we
have made it a lot more effective and a lot less expensive to shoot
down this incoming missile with a different idea, I think we should
listen to them. And I would just say to the gentleman, I go back to my
Billy Mitchell argument. You had a lot of people saying you cannot sink
ships with planes and we do not even want to
[[Page H1831]] hear General Mitchell. They tried to scrub the test.
This is a democracy. These Members who are representatives want to
hear the evidence. I say let's let the evidence be put out there. And
if the gentleman sits with me in Armed Services hearings and hears the
evidence and then says, ``I'm not going to change my mind,'' then fair
is fair.
But let's hear the evidence. This amendment precludes us from even
hearing the evidence.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. The gentleman makes a great point. Had we
had adequate hearings in committee, we could have gone through all of
these details. That is exactly the point here. We are rushing to
conclusion as opposed to examination we could have done in committee.
We are doing committee work on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. HUNTER. Let me take back my time one more time and say the
gentleman is wrong.
When President Kennedy said, ``We're going to put somebody on the
Moon,'' he did not go through all the hearings first. He said, ``That's
our goal, that's our policy.'' Then he convened his scientists to tell
him how to most effectively do that.
We are saying let's defend against incoming ballistic missiles and
let's convene our scientists in the Capitol in these hearings and
decide the most effective way to do it.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to approach this from a different
perspective. You cannot have it all. We just passed a balanced budget
amendment in this House that was part of the contract. We are coming
with a supplemental very soon now that violates the balanced budget
amendment. We do not pay for it. The Speaker of this House said, even
though the balanced budget constitutional amendment will not be passed
we are going to operate just as if it were passed.
I have been chairman of Military Construction for many, many years,
up until this year. I also sit on the Subcommittee on National Security
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations. I have been all over this
country. We need to talk about readiness here. Star Wars is an idea
whose time has passed and is not appropriate to be talked about.
If you want to talk about some of the things that are affecting our
people and our readiness and our retention, you start talking about
quality of life.
As you talk with the people, the commanders of all of these bases
across the country, and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]
and I were in Fort Bragg
a couple of weeks ago and we talked to the wives and the husbands who
are living in conditions that people were living in in World War II, in
barracks they were living in in World War II. We are talking about
retention and we are talking about asking our troops to go out and
operate the most sophisticated weapons that man has ever invented and
we are asking them to live in conditions that prevailed in World War
II.

If you buy something like Star Wars, it is going to come from
someplace, and it is going to come from the unsexy sector, like
barracks. You can go to any base in this country and have a ribbon-
cutting for barracks and you cannot even get the press to come out and
cover it. But if you talk about Star Wars and B-1's and B-2's, and they
are sexy items, but they do not get the job done.
Several years ago I went to Fort Hood, TX, and we had some ladies
there at Fort Hood that were trying to clean up an old cafeteria to put
in a day-care center for our children that belonged to the parents of
our armed services people.
We need to concentrate on quality of life and retention for our armed
forces and we need to stress all of our efforts on readiness. To spend
$40 billion on Star Wars, that is going to be taken out of the hides of
readiness, and our military quality of life is going to be affected
drastically. I think it is the wrong-headed way to go.
I strongly support the Edwards amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
{time} 2000

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on Mr. Hefner's
quality of life admonitions to us and I want to speak to Members like
my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], with whom
I have worked on these issues. I do not think on this issue there ought
to be a hawk or a dove or those kind of designations. We are all
responsible members of the Committee on National Security, the
Committee on Armed Services and we operate on the basis of that
responsibility.
And in this particular instance, no matter what designation I might
come under to suit the convenience of the newspaper, Members know that
we work together on these issues like the theater missile defense. I am
fully in accord with that.
But at the same time, I take no second place to those who want to see
a quality of life. I have a special responsibility to all of the
Members in the House of Representatives, I almost said in our
congregation because that is the way I feel about it on the armed
services and the National Security Committee; that is the way we work
with one another.
Out in Hawaii it is not my constituents that are being housed in
these barracks and in these housing projects that the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] is referring to, it is your constituents,
it is our friends, our neighbors all around the country. And I have had
to struggle year in and year out and I have had the support of the
people, no matter what kind of convenient designations are used, to try
to upgrade this housing, to try to upgrade the quality. The gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] is correct and if we are being honest
with one another we know if we move into what has been called Star
Wars, into this missile defense in the heavens kind of system, we are
going to be cutting the ground out from underneath those men and women
now serving and their families who serve with them throughout our
country.
So, my plea is let us be sane and sensible about what we are doing
with missile defense.
Mr. HEFNER. Make no mistake about it, with the limited resources that
we have, if we embark on Star Wars, it is going to impact drastically
on quality of life and readiness for our troops and readiness for our
military.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I just want to point out we are not in disagreement. And in
fact if we look as we have cut defense spending over the past 5 years
by 25 percent, we have increased nondefense discretionary spending.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Hefner] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hefner was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I did not yield for a chart show.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am making a statement.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, let me remind the gentleman that when his
administration was on Pennsylvania Avenue, on quality of life we had a
pause. We have lost money, we have lost money in military construction
for our quality of life and for our barracks and for living conditions
for our military folks, and it has not been a priority because our
priorities was B-1s and B-2s and we did not stress military
construction. We have lost in the quality of life, and today we are
reaping the benefits because retention is suffering among our services
and we have had testimony to that effect. And if we spend $40 billion
for Star Wars we are going to suffer further and we are going to suffer
quality of life and we are going to suffer in readiness.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I do not disagree with the gentleman. In
fact I applaud his leadership on the issue of military installations
and facilities.
My point is we are taking a bigger and bigger chunk out of the
defense
[[Page H1832]] budget for nondefense items, up 361 percent over 40
years.
Mr. HEFNER. I take my time back. We are debating priorities except in
quality of life and Star Wars and readiness. The argument is are we
going to stress readiness in this country and are we going to look
after quality of life of our troops and get them off of food stamps, or
are we going to spend $40 billion in space for Star Wars where there is
not one person in this House that knows whether it will even begin to
work or not?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have come here through long, national discussion. It
began in our time, in 1981, when T.K. Jones, who was the Assistant
Secretary of Defense in charge of strategic and theater nuclear forces
made a statement. He said that we would be able to protect our country
against nuclear war if everyone dug a hole 6 feet deep, we put a door
over that hole, and with enough shovels and enough dirt, everyone would
be able to make it. That was the assistant Secretary of Defense for
theater and strategic nuclear weapons in 1981.
Now, as you can imagine, that caused quite a controversy in this
country, but that was the civil defense plan for our Nation in the
event of a nuclear war.
Now it took 2 years to come up with an alternative plan; it was
called star wars. We were Luke Skywalker, they were Darth Vader, and we
were going to go to the heavens to knock down their intercontinental
ballistic missiles. That is what we are talking about here.
Now, there were cartoon versions of what that system would do. There
was a moonbeams and stardust vision of what it would do, but in reality
there was never even the remotest approximation of a working model of
it, $30 billion later.
What we have before us today is the latter day version of it, but
this is no longer moonbeams and stardust, this is the giant pork barrel
in the sky for defense contractors. This is just a follow-on to all of
those contractors that want to continue on the gravy train without
having produced anything yet.
Even as we know it is going to put tremendous pressure on the
resolution the rest of our budgets, we have to make very tough
decisions in this Congress and the next. We are going to have very
tough ceilings placed on us, we are not going to continue to support
the things that do not work.
I was not paying that close attention, but I am not aware of an
amendment that passed on the floor earlier today that put the Soviet
Union back together again. We won, Darth Vader lost, he is gone, he is
not in the heavens, he is in Chechnya, and he is losing on the ground
to a Third World power. We cannot afford an additional $40 billion in
order to continue to pursue a defense strategy that might have made
some sense at the height of the cold war but in the aftermath of the
cold war and the present condition of Russia no longer makes sense,
given the other constraints upon our limited fiscal resources.
So, my argument to you would be this: that just as a practical fact
of the matter, this system does not work, from Brilliant Pebbles to
smart rocks to the nuclear bomb that was going to go off over our heads
and stop the incoming missiles, none of this ever worked. If we want to
continue to flow money into it, and the gentleman from North Carolina
and many other Members out here on the floor made the point over and
over, we are going to have to cut other things and cut them
dramatically. It might be military readiness, it might be Medicare, it
might be student loans, it might be Meals on Wheels.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. I will get time for 1 more minute.
I just wanted to see if we could get on the historical record
something very important from the book of the former minister from the
old Soviet Union in its dying days, from Shevardnadze, Edward, nice
man. I will get an autographed copy for you. He says in his book that
Ronald Reagan pushing SDI broke the will, along with Afghanistan, of
the Evil Empire, and when they realized that they could not combat,
this is Shevardnadze again, the unraveling of the Soviet Union,
whatever the technological merits are about star wars, moonbeam, Darth
Vader, it did accomplish a 30 million dollars' worth of the freedom for
all of the so-called 15 Soviet Republics.
Mr. MARKEY. If I may reclaim my time, it is only to make one point.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Dornan and by unanimous consent, Mr. Markey
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DORNAN. I yield back to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. Notwithstanding the
arguments which the gentleman makes, and we can debate over whether
that was an accurate assessment or not, but just for the sake of the
discussion let us say it was accurate and let us say that the Soviets
did panic, and let us say that the Soviets did go to the table and we
were able to gain those strategic nuclear weapons, treat all of that as
being conceded for the sake of this discussion, what possible gain
would it offer us now to spend an additional $40 billion? We have won
the concessions which are necessary in order to have these treaties put
in place.
We now have an inexorable and inevitable decline on both side's
missiles, we have no technological proof that this system works. If
they went for the bluff, so be it. But for the future, we have to now
make our decisions based upon the technological capacity of this, of
the technology.
Mr. DORNAN. Will the gentleman yield for one short question?
Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

{time} 2010

Mr. DORNAN. Where are you getting this $40 billion, off the planet
Glatu Barato Niktu? Nobody is suggesting that kind of money
expenditure. We are talking about rogue missiles. I am conceding we
have got a bigger problem with suitcase missiles in the mud of our
harbors. Where does this $40 billion come from?
Mr. MARKEY. I am only using the Bush administration numbers that
there would be $35 billion that would need to be spent in order to
finish this project, and additional tens of billions of dollars if an
alternative Brilliant Pebbles project was adopted as well. We are only
using the Republican administration numbers in this debate. The only
question we have now is whether or not, given our success in basically
destroying the Soviet Union, there is an identifiable enemy in the
world that can justify this kind of expenditure.
I would argue not, given the other tremendous pressures on our
military and on our civilian budget that is going to become more
evident as this unfolds.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I am opposed to the amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would ask the gentleman, everyone has said that the
Soviet Union is gone. Is the gentleman aware of how many Typhoon-class
nuclear submarines Russia built last year and what they plan on doing
with those nuclear tubes? They built five nuclear Typhoon-class
submarines last year. Why?
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. Earlier obviously some people were not here, but there
was a discussion about whether or not there was a threat and what the
gentleman points out with regard to submarine construction and what was
quoted by or what was said by Bill Studeman, the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency on January 18, pointed out quite clearly
that we have a problem or that we soon will have.
Let me read this quote once again. Bill Studeman said, ``The
proliferation relates to the nonproprietary nature of technology,''
meaning that technology is not hardware or software, it is know-how,
and he says, ``This means that the
[[Page H1833]] proliferation will be new and more diverse forms of
lethability, increasing threat reach, that is, longer ranges including
ultimately ranges from problem states that can reach the United States
toward the end of this decade.''
So the gentleman makes a good point with regard to submarines, and
your director of your Democrat-controlled administration says clearly
on the record there is a problem that we have to face.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further to me, I would
also like to point out that Russia today, who is no longer the Soviet
Union, just sold to Iran two Kilo-class nuclear submarines. They also
sold to Iran and to China rocket-based missiles and long-range
missiles.
I am not sure if we need to spend all the money that the gentleman is
talking about either, but I am saying that at least I would like to
give the President and the Secretary of Defense, whoever he is in 1996,
the option to take a look and see if that is an option.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. One further point besides the sale of
Russian submarines to Iran, which we now have documented, we also know
that the Russians offered to take the SS-25, which is their mainstay
nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, and offer that technology
to Brazil to be used for space flight. We know that.
So somehow we are thinking that this technology for nuclear
capability is staying within Russia. That is just not borne out by the
facts.
I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further, I would like to
bring out one other point. When we are talking about quality of life,
let us take a look at the broad class, when we cut $177 billion out of
the defense budget, that hurts quality of life, and my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle passed that Clinton tax package that did
that.
In that budget was also a COLA for veterans, and you take a look at
how many of the billions of dollars it is costing us for Haiti, and
then we take a look at quality of life that our soldiers were ripped
out, our sailors, after a 6-month cruise, ripped out with a 30-day
turnaround and shipped off to Haiti. Then we had two people commit
suicide.
So when we talk about quality of life, let us really take a look at
quality of life across the board.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I know most of the discussion here tonight has been on the readiness
and the defense aspects of this amendment, and that is appropriate. But
I do want to point out the foreign policy ramifications of it as well,
and just simply to say that the nationwide missile defense system, in
my view, does jeopardize American foreign policy interests.
A nationwide defense missile system abrogates the antiballistic
missile treaty. That treaty has been the most successful treaty we have
ever had in the strategic area, the most successful arms control
treaty. It saved a very, very costly missile race for the world.
I think a nationwide missile defense system jeopardizes the
implementation of START 1, which is an enormously important foreign
policy interest of this Nation right at this moment, and likewise, the
ratification of START 2.
I think you are quite right to say that there is a threat to the
Nation from long-range missiles, but I also think that threat is
secondary to the theater missile threat. Nationwide missile defense, in
effect, reverses what our defense priorities, it seems to me, ought to
be. The missile threat today is in the short- and medium-range
missiles, and that is what our priority ought to be on in the defense
program. I think that is what it is on.
We must not be complacent, as others have pointed out, with respect
to the possibility of an attack on the continental United States, and
we should proceed, in my judgment, with a research and development
program for that, but the priority ought to be on the area missile
defense.
I think the Edwards amendment has it exactly right. I commend him for
it.
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAMILTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Edwards amendment. I am one
of the few Members of Congress to serve in the signal intelligence area
of our armed services, and I spent time looking at this very matter we
are talking about.
If we are seriously concerned about defense of America to all
threats, the first thing we need is a military force that is prepared
and ready and trained to go to war, and the next thing we need is for
them to have the good quality of life every Member of this body has
spoken in support of.
Part of the time I worked as a signal intelligence officer. I looked
at this very project because it was an assignment I had, and I fully
support and will vote continuously for research and development for
star wars. But I am absolutely opposed to spending money that we need
for the defense of this Nation to look at putting these intercepts in
space.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am a freshman, but I am a sad freshman tonight,
because I think that the last vote, and if we pass this amendment, has
in large part broken the Contract With America, not a Contract With
America that was formed just in this last election cycle, but a
Contract With America that was formed in the formulation of this
Nation.
When we talk about quality of life, there is no quality of life if
this country is vulnerable to missile attack, and you and I all know
that the entire dynamics of the debate changed in 1984 when SDI became
a potential reality.
The quality of life in America was more peaceful, because the Iron
Curtain came down.
I have trouble with H.R. 7, but it was President Reagan who said in
1984 that history teaches that wars begin when governments believe the
price of aggression is cheap.
{time} 2020

Mr. Chairman, upon the formation of this country was John Jay in the
Federalist Papers No. 4, who reminds us that--

Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good
national government as necessary to put and keep them in such
a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress
and discourage it. That situation consists in the best
possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the
government, the arms, and the resources of the country.

I wish I felt this strongly about a few other parts of the bill, but
I must stand firm on my principles. First, I feel that the United
States should not become involved in any ``peacekeeping'' activities of
the United Nations. This includes provision of troops, funding, in-kind
contributions. Such activities are beyond the scope of the
Constitution, and if vital U.S. interests are involved, the
Constitution provides the proper avenue for dealing with those
interests in a national, rather than international manner. We are
walking on a very slippery slope when we involve our troops with U.N.
``peacekeeping'' activities, and I caution all of the relevant
committees to scrutinize any action very carefully before we consider
any actions with the United Nations.
Second, there are a number of waivers in this bill that concern me. I
point to page 47, line 19. This section gives the Secretary of Defense
a waiver to decide that in the case of an emergency the United Nations
will not be required to reimburse the United States for in-kind
contributions to ``peacekeeping'' activities. I believe that Congress,
not the Secretary of Defense, should decide if the United Nations
should foot the bill. This loophole has the ability to be abused.
Lastly, I mention section 512 of the bill, conditions on the
Provisions of Intelligence to the United Nations. I realize that this
strengthens the conditions of intelligence being provided to the United
Nations. However, I object to any U.S. intelligence being provided to
the United Nations. In principle, providing classified intelligence
information to any international body is undesirable. A government-to-
government action has been possible with adequate controls, known to
the Congress. However intelligence provided to the United Nations is
the same as publishing it in the National Enquirer.
[[Page H1834]] I thank the gentleman for the time to voice these
concerns. I hope that the committees with jurisdiction on these issues
will take careful consideration of these concerns when these issues
arise again. This is a very important issue to the people of Idaho and
to the people of America, very sensible people, and they deserve the
proper consideration, and they deserve a good strong defense, and they
remember what happened in 1994, 1984, when SDI possibly became a
reality. Even if this body does not remember, the American people do,
and I will cast my vote for this bill and encourage all of my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment briefly on the threat.
I have heard several comments here tonight like ``the threat does not
warrant the development of an ABM defense system.'' I have heard words
like ``there is no conceivable threat.'' I have heard the question, the
statement, made, that we have no threat because who could put the
Soviet Union back together?
Let me remind our colleagues that Zhirinovsky, possibly the second-
most popular, maybe the most popular, politician in Russia, he wants to
have a child in every one of the provinces of what used to be the
U.S.S.R. and then when he assumes power, the first thing he wants to do
is take back Alaska. He will have at his command 25,000 nuclear weapons
and the ability to deliver them. If they are targeted somewhere else
now, within less than 2 minutes he can target every one of them back
here, and we do not have a threat, a potential threat?
Come on now. Let us get real.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], that I listened to his statements about the
possible destabilization of our armed situation with the Soviet Union,
and let me just remind my colleagues that this amendment eliminates
some possibilities of working together with the Soviet Union.
Mr. Yeltsin said in two speeches, January 29 and January 31, 1992,
that the strong possibility existed of the Soviet Union teaming up with
the United States and using Soviet technology and U.S. SDI technology
to develop what Mr. Yeltsin, not President Reagan and not President
Bush, but what Mr. Yeltsin described as a global protection system.
Now we are giving up that possibility. We are giving up that
opportunity, if we adopt this amendment, that we are not going to hear
any evidence about anything except the system that the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards] thinks will work. That is a ground-based system. It
does not make sense to give up not only the possibilities that our
technicians offer us and our scientists say they want to testify about,
but also to give up the possibilities that have been offered to us by
the Soviet Union.
Since Mr. Yeltsin made that statement, Mr. Chairman, a number of our
technical people have been working with Soviet scientists, Soviet
diplomats, and talking about the opportunity to have a partnership. I
say to my colleagues, ``You give that up, you limit yourself, you limit
the United States, if you go with this Edwards amendment.''
Let me tell my colleagues what else they give up. As my colleagues
know, it has been suggested by all of our experts that we might want to
have a layered defense. I say to my colleagues, ``That means, if you
have a ballistic missile coming in, you try to shoot it down first when
it launches. That's the best time to get it, before all of the multiple
warheads, if it has multiple warheads, break away from the bus, and
then you have 10 problems instead of 1 problem. So you try to get it
when it boosts up. Second, if it survives, that you might want to get
it when it's up high in space. If you can get it then, you don't have
to worry about it coming down and having to deal with it with your
terminal defense. Last, if everything fails and that missile is coming
into San Diego,
CA, or New York, or Mr. Edwards' district in Texas, then you have one
last shot at it, and that's with this ground-based system.''

I would suggest it does not make much sense for us as Members of the
House to limit our technical experts and say we have adopted the idea
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] of the best technology, and
he says the only thing that works is the stuff that is launched from
the ground. We are not going to try to shoot that missile down when it
first boosts up, and we sure do not want to shoot it down in space
because that would be a war in the heavens. But we will go with that
good old six-gun that the gentleman from Texas says we have got. We can
shoot it as it is coming in on our cities.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``So you give up, my
colleagues, the chance to have a layered defense, and all we are asking
here is not that you choose one. We are asking that you let the
committee process take its course, and you listen to our scientists,
and experts, and military leaders as they come in and testify as to the
cheapest, most cost effective way to shoot down incoming ballistic
missiles.''
I think that the Edwards amendment, as much as I respect my friend
from Texas, is one that limits us in a way that we should not be
limited.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is true that the real threat to our security
does come from the former Soviet Union, nuclear threat to our security
does come from the former Soviet Union, but not in the way that some of
our friends and colleagues imagine. It does, in fact, come in a way
that was described for us an hour or two ago by the former chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California. He
talked about the ability to smuggle into the country, in the tons of
contraband that cross our borders daily, a nuclear device, or parts of
a nuclear device, to be assembled here and then set off possibly by
terrorist or terrorist organization. That constitutes the real most
immediate threat to our security.
Now coincidentally, just within the last several weeks in
Czechoslovakia authorities seized an automobile and the contents of
that automobile. In that care were approximately 6 pounds of highly
enriched uranium which were smuggled out of the Soviet Union by a
Russian, a Ukrainian, and a citizen of Belarus. They were trying to
take that 6 pounds of enriched uranium and sell it to terrorists on the
open market. Now there are within the former Soviet Union at least 150
sites that contain enriched uranium from which those people, or people
like them, can obtain that fissionable material, take it out of the
former Soviet Union and put it on the marketplace for terrorist
organizations.
{time} 2030

We are not paying any attention whatsoever to this most immediate,
most serious threat to the security of the United States and in fact
our allies, and we fail to recognize this threat at our peril. That is
the most serious threat and the most immediate threat, and that is the
one we need to pay attention to.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, when this debate began some time ago, some of my
Republican colleagues said on this Floor they are not interested in
Star Wars. My friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon],
volunteered to donate to charity for every instance when the word
``Star Wars'' were used. Now, a few minutes later, other Members are
arguing for a Star Wars deployment.
Well, this amendment is simple and it is straightforward: If you want
to say no to Star Wars, vote yes on this amendment. If you think $30
billion and 12 years is enough on one program, then simply vote yes on
this amendment.
[[Page H1835]] On the other hand, if you believe in Star Wars and you
want to spend more money on its deployment and good faith, then simply
vote no on this amendment. It is that simple.
But this amendment is not about whether today or some day there might
be a threat to the continental United States. Nothing in this amendment
stops a ground-based national missile defense system or even continued
research for some space-based system. It simply says no to the
deployment of Star Wars, a $30 billion boondoggle, after 12 years, for
which there is no evidence that the technology would even work.
Finally, I am not asking that you agree with Chet Edwards' opinions,
because mine are not important. I am asking that this House agree with
the opinions of our top military leaders and past leaders such as Colin
Powell and Admiral Crowe, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
under President Reagan, to say enough is enough, and tonight it is time
to say no to star wars.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman. A
ground-based system is treaty compliant. Anything that we do in space
would abrogate the antiballistic missile agreement. This would then
lead to a reconsideration by the Russians of the START I-START II
agreements, which called for a two-thirds reduction in our offensive
ballistic missiles on both sides. They are not going to go out and
approve START II if we are rushing to deploy a space-based system.
So I think we made a lot of progress with the Spratt amendment, and
if we could get this amendment through, I think we would have done a
good job for our country. I believe a space-based missile system is
extremely expensive, is not treaty-compliant, it violates the ABM
agreement on a prime facia basis, and it is not something we should do
on this point.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Members to pay strict attention to
what they are doing here this evening. You know, you have to be very
careful because these guys on this side of the aisle are very cagey.
The next thing you know, you have a bill and you have got nothing to
it, and it will be like cotton candy. You know what happens when you
get cotton candy. They come over here and talk about Star Wars and you
have all this debate, and in the meantime your bill is slipping away
from you. None of you paid strict attention the last vote you had where
you had to strike a clause dealing with congressional funding. Do you
know what you just gave away? You gave away a key portion of this bill.
Because under this bill, DOD funds under this bill had to be approved
by Congress for peacekeeping. Under Amendment 12 that you just passed,
you gave it all away. You gave up a major portion of your bill.
You have got to pay attention to what is going on here on the floor.
My dear friends here on the floor and back in your offices, watch these
amendments when you are voting on them. You are getting cotton candy,
my friends. You are getting a bill that is going to have nothing to it.
For example, when you look at this bill, there is $1.7 billion by
Congress last year for peacekeeping. It did not have to have the
approval of Congress. You pass this amendment now, you are not going to
have to need the approval of Congress either. And that is the entire
point of this bill. That is what the Contract With America is all
about. You are putting Congress back in the game. And you just took
Congress out and no one even paid any attention.
Look at these amendments. Look at this amendment. They make a lot of
noise over here. They wave to you up here and underhandedly take it all
away from you. You got to watch these guys or they will hornswoggle
you. So I am asking you, watch these amendments or you are going to end
up with cotton candy.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing talk about Darth Vader being dead
and Star Wars and all of these comical type figures, when we really
need to be looking at what we are facing in this world today.
The fact of the matter is, we are not facing Darth Vader, even if you
want to call the Soviet Union Darth Vader and say that Darth Vader is
dead. If we want to talk about it in those simplistic terms, if we want
to talk about something that is this important, national security, in
those comical terms, fine, let us talk about it. Darth Vader has had
children now and they have spread across the world.
The fact of the matter is, the world is not safer today than it was 5
years ago before the collapse of the Soviet empire. The fact of the
matter is we now have, it has been estimated, 20 to 25 countries that
are going to have nuclear capability within the next 5 to 10 years, and
have that ability to launch nuclear missiles across continents.
We are not talking about Darth Vader; we are not even talking about
the former Soviet Union. The nuclear club is going to be expanded
beyond the Britains and beyond the Chinas and beyond the Russias and
beyond the Americas, and beyond the Indias, and instead the people who
are going to be possessing nuclear capability are going to be the
Kadafis and the Saddam Husseins and the North Koreas. I keep hearing
all this concern about all these wonderful treaties, START I, START II,
all these treaties that are going to be thrown out the window.
Well, I am only a freshman and I suppose I did not recall the full
debate, but I did not think Saddam Hussein or anybody in North Koera
had anything to do with these treaties. They are not signatories to
these treaties, they are not concerned about these treaties. And if we
sit back and continue to frame this debate in comical terms such as
Darth Vaders and Star Wars and all these other things that are not
relevant to the debate tonight, that is not relevant to what is going
on inside of North Korea, does anybody in this Chamber know what is
going on inside of North Korea? Does anybody inside this Chamber? If
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], knows about North
Korea's nuclear capability, then I will gladly yield to him and let him
talk about the nuclear capability. But the fact of the matter is the
gentleman does not know any more than the rest of us know.
And yet we are not talking about North Korea. We are not talking
about North Korea tonight. We are not talking about the problems that
we may be facing with Kadafi. We are not talking about the unknowns
that we are going to be facing with Saddam Hussein. Instead, we are
hearing talk about Darth Vader and these other things that demean the
process and trivialize in the end what I am the most concerned about,
and that is my seven-year-old son and my four-year-old son, my
children, my grandchildren. I am concerned about them.
{time} 2040

I am concerned about the homeless in the inner cities, and I am
concerned about those who are going to bed tonight in south central
L.A. afraid they are not going to wake up in the morning because of
violence. But their threat not only comes from the inner cities, the
threats in South Bronx not only come from the problems in the South
Bronx, it comes from threats across the globe. And they are just as
dead in the morning, if we do not defend them nationally, as they would
be from the spread of violence and poverty.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an
excellent point. Over the past 30 years we have had two wars in
America. We had the war on poverty, and we spent $6 trillion and we
lost. And we had a strong buildup with support from Democrats and
Republicans, and we spent $5 trillion during that same period of time.
And what happened? The world is a safe and secure place because we won
that.
What we are saying is, we want to continue to be strong to deter
aggression. We lost the war on poverty where we spent more money, but
certainly our investment in defense allows all of us to be here where
we are today.
[[Page H1836]] Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, last March I was in Israel and talked to
mothers and fathers who have had to hide their children.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Scarborough] has expired.
On request of Mr. Bilbray, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Scarborough
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
last March, when I talked to mothers and fathers who had lived in fear
of their home being bombed by ballistic missiles, the comments they
made were very strongly saying, we need not only this for Israel, we
need this for the entire world so every country has it.
My problem I am having is, I am hearing my colleagues from both sides
of the aisle agree that we need to develop the technology. We need to
be able to address the point that the facts are that there is more of a
threat of a ballistic missile crossing into the United States territory
than it is a foreign enemy tank coming in. But we have antitank
technology. But we have not developed the technology.
I think the issue comes down to the fact, I keep hearing the dialogue
going back and forth of what not to do. I think the people of the
United States say, if we are going to develop this technology to
protect foreign countries, doggone it, the taxpayers have the right to
have their country, America, defended with the same technology.
I think that is all we are saying here. As this technology is
developed to protect other countries, let us darn well make sure that
we are protecting our children, our neighborhoods and our homes in the
same way.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure the gentleman's comments
are not misunderstood to misrepresent my amendment. My amendment does
not stop research and development of any program. And, furthermore, I
hope those same Members that have some concern for ballistic missile
attack on the United States understand that those same minds can take a
thousand-pound missile, rent a U-haul truck and deliver that missile to
any city in the United States.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to consider that
when we secure our borders, I hope that the gentleman understands that
same threat when we talk about Border Patrol.
And Border Patrol, because I live one mile from the border, it does
not take a long distance missile to hit me. My family is under that
threat. So let us remember the national defense.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think what we are missing here is, we are talking
about what our priorities should be. And I think the Spratt amendment
makes it very clear. Our priorities should be readiness and theater
missile defense.
I was out with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, now
ranking minority member, to the Gulf War twice. And it was very
apparent to me that when we deploy our kids to the Gulf, maybe someday
it will be the gentleman's children, we want to have for them theater
missile defense to defend them against incoming SCUD missiles which
would carry chemical, biological warfare weapons.
That is a priority. Readiness is a priority. And we would argue that
we are spending $400 million of the taxpayers' money to do research and
development about a national ballistic missile defense system. That
seems to me to be a rational program. We ought to stay with that
program.
The problem is, we have passed a balanced budget amendment. The
comptroller of the department of defense tells us that under the most
favorable scenario, defense will be cut by $110 billion over the next 7
years. Under the worse case, if there are no tax increases and if there
are very cuts in entitlements, the cuts in defense will be up to $520
billion over the next 7 years.
So what we are saying is, we have got to take care of business first.
The most important thing we have learned over the years is to have our
troops ready and prepared so that if they have to go into harm's way,
they can do an effective job as they did in the Gulf.
And second, if we are going to send them to the Gulf, then we have to
protect them against the threats that they could face. And theater
missile defense is crucial to that.
I believe that out of the 400 million and what we are learning about
theater missile defense, we someday will have the capability to give
the country a treaty-compliant land-based system. The question is,
should we rush out and say within 60 days we are going to have demand
from the secretary of defense for a plan to deploy some system? And I
am told if there were such a system to be deployed, it would have to be
something that would not be treaty compliant. I think that is a
mistake, because we are at the very point when we are asking the
Russians to dismantle two-thirds of their land-based ICBM's. And
believe me, that is the biggest threat that is out there.
Let me remind all of my colleagues of something else that we forget,
that even though we do not have a national ballistic missile defense
system, we still possess tremendous offensive nuclear capabilities
against these countries. So if somebody attacks us, they better think
through whether they want to completely destroy their country because
it would be my judgment that the President, the commander in chief,
would retaliate using nuclear weapons against somebody who used that
kind of a weapons system against us.
What I am arguing is that this amendment today is a good one. It puts
us in a position where we can go forward, do the development for a
land-based missile defensive system. And it is treaty-compliant. It
makes sense.
To rush out and try to do some space-based thing today would get us
in trouble with Russia, undermine our arms control agreements, cost of
a lot more, return us to a cold war fronting with the Russians.
It does not make any sense. I think the Edwards amendment should be
adopted.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I just wanted to make a couple of remarks. I did not intend to speak
on this amendment, but I, as I listened to the debate and noted that
there was a great deal of concern about whether or not Members who are
against this amendment and for developing and deploying, whether or not
we care about other things, I think the fact of the matter is that we
care a lot.
The fact of the matter is we care a lot about our country. The fact
of the matter is we care a lot about our national security, and that is
all for the people we represent. If we did not care as a country during
the 1950's, we would not have developed the technology and bought the
hardware that led us to send in very rapid order, very quickly, 450,000
troops by air to the gulf. That technology today is almost worn out, C-
141's and C-5's. But that was developed in the 1950's, and we bought it
and put it in place in the 1960's.
If we did not care about this thing, we would not have developed the
technology in the 1960's that resulted in the M1A1 tank that was used
in the gulf which, believe it or not, Iraqi soldiers let us look
through clouds of dust and look through clouds of fog and look through
rains, rain storms and allowed us to fire on and hit enemy tanks, when
they could not see us.
If we did not care about these subjects, we would not have developed
during the 1970's munitions that we saw used in the Gulf war that were
so accurate that the old saying today, and today it is an old saying,
it is kind of neat, those smart munitions went right down the chimneys
of the Iraqi houses. If we did not care, we would not have developed
those technologies.
I want to make a point. The point is this, that if we do not get
serious about this issue, based on what I know about development of
weapons systems and development of technology, we are
[[Page H1837]] going to find ourselves dead behind the eight ball.

{time} 2050

I do not want to find ourselves there. Mr. Chairman, again, and I do
not want to overuse this statement, but today the Director of the CIA
says that this threat is imminent; that by the turn of the century we
are going to have to be concerned about this issue from unfriendly
countries in far off parts of the world, not the old Soviet Union, but
other people.
It was neat when we had the Soviet Union. They were rational folks
and we could sit and talk with them. They understood that they had a
gun pointed at us and we had a gun pointed at them, and they cared
about that issue, so deterrence worked.
I wanted to ask the gentleman, does he think deterrence will work the
same way with countries in the Middle East that are trying very
desperately to gain this technology? Will it work with the Koreans? I
do not want to bet on it, Mr. Chairman. I would rather develop and buy
this technology that works, when it works, and that is what our
position on this side of the aisle is all about.
Mr. Chairman, finally, one point: Secretary of Defense Perry just
last week or the week before came to the Committee on National Security
and said, ``Please do not micromanage my programs.'' The amendment just
recently passed speaks to a ground-based missile defense system. We
have made the judgment that that is the way we want to go.
This amendment goes further and says, ``Don't buy space-based.'' I do
not feel like I am in a position to make those decisions, and Secretary
Perry just last week said, ``Please don't make those decisions for
us,'' so I think this is an ill-advised amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I would add, Mr. Chairman, this is the only case I can think of where
we are going to see an amendment offered that eliminates a specific
type of technology that may or may not be requested by the Pentagon. We
could say, ``Why don't we limit the nuclear capability of our aircraft
carriers?,'' or ``Why don't we build our nuclear-powered submarine?''
We are talking one technology that may or may not be requested by the
Defense Department and saying, ``Do not explore this even if it may
down the road provide protection for our citizens.'' I do not
understand that mentality. What we are saying is not to force them to
deploy a space-based system, we are saying, ``Come back and tell us
what it is that you think we should do and how quickly can we do it.''
That is what we are suggesting.
I think it is ill-advised in this case to limit the technology.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, a few days ago this Congress in its wisdom passed a
Balanced Budget Amendment. Two-thirds of the Members in this body said
that ``We want to balance the budget,'' and I understand that. I
realize the deep concern of the American people about the deficit.
On the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations,
for years we have been trying to reduce the size of the expenditure
because we know that the pressure is on defense versus domestic. We
recognize that we have to do it in a way that we do not have the same
debacle we had after World War II, after Korea, and after Vietnam. I
think we have done a pretty good job. There is no question many of the
things that my good friend, the gentleman from California, Duke
Cunningham, has said are true. Many of the things that each of the
Members have said today are true. There is a threat from the former
Soviet Union.
However, Mr. Chairman, more of a threat to our viability is the
readiness of the troops. I think this Congress spoke absolutely
correctly when it said
``Readiness is first, theater missile is second, and third is a space-
based national missile ballistic system.'' When we go to a base and 60
percent of the kids are on food stamps, when you have a billion dollar
backlog in real property maintenance, which is the heart of readiness,
when you have a $2 billion backlog in depot maintenance, when you
deploy troops to Iraq or to Korea and cannot sustain that deployment,
and I know the chiefs say they can deploy to two different theaters.
They cannot deploy to two different theaters and sustain that for any
length of time, in my estimation.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not adopt this amendment, the thrust of this
amendment, I believe that we will be hurting the very thing that all us
are trying to improve and keep.
I have been working 7 years trying to make sure that the medical
facilities and the quality of life for the men and women under arms is
at a higher level, and it is no easy task, because every time I turn
around, the military finds a way to reprogram that money, finds a way
to use it for something else.
The Members will be facing the supplemental in a few days. My good
friend, the gentleman from Florida, Bill Young, and I have worked out
the best type of supplemental we can possibly work out. I do not think
the money should be offset because it is paying for extraordinary
operations.
I think it ought to be money that is emergency money, as the
President asked for, but because of the pressure of the budget, it is
going to be offset. I understand that. I do not agree with it, but I
understand that.
There is nobody in this Congress that knows more about the effects of
missile attacks than I do. As Members will remember, I am one of the 80
Democrats, and I led the fight for the authorization to go to war in
Saudi Arabia. A unit from my home town, one young fellow a block and a
half away from me, was killed in a missile attack.
I lost more people in the Saudi Arabia war than any other Member of
Congress, so there is nobody that understands the importance of a
theater missile system more than I do. There is nobody who understands
the importance of protecting this great country against any threat.
However, we do not have the money to protect against any threat in
the world. Anybody on our Subcommittee on Defense on the Committee on
Appropriations will remember the difficulties we face every year.
Somebody got up a few minutes ago and they said that the Committee on
Armed Services put a pay raise in for the Members of the Armed Forces.
Half the people I have talked to have been deployed over 50 percent of
the time, and the Administration had not asked for a pay raise.
I forced the issue, and the Committee on Armed Services did in fact
put the pay raise in. The tally for that pay raise was $11 billion, one
of the most important things we could have done last year, because it
had such a beneficial impact on the men and women serving in our Armed
Forces.
Certainly, if we ask them to go forth and spend so much time away
from home, as many of the Members have done, the least we can do is
make sure they have the quality of life.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of what we are trying to do
today to take a reasonable position, continue the research, but do not
make people believe that we can deploy this system prematurely. I would
hope the Members would consider very seriously supporting the Edwards
amendment and keeping the readiness of this great country at the
highest level possible.
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]
and I know from whence he speaks. I know that he, probably more than
any Member of this Chamber, knows the price that is paid in our
Nation's defense.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded, and I think we all ought to be
reminded, by the fact that it is now February of 1995, and 50 years ago
we were ending one of the bloodiest conflicts in world history, where
we were defeating two totalitarian regimes, one in the Pacific, one in
Europe.
One of the key systems that resulted in the defeat and a victory for
this country was a little-known system called radar. I do not know very
much about radar and I do not know very much about the history of
radar, but I
[[Page H1838]] wonder what the debate was in the late twenties or early
thirties when people probably just as committed and honorable as those
who are in this Chamber were debating the feasibility of whether or not
we were going to use a radar system, or even develop it.
Given the fact that in the thirties defense spending was at an all-
time low, in fact, I am advised that our current level of funding is
the lowest since the thirties, but at that time, how many other
competing demands were there?

{time} 2100

What other issues relating to quality of life were there? And what
system ultimately saved more lives in that conflict than that one
system of radar? In fact, I kind of wonder whether or not the
perceptions of radar in the 1930's equate with the perceptions that
exist today in this body relative to space-based systems.
I would point as evidence of that to the attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. We had an early radar system that was in fact deployed
in Hawaii. I do not know what went through the minds of those two
technicians who saw those flights of aircraft coming towards that
harbor. I do not know whether they thought it was a big joke. I do not
know whether they thought it really was a flight of B-12's, B-29's
coming from the United States. But whatever it was, they did not take
it seriously and the net result was one of the greatest naval defeats
in American history.
I rise in opposition to the amendment, because I think we would be
ill-advised to preclude a system that potentially could play a role in
the defense of this country.
I certainly appreciate and understand and would agree with the
comments that have been urged on this Chamber by those who suggest the
possibility that we could be facing attacks from barges, or taxis or
border crossings or whatever means that someone could use to deliver
some means of mass destruction. But the fact remains we must defend
against those threats as well as any other, particularly a threat that
can be activated on a massive scale by some one individual bent on
destruction pushing a button.
When I look, and I heard the comments earlier this evening from the
gentleman talking about Russia. And, yes, they are being hammered by a
Third World country. But at the same time they are taking their missile
technology and selling it to China, they are taking their submarine
technology and selling it to Iran and to China, and we are finding that
briefcases are being found with plutonium in western Europe, and there
are thousands of nuclear warheads and missiles that are not accounted
for as we speak on the floor of this Chamber.
All I would suggest is that I think that there are some issues here
that go beyond our immediate perceptions of reality. I think that when
I look, for instance, at my own district and the men and women who
produce the Aegis destroyers and yes, it is part of our theater missile
defense system but very definitely it could be linked into a satellite
or a space-based system that potentially could play a valuable role,
not only in protecting our men and women in uniform but protecting the
shores of this great country.
I urge on this Chamber the defeat of the amendment. I think that,
yes, we need to act reasonably and prudently. But I think to preclude
one system would be a grave mistake and a grave danger to the future of
this country.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LONGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I certainly appreciate your comments. The question
really should be framed not whether they funded radar in the 1920's and
1930's leading up to World War II but whether they were open-minded
enough to be willing to look into funding radar technology. I certainly
appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but it
seems to me that you can be for readiness, you can understand the
troubles, the readiness troubles that we are having, that there are
unfortunately men and women in our armed services who are on food
stamps, without excluding this, without saying we are just not going to
even consider looking into this technology that can save our lives in
the future.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate
on this amendment end in 5 minutes.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take the full 5 minutes. The
gentleman, the previous speaker, raised a question that is entirely
relevant to the question at hand today but in the wrong historic
context.
The fact of the matter is that radar was developed in England in the
1930's. It was developed as an alternative to a weapons system that had
been proposed by a variety of military thinkers in England at that time
to create an airborne system of barrage balloons armed with explosives
designed to stand in the way and provide a shield against the invading
air forces from Germany.
Radar was proposed as an alternative to that in one of the most
interesting chapters in public policy thinking that has been talked
about in this country in recent years. It was the subject of a series
of lectures at Harvard by E.B. White in the early 1960's. I commend it
to the gentleman. It is a real illustration in sound scientific
military policymaking.
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. LONGLEY. This is precisely the point. What if that system of
barrage balloons as ill-advised as it might have been had precluded the
development of radio electronic detection?
That is what I am saying, is that I think we are ill-advised to
preclude one form of technology until we understand where it might
lead. That, I think, is precisely the issue.
Mr. SAWYER. I understand the gentleman's point, he has made it
several times. I think it is in the wrong historic context. It is the
reason I rose to try to correct the point, that the radar was not
developed in this country, was not developed in the 1920's, it was done
for a vastly different purpose.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I think we have had an
honest debate today and it is time to vote. Both sides have been heard
on the floor of this House. I simply want to conclude by saying this is
not a debate about who cares about protecting the American people.
Every Member of this House cares deeply about protecting our national
security and every American family.
This debate on this amendment is simply an issue of do you want to
deploy Star Wars after we have already spent $30 billion researching it
over 12 years and do not even have the capability of saying the
technology will work? Or do you want to save that money, perhaps use it
for theater missile defense, use it for a ground-based national missile
defense system, use it for pay raises for members of the military, use
it for quality of life issues for the military, use it for deficit
reduction.
You are either for Star Wars deployment or against. It is that
simple. It is not a question of integrity or who cares or who does not.
I would urge that the Members of this House vote.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we are fixing to take a vote, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts on the Democratic side I think framed the entire issue
from here, and I think that if you believe him, you should vote for
this amendment. If you do not believe him, you should oppose this
amendment with every fiber in your body.
Let me repeat what the gentleman from Massachusetts said. He said,
``There is no more Darth Vader.'' He said, ``The world is not the
dangerous place that it used to be.''
If I believed that there were no Darth Vaders in the world today, I
would probably vote for this amendment.
But, Mr. Chairman, before we take this vote, every Member of this
House needs to remember what the Central Intelligence Agency has
advised this Congress. It says there are 25 nations
[[Page H1839]] in this world presently pursuing the technology to build
a ballistic missile capable of hitting, not Kuwait, not our carriers,
not eastern Europe, capable of hitting the United States.
I recently read that a poll in this country conducted of American
citizens said 58 percent of Americans believe that we have the
technology to stop such a missile attack. I believe that an equal
number in this House apparently are under that misconception.
Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have the technology to stop a long-
range ballistic missile attack. That is what this bill is about.
If this amendment passes, then among those 25 nations, we have Iran,
we have North Korea, and we have Libya, 3 nations that have said, ``We
will destroy America if we can.'' And they are building the technology
to do just that.
So we are fixing to vote. You can vote to give the military the
technology and the ability to stop such an attack, or, as the gentleman
from Massachusetts said, you can say there is no Darth Vader.

{time} 2110

You can say that Russia is stable and that Russia is our friend, and
you can ignore one of the lead stories on NBC News tonight that said
Yeltsin is unstable. Or you can vote against this amendment, vote for
the safety of the American public that you represent.
If you believe that this world is safe, and that those 25 countries
that the CIA says exist, if you do not believe that, then vote for this
amendment. But if you want to protect your families, your neighbors,
and those people you represent, you will vote against this amendment
and you will vote for this bill.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the gentleman's amendment and I would like to briefly outline the
consequences of proceeding down the path that the bill H.R. 7 suggests.
We find ourselves today again debating the merits of a space-based
multi-billion-dollar ballistic missile defense system. For those of us
who participated in these same debates a decade ago this has a ring of
great familiarity. Yet, the context of this debate today is vastly
different than March of 1983 when then President Reagan presented his
vision. We are facing deficits of over $200 billion as a result of the
Defense buildup of that era. We no longer live in fear of Russian space
and missile technology--in fact we are jointly building a space station
using that very technology. Simply said, there is no threat and there
is no money. We cannot afford to embark on such an expensive fantasy.
The bill before us reverses the path that we have followed over the
past two administrations--that is, to develop a lower cost theater
defense system that addresses the very real threat posed by potentially
hostile Third World nations. Now we spend roughly $3 billion per year
and will continue to do so for the next 5 years according to the
President's budget. This is a rational program which is aimed at the
deployment of a theater high altitude area defense system which will
provide a moderately reliable defense against ballistic missiles with
ranges up to 3,000 km.
To undertake the national missile defense program required by this
bill will require doubling this spending level almost immediately with
substantial increases in future years with outyear costs exceeding
about $35 billion by the end of the decade. It is intended to engage a
ballistic missile capability which does not now exist.
As my colleagues well know, we have already spent about $35 billion
on star wars over the past dozen years and have precious little to show
for it. There is no question that the financial burden of a new program
will be placed exclusively on the American taxpayer. Other nations
including Israel, South Korea, and Japan have balked at even paying a
share of a theater missile defense system. They do not perceive the
risks to be sufficient to justify the costs.
There is no question that the development of a substantial long-range
missile capability by potentially hostile nations would take at least a
decade of highly visible testing. I have no doubt that the most cost
effective approach here is simply to intervene through diplomacy,
economic pressure, or ultimately through force. Our missile technology
control regime has been highly successful over the past decade and it
hasn't cost the taxpayer a dime.
The question of achievability of a national missile defense system--
and any cost--should be a major consideration for this body. After
extensive development and testing of the Patriot missile we have
learned that it faced substantial difficulties during Desert Storm.
Despite the enormous psychological comfort this system provided, the
hard evidence calls into question how many Scud missiles were actually
intercepted. Simply said, we have a long way to go in perfecting even
this relatively unambitious capability. The challenges posed by a
national missile defense system are orders of magnitude beyond a
theater missile defense system.
We must face the reality that President Reagan's vision is simply not
achievable in the foreseeable future. There is a continuum of ground-
based technology development beyond THAAD that could make sense and
perhaps should be pursued in favorable economic times. The quantum leap
to a space-based long range missile defense system makes no sense now
and perhaps never will.
I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically supported the Spratt
amendment--to fund and deploy a theater missile defense system first. I
also agree with Mr. Spratt that a ground-based system is the place to
start.
And I agree with the author of this amendment, Mr. Edwards, that a
lot of money has been wasted on space-based systems that were poorly
designed and extravagantly funded.
But I am not prepared to support an amendment that prohibits
deployment of space-based interceptors which, using new technology, we
may need to defend against future threats.
And so, with reluctance, I will cast my vote against the Edwards
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified offered
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 223, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 137]

AYES--206

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--223

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
[[Page H1840]] Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--5

Becerra
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
McCollum
Pickett

{time} 2127

Mr. HOUGHTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DIXON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2130

amendment offered by mr. skelton

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: At the end of title II
(page 12, after line 25), insert the following new section:

SEC. 204. READINESS CERTIFICATION.

Of the total amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made
available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996,
the amount obligated for national missile defense programs
may not exceed the amount made available for national missile
programs for fiscal year 1995 until the Secretary of Defense
certifies to the Congress that the Armed Forces are properly
sized, equipped, and structured and are ready to carry out
assigned missions as required by the national military
strategy.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to title 2. This
afternoon I had the opportunity to speak on the telephone to a friend
of mine from Jefferson City, MO, Bob Hyder, who shared with me that 50
years ago today, as an American frogman, he went to the beaches of Iwo
Jima to prepare that island for an attack by the American forces. Bob
Hyder, besides being courageous, was fully trained, and ready, and
competent at what he did.
This evening I appear here in support of the finest in America, those
who wear the uniform of the United States, the men and women who lay
their lives on the line, if that be the case.
Members should realize that I speak for a strong national defense.
Members should realize, particularly my friends on the other side of
the aisle, that I have not made myself overly popular in the White
House as a result of a recent budget proposal which exceeds that of the
administration by some $44 billion because in my opinion we need more
funds for readiness for those in uniform.
I speak on this amendment which would require that before there is an
increase in spending for accelerated development and deployment of a
national missile defense, the Secretary of Defense must certify to
Congress, to us, that the armed forces are properly sized, equipped,
and structured and fully ready; that is the readiness issue; to carry
out assigned missions as required by the national military strategy.
The national military strategy is set forth in the bottom-up review.
It has been our strategy for at least 2 years, and we should understand
fully what it is. The national military strategy calls for us having
the capability to fight, to win 2 nearly simultaneous major regional
conflicts such as a Desert Storm and a defense of South Korea.
That is our national military strategy.
That is why I have said before, and I say again, that we must do a
better job in funding the young men and women to carry out this
strategy for our country.
What this amendment does limits the amount for the national military
defense, as opposed to theater defense, to this same amount that was
expended and authorized in 1995. That sum is $400 million. It keeps it
at that level for 1 year. It is a very simple amendment.
I think that we should understand that we need to
put our funds into readiness and into the troops. I visited field
commands, I have spoken with military personnel and their families from
our country both here in the continental United States and abroad, and
let me share with my colleagues that, although our nation possesses the
most able military force in the world, our country is at a crossroads
in readiness. We should not ignore these signs. We do so at the peril
of the young man and young woman wearing the American uniform.

Some units are reporting a C-3 in training. Exercises have been
canceled. Quality of life has been degraded. The increased load of
peacekeeping, humanitarian relief and forward presence have stretched
our military so very thin. As we debate this tonight, young men and
young women in uniform are in Guantanamo, Alaska, South Korea,
Macedonia, Germany, elsewhere in this globe, standing tall for us. We
should not degrade the readiness, the quality of life, the equipment
and the modernization for them one iota.
That is why we should keep, that is why we should keep, the figure at
$400 million as a cap for 1 year. We need to do more for the readiness
of our troops.
I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will understand this issue
and that we will ask that the Secretary of Defense certify to us that
this national military strategy can be performed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Skelton was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. SKELTON. All it says, Mr. Chairman, is that the Secretary of
Defense certify to us, to my colleagues and I, that the armed forces
are properly sized, equipped and structured to carry out this national
military strategy which is a major undertaking. This is not pie-in-the-
sky. This is our strategy. It is our design for 2 years. It is being
strained at the seams, and that is why we should pass this amendment,
because it puts the troops first, it allows national missile defense
research, it allows $400 million a year. Let us not take that money
from readiness, from fixing the refrigerators and the roofs for the day
care centers, for the equipment, for the backed-up backlogs of materiel
for the spare parts shortage. That is why we are today.
{time} 2140

Consequently, I urge quite sincerely that we adopt this amendment,
because it is reasonable, it is fair, and it stands tall for the troops
of the United States of America.

amendment offered by mr. spence to the amendment offered by mr. skelton

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment Offered by Mr. Spence to the Amendment Offered by
Mr. Skelton:
[[Page H1841]] Strike out all after ``SEC.'' in the matter
proposed to be inserted by the amendment and insert the
following:

204. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE AS A COMPONENT OF MILITARY
READINESS.

(a) Use of Fiscal Year 1996 Funds.--Of the total amount of
funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996, the amount
obligated for national missile defense programs may exceed
the amount made available for national missile programs for
fiscal year 1995.
(b) Findings.--In carrying out program execution of
national missile defense programs using funds appropriated
for fiscal year 1996, the Secretary of Defense shall consider
the following findings by Congress:
(1) A critical component of military readiness is whether
the Armed Forces are properly sized, equipped, structured,
and ready to carry out assigned missions as required by the
national military strategy.
(2) In testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives on February 22, 1994, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that
``modernization is the key to future readiness and it is the
only way to provide our next generation with an adequate
defense''.
(3) Given the growing ballistic missile threat, the
deployment of affordable, highly effective national and
theater missile defense systems is an essential objective of
a defense modernization program that adequately supports the
requirements of the national military strategy.
(c) Sense of Congress.--In light of the findings in
subsection (b), it is the sense of Congress that an effective
national and theater missile defense capability is essential
to ensuring that United States Armed Forces are ready to meet
current and expected threats to United States national
security.

Mr. SPENCE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is
recognized for 5 minutes.

point of order

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is not germane to the amendment that
is presently pending. This amendment will completely turn around the
amendment of the gentleman from Missouri and make it completely
inoperative. It will also provide actually that the amendment
previously adopted by the House by the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spratt] would be obviated, and therefore I feel that it is not in
order. It is basically a game that is being played by the majority to
try to rid themselves of that amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would indicate that comments should be
confined to the point of order.
Mr. VOLKMER. Fine. Mr. Chairman, this is an obvious attempt to do
just the opposite of what the gentleman from Missouri's amendment
proposes to do, and also to reinstate the language of the bill
basically as it was before the Spratt amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]
seek to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is incorrect in his point of
order, period. It does not. The germaneness question is up to the
Chair, but it is germane to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Does any other Member desire
to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] limits obligations of funds for
fiscal year 1996 for missile defense to the level of such obligations
for fiscal year 1995 until such time as the Secretary of Defense
renders a specified readiness certification.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Skelton] permits obligations of funds for fiscal year 1996 for missile
defense to exceed the level of such obligations for fiscal year 1995 on
the basis of legislative findings concerning readiness. The amendment
and the amendment thereto share a common subject. Each proposition
addresses the relationship between 1996 funding levels for missile
defense and readiness.
The amendment and the amendment thereto also are alike in both
purpose and method. Each proposition seeks to enhance missile defense
without impairing readiness. Although the two propositions may reflect
differing perspective as to what constitutes readiness, each bears a
germane relationship to the other.
The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is germane to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and the point of order is
overruled.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, needless to say, I have tremendous respect
for the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. I always have.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and I are
friends. We have been for a long time. We have both labored in the same
vineyard. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman. We are both
dedicated to providing the best kind of defense we can provide for this
country. I have tried to accommodate the gentleman and the committee on
other occasions in pursuit of the gentleman's views.
But I have to say that no one in this body is more concerned about
readiness than I am. I will say that to the gentleman or anybody else.
This issue, if you remember, was raised by this Member the latter part
of last year, and indeed some of the things the gentleman quoted in his
remarks came from the report that we issued.
I take no back seat to anyone on this Earth to the readiness of our
Armed Forces. All I am simply saying in my amendment to the gentleman's
amendment is that we also consider missile defense and other
modernization things as part of readiness, as they indeed are.
No one can say that modernization is not a part of readiness. All of
our leaders tell us, that is readiness. That is a matter of life or
death. The readiness will depend on our modernization.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the comments of our chairman about our
good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
No one has ever questioned his integrity when it comes to the support
of our troops, and his leadership in coming up with the budget that is
in fact very thoughtful and looks at increasing defense spending over 5
years by $44 billion is a tremendous help in this debate to move the
problems that we have with our military forces, and we thank the
gentleman for that.
We are in agreement that readiness and acquisition and modernization
are key issues. The key thing is that we do not think that we have to
jeopardize readiness to support missile defense. We would hope that the
leadership would come back to us and tell us how we can do it together.
We have made the arguments that in fact there are areas of the
defense budget where we have to take money that is being spent on
nondefense categories. The gentleman's budget is in fact based on the
fact that we would take $2 billion a year from the almost $20 billion a
year that we are currently spending on nondefense items. We think we
can take more. $13 billion for environmental costs.

{time} 2150

Some $4.7 billion for add-ons that the Pentagon never requested, that
are not important to our national security, that were added in; $3
billions of which could be questioned regarding defense conversion. And
then look at the savings from acquisition reform and from the base
closing savings that should occur.
We are not necessarily arguing one against the other. We are saying
we can do both. We want to work with the
[[Page H1842]] gentleman. We want to work with the administration.
If it means we have to raise the top line for defense, then so be it.
But we are not talking about big numbers. We are talking about, first
of all, cutting into the 361-percent increase in nondefense spending.
While we all agree with cancer research, should the Department of
Defense fund the bulk of it? Should the Department of Defense be asked
to pay for programs that should be funded through the Committee on
Commerce, through Transportation, through Public Works?
What we are saying is, let us spend the defense budget on defense.
And if we do that, we will have enough money to up the readiness
accounts. We will be able to recapture that $9 billion in the
acquisition accounts that we lost just in 1 year. But we will also be
able to work with the administration on the beginnings of their missile
defense program.
We think we can have both, and we want to work with the gentleman on
the budget that he put together as a first step because it certainly is
a move in the right direction.
I support the amendment of our chairman, and I urge our colleagues to
support it as well.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, and I have a lot
of affection for our friend from Missouri also.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Hunter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Spence was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we need balance. The key is balance.
In 1987, a number of members of this committee wrote to the Israeli
Defense Minister and said, you can defend against air attacks. You can
defend against land attacks. But you have no defense against missiles.
Their response has been to build the Arrow missile that will shoot
down incoming ballistic missiles coming into Israel. They did not
hesitate, because they knew that was an important part of national
security.
We have the ability to repel land attacks. We have the ability to
repel naval attacks. We have the ability to repel bomber attacks. We
have no defense at all against incoming ballistic missiles.
I say to my friend, who is on the Procurement Subcommittee with me,
that this subcommittee will pass out a bigger, better, more efficient
modernization budget than the President has proposed us. So
modernization will not go begging. I know readiness will not go
begging. I know research and development will not go begging.
We need a balanced approach. That is why the chairman's amendment is
appropriate.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston], chairman of our Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I regret that I was not here for the earlier debate when this issue
arose, but I thoroughly support the gentleman's amendment at this
point.
I think it is important that we not tie our hands with the amount of
money that we spend on missile defense. There are only a couple of
threats that the American people are faced with. We are not going to
get an invasion from the sea or from land or even from space. But the
fact is that we could get that rogue missile coming in to the United
States from Mu'ammar Qadhafi or Saddam Hussein or some other character
around the world who thinks that he will get to Valhalla a little bit
faster when he lobs a big one on New York.
We cannot defend against that. That is insane.
So what is the President of the United States telling us today? In
order to defend against that, we are going to cut spending on missile
defense. We are going to start going to Geneva and negotiate with the
Russians to limit the size, the lethality, the speed of our missile
defenses.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of the gentleman's amendment and the
defeat of the previous one.

amendment offered by mr. montgomery as a substitute; For the Amendment
Offered by Mr. Skelton

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute
for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Montgomery as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: At the end of title II
(Page 12, after line 25), insert the following new section:

SEC. 204. READINESS CERTIFICATION.

Of the total amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made
available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996,
the amount obligated for national missile defense programs
may not exceed the amount made available for national missile
defense programs for fiscal year 1995 until the Secretary of
Defense certifies to the Congress that the Armed Forces are
properly sized, equipped, and structured and are ready to
carry out assigned missions as required by the national
military strategy.

Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]
for 5 minutes in support of his substitute.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I offer this substitute to the Skelton
amendment in order to make a technical correction of the underlying
amendment before us tonight, to limit fiscal 1996 spending on national
missile defense to fiscal year 1995 spending levels on our national
missile defense effort.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the substitute would make certain that we spend
for national missile defense an amount of money that is both sufficient
to continue to develop that program and not so much that it threatens
our readiness.
I strongly support the efforts of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Skelton] to ensure that the readiness of our troops is of paramount
importance for our national security.
In order to ensure that they are ready, we must make sure, Mr.
Chairman, that they have the right equipment, that they have the proper
personnel that are serving in our forces. And this is a difficult job
to have readiness.
We have talked about it tonight. We certainly cannot afford to spend
less money on these essential elements of our readiness.
Mr. Chairman, my substitute ensures that we are using the proper
measure to gauge the appropriate level of funding for national missile
defense. And this is the key to it. If we have full funding for our
readiness needs, then we can spend more money on missile defense. If we
do not have full funding for readiness, then the national missile
defense program will have to get by on $400 million.
In effect, what we are saying is that we have got to do readiness
first and then if we have any money left over, then we can increase the
$400 million. That is why it is a substitute to the Skelton amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the Montgomery substitute.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of
order.

perfecting amendment offered by mr. dellums to the amendment offered by
mr. montgomery as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. skelton

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the
amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Dellums to the
amendment offered by Mr. Montgomery as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: In the matter proposed to
be inserted by the amendment, insert ``housed,'' after
``equipped,''.
{time} 2200

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the 5 minutes.
My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Montgomery] is an ardent proponent of quality of life, and I am sure
that in his amendment he inadvertently left out the term ``housing.''
This gentleman's perfecting amendment simply includes the term
``housing'' so that it
[[Page H1843]] is very clear that he is also talking about the quality
of life.
With that brief explanation, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the gentleman. I did
leave that out about housing. I think this is a good perfecting
amendment, and I will accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks this would be a good time to put the
question on the Spence amendment. If it fails, another perfecting
amendment would be in order.
Is there further debate on the Spence amendment?

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. DELLUMS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The debate
is now occurring on the Spence amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. Four amendments are pending. The first one to receive a
vote is the Spence amendment to the Skelton amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, offered an amendment to
mine which, as a result of the amendments of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums], the substitute and perfecting amendments, brings us back for
all intents and purposes on a vote on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand there are those that do not wish to vote
on my amendment, because it places those at the crossroads of choosing
readiness for the troops or for national defense missiles. The choice
is clear. We should look out for the troops. We should vote for my
amendment or the substitute amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Montgomery] and the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums], for that is the same as mine.
Mr. Chairman, let us take up for those in uniform tonight as they
stand guard for our interests.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is a person of great
comity and likes to get along with everybody.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that there are endeavors
going on right now by the majority to try to get an amendment in order
after the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to
the substitute amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Montgomery] in order to change it around.
What concerns me about this whole thing is the gentleman had a very
simple amendment, straightforward. Now we have started on this
progress, and Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say it, and I have not taken
much time tonight, but we are going to spend a whole bunch of that 10
hours on this little game that is being played. That is what it is, a
big game that is being played.
Instead of letting the gentleman from Missouri have his amendment and
have it be voted on, straight up-or-down, then we have an amendment to
it, and the gentleman from Mississippi offered basically the same
thing, to try and get that straight vote.
Now we are going to try and get another amendment, so we never get
that vote. I just wanted to let the gentleman from Missouri know what
kinds of games they are playing.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I speak strongly in
favor of the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums]. It includes housing. What is more important
than taking care of our troops? I think that is very, very important. I
thank him for that perfecting amendment to the substitute amendment
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spence amendment and against
the other pending amendments.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to understand what we are doing here. I
agree with the gentleman, if he wants a straight shot on his amendment,
because I think his amendment is fatally defective in the same way that
the Edwards amendment was fatally defective. It removes balance from
our defense structure.
I want to tell the Members what we are doing here. The Bush
administration, including Dick Cheney and the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, Colin Powell, put together before President Bush left office an
outline of the defense spending pattern they would have followed, that
they thought was prudent.
The Clinton administration has cut 80 percent of the national missile
defense money out of the Bush baseline. They have cut it by 80 percent.
That is not adequate to continue with decent funding for research and
development. It is not adequate to bring the scientists from our
National Laboratories and from DOD and ask them what we can do.
If Members vote yes on the Skelton amendment, on basis that Members
want to help readiness, they have done exactly what President Clinton
wants them to do. He is forcing us to shop off two important aspects of
national defense against each other. He has done that by cutting $127
billion out of the defense budget.
Let me just say, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Procurement, I am
going to be voting and putting together a Chairman's mark that is much
higher than President Clinton's, so don't worry, I would say to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] who I respect greatly, he will
have a higher modernization budget.
The gentleman from Virginia I feel surely will present a better
readiness budget than what President Clinton has offered us, so do not
let them shop off two important aspects of defense against each other.
Vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri, and vote for
the amendment of the chairman, and Members will be offering a balanced
defense budget.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I am happy to yield to my great friend and general.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, what is
wrong with trying to help the troops and improve conditions for them?
That is all our amendments do. I am really surprised that the gentleman
is opposed to it.
We are saying if the missile systems run over a certain amount in
1995, that they will have to go into readiness. Then if the money is
there, the gentleman can move ahead with missile defense.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me offer my general a lieutenant's
perspective. It is very important to have the security of your loved
ones at home in good shape because you have a national missile defense.
That is important to the Israelis, it is important to the British, and
it should be important to American soldiers.
There are a lot of aspects of readiness. One aspect of morale is
having good protection of your family at home in their community. I
think most American service people would feel good about their family
in Mississippi or their family in San Diego or Chicago being protected
against a rogue missile attack, and I think they would be very upset
about the idea that somehow the defense budget had that aspect of
defense cut out of it so we could have more money for readiness.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think what
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] said tonight, and he
understands readiness and understands the troops, when he said American
soldiers, some of them are on food stamps, the housing is no good, and
I am really kind of surprised that the lieutenant would have any
problem with that.
Mr. HUNTER. I want to tell the general that the cavalry has arrived.
It is a Republican majority and we are going to increase the defense
budget as well as national defense.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman really see anything
wrong with all of our troops being ready to fulfill the national
military
[[Page H1844]] strategy as set forth in the Bottom-Up Review? That is
all in the world I want.
Mr. HUNTER. I will answer my friend in this way. First, we have
numerous reports from the field and from some of the leadership itself
in the DOD that the Clinton defense budget has slashed readiness, but
second, I think that question is akin to saying ``Would you as an
infantry commander want to certify that you have a perfect defense
against machinegun fire before you do anything against mortars?''
We need balance. A national missile defense is an important part of
that balance. I think it is foolhardy for us to foreclose missile
defense until we get a certification from some other aspect of defense.
Once again, we will increase the Clinton readiness budget, I assure
the gentleman, so we are going to do more than the President has
offered.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we need balance. I am one
Member on this side of the aisle who supported the balanced budget
amendment, which most of the Members on the gentleman's side did, too.
We need to make some tough choices.
We cannot have everything. We cannot fully fund every single line
item in the defense budget. My choice is for these amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)

{time} 2210

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Skelton], I am not sure what this amendment does, if it really does
anything.
You say if it is not certified by the Secretary of Defense that we
are ready. And what does he do every time he comes before our
committee? He certifies that we are ready.
We know that we are not ready. The gentleman cited the litany of
deficits that we have and yet every time the Secretary of Defense comes
down there, he says we are ready.
The reason he says that is because the Commander in Chief tells him
to say we are ready because the Commander in Chief wants a certain
level.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. When Les Aspin was before us, when he was Secretary of
Defense and we asked him about the Bottom-Up Review if it came out of
the air or if it was a threat assessment, he looked at the ceiling a
minute, and he said, ``Well, it really came out of the air.''
Then when we got the Bottom-Up Review finished, we discovered that it
complied with his initial estimates of that. So they are going to
certify that we are ready, so I do not know what good this amendment
does.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me say to my friends, this
cuts the President Bush, Powell and Cheney baseline for national
missile defense by 80 percent, and this vote, if you vote for Skelton,
will lock in that 80 percent cut. Vote no on all of the amendments
pending except for the chairman's amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote. Under rule XXIII, the
Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the following recorded votes if there is
no intervening debate or business.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221,
noes 204, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 138]

AYES--221

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--204

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
[[Page H1845]] Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn

NOT VOTING--9

Becerra
Burton
Clay
Collins (IL)
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Stark
Thurman
Yates

{time} 2228

Messrs. BISHOP, NEY, and LAUGHLIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. HALL of Texas and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2230

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], as
amended.
The perfecting amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for
the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, but I think Members on both sides of
the aisle, especially the freshmen Members on both sides of the aisle,
better realize what they are getting ready to do if they vote against
the Montgomery-Dellums substitute.
Now, if this situation comes up, it boils down to this: If you want
to protect readiness and you want our troops to have decent living
quarters, if you want to have them off of food stamps, then you will
vote aye on the Montgomery-Dellums substitute.
If you are determined to increase the spending on missiles and star
wars, then you ought to vote no. But I tell you, you are making a
mistake if you do not support the Montgomery substitute that looks
after the troops of this country, and that is what we are trying to do
We are not going Democrat or Republican. We are trying to look after
the human beings that represent this country.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote on the Montgomery substitute.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let us make this very clear. The Montgomery amendment
is the exact opposite of the Spence amendment that we just voted on. It
essentially guts the Spence amendment. It cuts national missile defense
by 80 percent below the baseline that was set by Secretary Chaney and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell. As much as we love our
friend from Mississippi, this would absolutely gut what we have just
done. So if you voted ``yes'' on Spence, vote ``no'' on this amendment,
the Montgomery amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there is probably no one who helped me more than three
Democrat Members, especially when I was a freshman and sophomore Member
of this House, than the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], the
gentleman from Mississippi, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Murtha].
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell Members something: This whole debate is
about how we are going to cut readiness in the future. That totally
distracts from what the readiness is today. It is lousy. I spent the
last 4 years of my life fighting on this side of the aisle the liberal
leadership that has been gutting defense and cutting readiness levels,
time after time after time again. I take a look at the Bottom-Up
Review, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] said
``Don't you support the Bottom-Up Review?''
Remember history, my friend. The Bottom-Up Review came up after the
President cut defense $177 billion, and was there to justify that $177
billion cut that gutted defense and gutted readiness.
I look at Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Mandela given billions of
dollars and Russia billions of dollars that detracted away from
defense. I take a look at the A-6's and F-14's. Kara Holtgreen, the
first female naval aviator, I pinned on her wings, was killed, and they
are looking at it, because of an F-100 engine that stalled in Desert
Storm, and we could not replace them because we did not have the money
to replace the engines. The first female F-14 pilot. And you are
talking about readiness now?
Mr. Chairman, we have air wings that are not flying right now, today.
Navy fighter weapons school top gun did not fly against his class
because he did not have the fuel to fly against one class. The Navy
lost five airplanes in the last 2 weeks, Mr. Chairman. An Air Force
general lost his son, who was a good friend of mine. And when I hear
that we are fighting to cut readiness, I look at today. I hate it with
a passion, the same liberals that culled us in Vietnam. The same type
of nonsupport.
All we are asking to do is to have the support of the readiness that
we want, and in the past we have not been able to do that. This side of
the aisle, time after time and time again has prevented us from doing
that. And I take a look at operation Proud Deep, in which we lost a lot
of good friends. I still bear the scars from it, because we did not
have the support of this body, and I still bear the pain of that.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Hunter, has stated
we are going to plus-up readiness with him as the chairman of
procurement. We are going to do that. We are going to do what you and
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] have not been able to do with the liberal
leadership of this party.

{time} 2240

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Mfume, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in the moment that we have
remaining, I would suggest that we join together in opposing the
Dellums-Montgomery substitute in order to support our colleague on this
side of the aisle.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, surely the distinguished gentleman did not
mean to suggest by his comments, which are now public record, that
President Nelson Mandela is responsible for readiness or the lack
thereof of our armed services.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not. I say it is all part of the
problem that we are taking away from the readiness of this country by
devoting billions of dollars to foreign countries, and it is causing
the lives of our people right now.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
understand the gentleman named countries, but in this particular case,
lifted the name of President Mandela as if he were responsible somehow.
This gentleman seeks clarification.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
has expired.
The question is on the amendment, as amended, offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 225, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page H1846]]

[Roll No. 139]

AYES--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn

NOES--225

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--6

Becerra
Clay
Collins (IL)
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Yates

{time} 2256

Mr. BROWDER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the
amendment, as amended, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?

{time} 2300

The CHAIRMAN. Will the Members please clear the aisles and take their
conversations out of the Chamber.
Will Members on this side please clear the aisles and take your
conversations out of the Chamber.
For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence],
chairman of the committee, seek recognition?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, we are waiting to see if we have another
amendment right now.
The CHAIRMAN. Will Members please clear the aisles.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is all this dead time coming out of the
10 hours for which we have to debate this important issue?
The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact it is, and that is why the Chair is
trying to get order.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California rise?
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina
rise?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7) to
revitalize the national security of the United States, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________