Space

[Page: H1816]

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:

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. 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 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.

[Page: H1818]

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 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:

[Page: H1819]

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. 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.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dellums was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

[Page: H1821]

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.

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.

[Page: H1822]

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 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.

[Page: H1823]

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.

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.

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 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.

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: