Space

[Page: H5937]

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to debate the subject matter of ballistic missile defense.

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, includes several important recommendations concerning ballistic missile defense. These actions are consistent with the committee's effort to bolster the modernization accounts that have been dramatically underfunded by the Clinton administration after a decade of decline.

First, the bill provides increased funding for theater and national missile defense systems--those designed to protect our troops deployed overseas as well as Americans at home. These additional funds are necessary to accelerate critical BMD programs that have been delayed as a result of significant cuts in the missile defense budget implemented by the Clinton administration over the past 3 years.

Programs that received increased funds include the Navy's theater missile defense systems, the Army's theater high altitude area defense system, and ground-based weapons and sensors that would comprise an initial national missile defense system.

Second, the bill recommends that `affordable' defenses be deployed `at the earliest practical date'--thus, making deployment of defenses a top priority while simultaneously taking into account cost and technological maturity considerations.

Third, the bill calls upon the President to halt the administration's apparent efforts to turn the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty into an ABM -TMD Treaty that would impose limitations on advanced U.S. theater missile defense systems. It also establishes policy to ensure that the ABM Treaty is not used to constrain U.S. theater missile defense programs.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530 represents an aggressive yet responsible response to the growing threat posed by the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It has staked out a supportable and sustainable position.

The Spratt amendment to H.R. 1530, on the other hand, would represent a significant step backward from the committee's bipartisan position. The Spratt amendment would undermine the policy priorities established in H.R. 1530 by elevating compliance with the ABM Treaty to an equal status with the deployment of a highly-effective defense of the United States. In essence it would hold the effective defense of our territory hostage to Moscow's concurrence. A similar amendment was offered in full Committee, and it was defeated on a bipartisan vote of 18 to 33. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote `no' on the Spratt amendment.

A second amendment, this one to cut BMD funding, will be offered by Mr. Dellums or Mr. DeFazio. This amendment would eliminate the carefully crafted funding increases for both theater and national missile defense programs contained in the bill--investments which are specifically targeted toward programs that would provide highly effective defenses.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan committee position and vote `no' on the Spratt and Dellums-DeFazio amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for 15 minutes.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak just briefly now, and more detail later, about the amendment I will offer when the time comes. I would like to highlight three reasons why my amendment ought to be supported.

First of all, the language in this bill is ambiguous about full compliance with the ABM Treaty, and I think that is the wrong signal to send to the Russians at this particular time. In the next 3, 4, 5 months the Russian Duma will decide whether or not it will ratify the START II Treaty and take the number of nuclear warheads in its arsenal from around 8,500 down to around 3,500.

Now reduction in 5,000 warheads will have a significant effect on the security of this country and the security of the whole world. There will be reciprocal reductions on all sides. That is a critical development, and we dare not do anything that would jeopardize it. If we rattle the cage, the ABM Treaty, if we suggest that we may be breaking out of it, not now, but in the future, sort of an anticipatory breach, if we send that signal to the Russians, then we will put an even greater risk than it already stands now, the ratification of START II, and that is not a good decision.

Second, by keeping START II on track not only do we improve our national security, we save money. Without START II we will have to keep in place our arsenal of 8 to 10,000 nuclear warheads on the sea, under the sea, on land. We will have to maintain a much larger arsenal, 8,500 warheads instead of 3,500 warheads, and obviously an arsenal with 3,500 warheads is much cheaper to maintain. So, if we are forced by the nonratification of START II to maintain an arsenal that really exceeds our needs, then in order to have strategic symmetry with the Russians we will have to pay substantial money that will come out of readiness, and modernization, and quality of life.

So, a vote for my amendment removes the ambiguity in the bill, does not signal the wrong signals to the Russians, and it means we can maintain a smaller arsenal and have more money to spend on things we need for conventional defense.

Third, by voting for my amendment, which simply calls for compliance with the IBM Treaty, we will not leave this country defenseless as some of the opponents to my amendment have claimed. We can put in a ground-based interceptor that will protect the continental United States. Right now the treaty allows it, and we can amend the treaty in the future to allow for more sites if we feel they are needed for the full coverage of the United States, Alaska, and Hawaii.

I have a letter from Sid Greybill, Nixon's top negotiator on the ABM Treaty, and I will leave it here in the House for any Member who wishes to see it. It has been sent out by `Dear Colleague.' Mr. Greybill supports my amendment, and he agrees that we can say fairly the ABM Treaty does not leave us defenseless. By its faults we can deploy a ground-based system which will give us ample defense.

The authors of the ballistic missile provisions in the markup asserted that it was not their intention to break out of the treaty, and I commend them for that. My amendment simply takes them at their word and puts provisions in black and white in this bill which simply say comply with the treaty, and to the extent that we do not find compliance in our national self-interest, then stay within the processes of the treaty and seek amendments, agreed statements and other modifications or changes to it. There is too much at stake to allow ambiguous language to stay in this bill.

I say to my colleagues, `I urge you to support this amendment when it is offered.'

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, many Members may ask themselves, why should I support a defense against ballistic missiles when the cold war is over now? The answer, I think, lies somewhere both in the past and in the future. If we had a better defense against ballistic missiles, American servicemen would not have died in the barracks in Saudi Arabia. If we had pursued more strongly ballistic missile defense, perhaps Israel would not have sat in terror night after night waiting for Scuds as they rained down on them. Make no mistake. We should have learned our lesson in the Persian Gulf war about missile attacks.

Many Members will try to tell us that the threat is gone, that there are no bad guys anymore. There are approximately 30 countries with ballistic missile capabilities. Some of these nations are our allies. Many are unfriendly: China, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea. Of the 30 nations which have ballistic missile capability, 8 are in the Middle East, and there are hot spots around the world where our troops could be deployed and are being deployed which are in the range of ballistic missiles from hostile countries. There are currently two nations which have the ability, and sometime in the future might even have the will, to launch an attack on the United States. Both Russia and China have this kind of ability.

I used to chuckle out of seeing a bumper sticker that the old nuclear-freeze crowd used to paste on their car. It said, `One nuclear weapon can ruin your whole day.' That is the only thing probably that I agreed with them on, but is it not interesting now that the Soviet threat is reduced these nay-sayers maintain that we do not need defense against that nuclear weapon that could ruin our day.

Rest assured, in the future an enemy can strike either U.S. troops or the U.S. mainland. It has happened before; it will happen again. Be assured that our conscience, those of use that have fought for ballistic missiles defense, should be clear. I hope my colleagues' is, too. Vote against the Dellums-Spratt amendment. Vote for a strong ballistic missile defense program.

[Page: H5939]

Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dellums-DeFazio amendment, which would reduce research and development funding for ballistic missile defense, and redirect these savings to improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform.

In these tight-budget times, we must prioritize our defense needs, just as we are being forced to prioritize funding for child nutrition programs and education. The Clinton administration budget request is more than adequate to meet our missile defense needs. However, for more than a decade, the housing needs of our men and women in uniform have been neglected. Furthermore, over the years, we have seen an alarming number of American military personnel and their families living in hovels and forced to apply for food stamps.

As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been proud of the work of Chairman Vucanovich and ranking member Bill Hefner to improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. This should be our No. 1 priority.

I urge my colleagues to fund our troops and their families' earthly needs before we spend more money in the heavens.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, up until quite recently we have never in our history intentionally rendered ourselves defenseless to devastating attacks as a matter of national defense policy, yet that is precisely what we did when we signed the ABM treaty in 1972 which made it illegal for the United States to defend itself against ballistic missile attack. Since that time we have also engaged in an unspoken national policy of not disclosing that strategy plainly to the American people.

Now, while that strategy of defenselessness as defense may possibly have been arguable in 1972, when we had only one, or perhaps two, ICBM nuclear-capable enemies, it is utterly without merit today when missile strikes can come now or will soon be capable of coming from any number of nations, 25-plus at last count. In the not-so-distant future it is not only conceivable, but frankly predictable and probable that self-appointed warlords from all over the world will be so armed and will be able to deliver warheads from mobile launchers in remote locations or from sea-based platforms, leaving no calling card to positively identify or verify the attackers.

[TIME: 1300]

Even if you can actually convince yourself of the validity of mutually assured destruction as a legitimate destruction strategy, it goes all to hell if you cannot identify the aggressor and do not know against whom to retaliate and whom to destroy. But suppose we did know who to destroy. Do we really want to depend on a strategy that trades New York or Los Angeles for Pyongyang, Damascus, Baghdad or Tehran? Would the American people really support such a policy?

All of which is to say that the policy of mutually assured destruction, or MAD, is just exactly that, and will be viewed in the long sweep of history as a particularly dumb idea which held sway under peculiar circumstances for a very brief period of time.

What is unconscionable is that the public has intentinally been kept in the dark, indeed defrauded of its right to know, that all of America, particularly her largest cities, are now the beta site for a bizarre experiment in national defense strategy that is right out of Dr. Strangelove.

Which brings me to the crux of the ethical issue, namely that it is just plain wrong to put the lives of a quarter billion Americans at risk to satisfy an outdated and outmoded treaty that most Americans know nothing about. The fact is that a substantial majority of U.S. citizens believe we have a complete and effective national defense against ballistic missiles and actually find it hard to believe that that is not the case when they are told otherwise. Who can blame them? Even the title of the ABM gives the false impression it is a treaty limiting ballistic missiles, when in fact it only forbids us to defend against them.

The question we should be asking is knowing the circumstances that exist in the world today, would we, de novo, without an ABM treaty, enact the ABM treaty that is on the books?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I wonder why we get ourselves into a partisan debate on an issue that seems to be so clear. The fact of the matter is that I am sure Democrats and Republicans alike, if in fact there was a real threat to this country through an all-out attack by other countries that we could realistically stop, both Democrats and Republicans would provide the funding that is necessary to stop it.

The reality is, that is not the situation. Certainly you can make out countries like Iran and Iraq and Syria and others to have the capability of launching a nuclear attack against the United States. All of our intelligence agencies suggest that that day is a long, long way off. You can spend billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to prevent a threat that currently does not exist, or you can think about where you should spend your money effectively and use those dollars to deal with the real threat that this country has.

There is the capability before us today to sign a treaty that will eliminate by the stroke of a pen 5,000 nuclear warheads aimed at the United States of America. Why not do it? You say that you are tantamount to agreeing with the Spratt amendment that we are going to stay within the ABM treaty. But then speaker after speaker comes up here and argues why we should not stay in compliance with the ABM treaty, and it is President Bush, not President Clinton, that recognizes the direct linkage between ABM and START.

If you want to reduce the nuclear threat to the United States, stay within the ABM treaty. It makes sense. If in fact we get to a point where we need to look at increased threats from other countries, from rogue nations and the like, this process that has been put in place by this bill allows us, down the road, to deal with those threats. But let us not create monsters on paper or in the minds of the American people that simply do not exist according to our own intelligence data. Let us come up with the kind of defense that we need.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to suggest that in this bill, we have the capability of dealing with another issue that once again deals with the perceived threat versus the real threat. We are increasing over and above the request from the administration by over $1 billion the money that goes into national missile defense systems. This is a threat that again is not borne out by the reality of what our intelligence networks indicate.

We have a real problem with troops from this country that are having to go on food stamps and live at below-standard housing because we do not simply give them enough money to live on. Let us adhere to what the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has attempted to do with the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], and take a few of the dollars that are going into a threat that does not exist and put them into the real needs of our troops so that we can have a strong military threat when it comes to the real indications that our intelligence networks tell us are our threats today. That is what I think we should do.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 1/2 minutes to respond to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, let me just tell my friend it was Mr. Woolsey, who was the director of CIA for this President, a Democrat President, who said that within 10 years there would be a number of nations that had the ability to deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles to the United States. As the gentleman knows, who watched the Patriot missile being developed in his own State, it was started in 1962, I believe, and delivered for the battlefield shortly before Desert Storm, it takes about 10 years to develop a missile system, and especially a complex antimissile system. So the first question I would ask the gentleman is, Does it not make sense to start developing systems now, if in fact you think the threat will be there in 10 years?

[Page: H5940]

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it makes sense for us to be developing the system. I think it certainly makes sense for us to research the system. But why buy a system off the shelf today?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just complete my point. My point is it does not take 10 years to just research a system. It takes 10 years to research and build a defensive system. So if you do not start now, if you are going to have the threat in 10 years, you cannot just have bare research at the end of 10 years. You have to have something in place when that missile is launched. That is the point that I am making. That means it is logical to start building a defensive system at this point.

The last thing I would say is in 1987 a number of Republicans on the committee wrote the Nation of Israel, we wrote their defense minister. We said in a short period of time, at some point you are going to have Russian-made ballistic missiles from an Arab neighboring country coming into your country. We could not get any Democrat Members to sign it. We wanted it to be a bipartisan letter. They said the same thing you said, it is unrealistic. It was realistic, and a few years later it happened.

So I think the tradition in this body has been to underestimate the speed of technology and technology implementation by our adversaries. That is my point.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding.

Mr. Chairman, my point is that, as I understand the intelligence networks' estimates, they say it would be a minimum of 10 years. Not in 10 years, they say a minimum of 10 years. The fact of the matter is that we are making great strides in our research programs that indicate that we will be able to put together a much more sophisticated system down the road apiece, maybe 2 or 3 years from now.

In the interim, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has indicated, it is very possible to deal with the short-term threat that is being posed by these renegade nations. None of them have the capability at this time of directly threatening the United States. The only one, as I understand it, would be China with a very small arsenal, which we could defend with less than 100 missiles.

So it seems to me that if you are going to deal with the real threat, you have a very clear path as to what you should do. If you are going to try to make a monster and then throw defense dollars at it, we can do as the gentleman from California is suggesting. I would deal with the real threat rather than the perceived threat.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] for a response.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to respond to these points as they are made on the floor. I have here articles in color, produced by the Russians in color, showing the missiles they are currently offering for sale. On the open market at the Abu Dhabi show, they offered the SS-25.

Mr. Chairman, for those who do not know what the SS-25 is, it is the 11,500-kilometer range missile that is the primary carrier of their nuclear weapons. They do not offer the nuclear weapons, but the architecture. The Israelis have already tried to launch a satellite using the SS-25. Any country that gets the SS-25 can hit any city in America with a chemical, biological, or conventional weapon. That is the threat, and it is real and it is today.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 19 minutes remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has 11 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 9 minutes remaining.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 1/2 minutes.

First, I appreciate the comment by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon. The gentleman and I have worked very closely together. I would simply say to the gentleman that when you lay out these arguments, it is precisely that side of the aisle that reduced funding for Nunn-Lugar that is designed to dismantle these nuclear weapons. So it is not, it seems to me, the height of responsibility to continue to attempt to frighten American people without dealing with the reality. Let's establish some reality here.

We have already spent, Mr. Chairman, in excess of $30 billion, not million, we have already spent in excess of $30 billion pursuing strategic defense initiative technology, ballistic missile defense technology. For the past few years, we have spent approximately $2.5 billion each year for theater missile defense. For the last few years we have been spending approximately $400 million per year, above and beyond the $30 billion that we just kept pouring down this rat hole, to develop a national missile defense system. Fact. If you take the time to understand the architecture, whether you agree with it or not, at least take the time to understand the architecture of the administration's present program, $2.5 billion for theater missile defense, the last time I looked. That was no insignificant amount of money. Four hundred million dollars for national missile defense.

There is a contingency plan, Mr. Chairman, that in the event that a threat out there materialized that we needed to worry about in the near term, that we could move from where we are right now, research and development, to the deployment of an interim system within 18 to 24 months at somewhere at the level of about $5 billion. My colleagues were in the room, they all received the briefing, and all heard that testimony. We then could move beyond that. The administration's program does that as well.

So to stand here in some way to say to the American people we have not spent money, we spent over $30 billion in pursuit of a very difficult technology. In terms of theater missile defense, we have a robust, aggressive, an extraordinary program in theater missile defense, and there is now a program in national missile defense. But for the first time in a long time, this program now looks like a program.

For years, I would say to my colleague from California, we poured billions and billions and billions of dollars into star wars, and we did not get a lot back from it. Finally the Congress got up enough courage, enough intelligence, and enough discipline to force a program. Now it looks like, smells like, acts like a program.

So what happens once we get that discipline? Now we want to start pouring some more money in.

My final comment is this: I would hope that we never experience a nuclear explosion in this country. But I am prepared to debate with you that there is a greater likelihood that if a nuclear device exploded in this country, there is a much less likelihood that it would explode from some intercontinental ballistic missile.

[TIME: 1315]

Incidentally, we all know that some of these so-called rogue countries have that capability. But do you know now it would exhibit employed, by a terrorist act. The safest place to put a nuclear weapon is in a bale of marijuana. We cannot find it. You can fly it in here. You can backpack it in here. You can bring it in here on a commercial ship. You can reassemble it, bringing it in piece by piece, reassemble it in some tall building in this country and ignite the weapon.

We are spending billions of dollars going down the wrong road to solve the wrong problem. At the end of the day it is about nonproliferation. At the end of the day it is about ratification of START II. At the end of the day it is about Nunn-Lugar, dismantling of these nuclear weapons. It is not about some pie-in-the-sky notion that we can knock down a whole bunch of missiles, spending billions of dollars. There is already a program designed to take us there intelligently, responsibly, and effectively. And we ought to stay within the confines of that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

[Page: H5941]

First of all, not a single SS-25 has been sold. Second, there is no indication by anyone, I have never heard of any estimate that suggests any of these countries would have the capability of designing a reentry vehicle. There are only three countries in the world that have them: the United States as well as China and Russia.

I do not think that at this time any of these countries have the nuclear warheads. So you have got the potential of one of the three components that is necessary in order to do the damage that you suggested.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about the warheads. We are talking about an architecture, a system that gives a rogue country from a mobile launch system, the SS-25 is a mobile system. They have 400 launchers. They take that system to a rouge nation and fire a missile at any city in our country. That capability is there.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the fact of the matter is that again you are blowing smoke. What we are talking about is whether or not they have the three components that are necessary to actually hurt the United States. They only have one in theory.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. DORNAN. A fascinating debate.

When we last visited this discussion, this compelling debate 2 years ago, I made a very brief statement on the House floor. I am proud to tell my colleagues it is framed on the wall in small letter picture frames at the ballistic missile defense office.

Here is what it says, I doubt they are going to frame anything from the other side once more, it says,

Right now we cannot defend against one single nuclear missile coming at our beloved country, not one. There is no reaction time, as we had with Hurricane Emily, no time for battening down the hatches or stockpiling food. If one single rogue nuclear missile hits our country, citizens will be marching on this capital as though it were Doctor Victor Frankenstein's castle, with the intent to burn us down.

I repeat what I said then: We would deserve that rough treatment because 72 percent of our fellow citizens do not know at this moment that we cannot stop a single missile from radiating one of our cities into ash.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would like to respond to several points that have been raised by various speakers in this debate.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, one of the speakers opened by saying if we had had this program in place and had been moving ahead of it, as though he were speaking in opposition to my amendment, we would not have suffered the casualties we suffered in the Persian Gulf. My amendment, first step says, our first priority is to deploy, and I quote,

At the earliest practical date highly effective theater missile defenses to protect forward-deployed and expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United States and to complement the missile defense capabilities of our allies and forces friendly to the United States.

This calls for the deployment at the fastest possible rate of the THAAD, the theater high altitude intercept system and the ERINT. I might say here, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking as if we did not have a program. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], our ranking member, just reminded everyone, if you were here in the 1980's, we spent $35 billion on strategic missile defense in the 1980's. And now, today, we have 10 systems in development by my count, a PAC-2 upgrade, a Patriot 2 upgrade, a Patriot 3, the extended range interceptor, the theater high altitude interceptor, so-called the THAAD, an upper tier system which the Navy is developing, it is plussed up by $170 to $200 billion in this bill before, a lower tier system to protect the fleet, a CORSAM system to protect the Army land-based forces, a so-called MEADS system, which would be an interoperable adaptation of that that would be used throughout NATO, a Hawk upgrade for better air defense, a boost phase intercept system which is not yet developed but will be developed to a down select among three contractors in a few years, and the Arrow missile which we are helping the Israelis with.

In addition to that, on the strategic or national missile defense side provided for in this bill, we have a ground based interceptor, double the administration's request. And my amendment leaves that in place. We have lasers funded, chemical lasers, and we are fully funding and plussing up the request for Brilliant Eyes. That is a robust program, a step up of $800 million to $3.8 billion in this bill.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].

Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my opposition to the Spratt amendment is founded on the fact that it would make the deployment of any highly effective workable national missile defense system contingent on gaining Russia's agreement to amend the treaty.

It is significant that this is a treaty, we need to remind ourselves, that was signed over 20 years ago with a party that no1A longer1A exists,1A the1A former Soviet Empire, by mandating that any necessary United States actions inconsistent with that treaty must first be negotiated with the Russians. It gives the Russians an effective veto over United States defensive deployments. But more importantly, it not only mandates a narrow view of the ABM treaty, a very specific interpretation that is contrary to American interests. It also takes a very narrow view of the threats that we face, not only from the missile development and technologies coming out of Russia and being exported to China but also to Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and any other rogue state that may come into being.

Furthermore, it also mandates a very narrow view of technology. I would submit with reference to the prior gentleman's remarks that 2 and 3 years is the blink of an eye in terms of technology.

The language that we adopt in this bill could very well be operative within the next 5 or 10 years. My only experience is that there are three fundamental principles to destruction of missiles or to an antimissile defense system. First is the ability to detect the launch; second to track it; third to destroy it.

We not only have demonstrated conclusively our ability to do that, but we are rapidly expanding that skill to the point where we potentially within a very near term could be able to intercept and destroy any missile targeted at this country.

I might add that this has a particular interest to me in my district. We produce the Aegis destroyer for the U.S. Navy, one of most sophisticated antimissile tracking systems known to man. I believe that by limiting and taking a narrow view of what we are able to do in our antimissile defense systems, that we will effectively be limiting the employment of the valuable dollars that we have invested in this program and I think we would unalterably be weakening our defense. I urge a `no' vote on both amendments.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me interject another level of reality into this debate. I would ask my colleagues to recall, at the height of the cold war, when there was the greatest tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, when our nuclear warheads exceeded 10,000, when theirs exceeded 8,000, there was no nuclear war because everyone understood the nuclear deterrent capability of the United States.

And the gentleman is not giving credit to one startling reality: We still have that capacity. We still have thousands of nuclear weapons that brought us through the greatest tension in the face of this earth with nuclear deterrence, and we still have that deterrence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

[Page: H5942]

The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization was created by President Reagan during the cold war. Since that time, the Berlin Wall has crumbled and the evil empire no longer exists. There is no significant, long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States now or in the near future.

This afternoon we'll have an opportunity to salvage some of these wasteful star wars dollars. The Dellums-DeFazio amendment will channel $150 million more for needy military personnel.

Many men and women who serve in the military do not receive salaries high enough to maintain an adequate living standard. This amendment will provide funds to help military personnel who receive food stamps and off base housing.

Instead of wasting an exorbitant amount of money on star wars, we could reduce ballistic missile defense funding to the administration request of $2.9 billion and allocate the savings toward increases in pay for needy military families. If we can not meet the critical needs of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, we should at least provide funds for the men and women who serve our country.

We as a nation can not afford to squander funding. It is unconscionable to throw away funding on the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization while neglecting the basic needs of our military personnel. I urge my colleagues to vote `yes' on the Dellums-DeFazio amendment this afternoon.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 1/2 minutes to enjoin my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], on a point that he just made.

Let me recast this debate and focus on the issue. The ABM treaty is an agreement by this country to hold our citizens defenseless to missile attack. My colleague says that that worked with the Soviet Union because both sides were afraid to cast the first stone. But we are not just dealing with the Soviet Union anymore. We have an agreement between two nations. One of those nations has now been split up into a number of nations.

Yet there are literally dozens of other nonsignatories which are developing missile systems. And that is the reason that we think that this system needs to be modified.

Lastly, I would say to my colleague, we are the arbiters, in a way, of what the ABM treaty means. There is not a world court that is going to judge what the ABM treaty means.

We have put in language that gives what we think is a reasonable interpretation. We have interpreted the ABM treaty in a way that we think is reasonable, that is justified by the facts that surrounded the original writing of this treaty. We have resisted the constraints that would have been placed on our theater ballistic missile systems that protect our troops in theater because we do not think it is wise and we do not want the administration to do that. But I think the problem with the gentleman's argument is it is no longer just the United States and Russia. it is a number of nations, and none of them signed that treaty.

[TIME: 1330]

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond by saying first, if the people in the Soviet Union were intelligent enough to understand the incredible, enormous capacity that we had to destroy life, what makes the gentleman think that the other nations would not have exactly the same competence to understand that? That is No. 1.

Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, I would not impute that same rationality to people like Saddam Hussein and Mu'ammar Qadhafi.

Mr. DELLUMS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the point is that at this point they do not have that capability.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I have the answer for the gentleman from California. The terrorist bomber at the marine barracks in Beirut, 220 dead marines, 17 sailors, 4 Army guys, and the marine guard who said he could not get his magazine into his M-16, lousy rules of engagement, he said that bastard killer was smiling before he booted himself to Allah and kingdom come. That is what a rogue missile is. It has nothing to do with rational killers in the Kremlin.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, I support its bipartisan recommendation to plus up the BMD budget. I would particularly like to salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], our chairman, for his leadership on this issue.

I also support the subcommittee and the full committee's allocation of the additional funds, which I understand comports with the recommendations of Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, who ably heads the BMDO office at the Pentagon.

Theater missile defense threats are real. One only has to visit Israel to understand that it would take 1 minute for a missile from Syria to penetrate Israel's continental boundaries, and 5 minutes for a missile launched from Iran or Iraq. Therefore, I strongly support full funding, as we have, of the United States-Israel BMD collaborative programs, including the Arrow.

It is also the case that there are medium-term threats to CONUS, the continental United States, from missile proliferation. Therefore, I support the work we are now funding on national missile defense. It is important and I agree that we must undertake it.

However, let me conclude by stressing how crucial it is to reach a common ground on this issue. Let us stop the partisanship. Let us move together. I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] that we have wasted money in the past because there has not been focus and leadership on this program. We are now in a position to supply that focus and leadership, both in the Congress and in the Pentagon. Let us do it.

Let us also continue to exercise oversight in the Congress. We are planning to spend a lot more money. Let us spend it wisely. Let us be sure we are getting our money's worth. Let us consider burden-sharing with our allies, because over time it will be clear that these threats are to our allies all over the world, some of whom are fully capable of sharing the costs.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we should consider modifying the ABM Treaty. I support modifications. However, let us do this in a rational and reasonable way. Let us not proceed by adopting a rogue amendment on the House floor. Let us act with reflection, and let us act effectively for the future.

I want to make clear that I would oppose, and it is not being offered as we consider this bill, but I would oppose any effort to unilaterally abrogate our commitment to the ABM Treaty.

Finally, let me salute the women and men who have worked so ably on the BMD program in California's South Bay. My constituents have really supplied the intellectual base that has designed and built so many of these systems. With stronger focus, leadership and funding, I am hopeful that, finally, we will have a BMD system that protects our allies and protects us for the future.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

[Page: H5943]

However, the original dragon, like the Sphinx, is capable of resurrection. Chernovsky, arguably the most popular politician in Russia has 2 goals: one, to have a child in each province; and two, to take back Alaska when he controls Russia. Are Members content that we do not need a ballistic missile defense system? Vote `no' on these amendments. That would strip us of our chance to protect our people and our service men and women.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back 30 seconds.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I no longer have the privilege of serving on the Committee on National Security, but I did for several years, and watched carefully the construction of our defense bills as they came to the floor. In my opinion, this bill speaks more intelligently and forthrightly to the issue of anti-ballistic missile defense than any defense bill that has come to the floor since I have come to Congress.

The amendments, however, that are to be offered today would put this bill right back in the same framework that it has come to the floor here for the last several years, which restricts our ability to defend ourselves against ballistic missile attacks. That would be a mistake.

This bill does not go as far as I would like to go, frankly. I think we ought to abrogate the ABM Treaty. It was signed with a nation that no longer exists. It was designed to deter a threat that has been defused. We need to build missile defenses in this country. The first obligation of any central government is to defend its people.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to address one point that has been made here over and over. As Members of Congress, our most important single duty is to provide for the common defense of our country against both foreign and domestic threats. As the gentleman on the other side of the aisle have pointed out continuously, or have tried to this afternoon, that we do not have a threat that we need to defend against with regard to this missile debate.

I would remind them, as I did a month or so ago, and let me just quote here, this is a quote by Adm. William Studeman, who was the Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under this administration, I might add, he said `On January 18, 1995, the Admiral said and testified that `The proliferation of technology will lead to missiles that can reach the United States toward the end of this decade, or the beginning of the next decade.' That is a fairly immediate threat, and it is someone who should know. That is someone who I believe has a great deal of credibility. It points to the necessity of us passing this provision as it is today.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, this debate contains a huge disconnect between defense systems and the threat. On the one hand, we have put massive amounts of money in national missile defense without concern about the threat of a cruise missile or any kind of terrorist activity that might take place. We cannot build a bubble over the United States. This is really the bottom line.

At the same time, what we are doing in the language of this bill, we are saying it is okay to abrogate unilaterally the ABM Treaty. Not smart. Why do this in the face of Russia and what they are trying to do to us and with us cooperatively?

At the same time, just yesterday, we killed, essentially gutted, Nunn-Lugar. In that process we cut the opportunity to reduce the threat by the destruction of these weapons systems that are currently ongoing. Yes, in the bill, the committee wrote that it is not important to do civil defense anymore. Essentially they have a statement that FEMA, forget the civil defense. Where is the disconnection here?

Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of making a terrible mistake. We need to focus on the real threat to our country, and the real threat, while potentially, in a small way, from a strategic missile, the big threat comes from terrorism and it comes from cruise missiles off the back of a little freighter coming through the St. Lawrence Seaway. It comes from a Ryder truck.

If we unilaterally abrogate the ABM , we are essentially telling the Russians that START II is not important to us, either. We need to use our diplomatic negotiating process to reduce our threat, not raise our threat. By doing what we are doing today, by sending the message to Russia that they do not count, we are actually increasing the threat to the United States from any kind of strategic missile, because in the process of our action on Nunn-Lugar, they are going to have all those systems to sell to other people, if you will. Of course, they are not going to be a potted plant. They are not going to say to us `It is okay, America, do whatever you want to to us.' They are a proud people, and we need to work with them, not fly in their face in the process of doing what we want to do here.

The final outcome of this huge disconnect is going to cost this government billions of dollars in working on readiness and the process of what we are trying to do. The Spratt amendment is not the final solution, but it is a first step.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] to set the record straight.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I have to correct three statements that were just made by our good friend and colleague of the committee. First, we plussed up the cruise missile accounts by $75 million for exactly the reasons the gentleman stated. We saw the need to support General O'Neill in that request, and we did it.

Second, this bill does nothing, nothing to violate the ABM Treaty. That is in writing from General O'Neil, who is the administration's representative on missile defense.

Third, it was General O'Neill himself on March 23 who said `If you give me extra money, I would put $600 million into national missile defense;' General O'Neill, representing President Bill Clinton.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].

(Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that the American people mistakenly believe its Government can protect its people and soldiers from missile attack. Recent reports indicate that a significant majority of the American people believe that if ballistic missiles are used to attack the United States, the U.S. military can intercept them before they fall.

Footage of our Patriot missile batteries shooting Iraqi scuds out of the sky during the gulf war have left the American people with a very false sense of their own security.

As advanced as our theater and national missile defense capabilities have become over the years, the fact still remains that we are vulnerable.

Since the end of the cold war and the demise of our No. 1 enemy, the number of rogue states that have acquired nuclear capability has increased dramatically. Additionally, the very fact that the former Soviet Union is embroiled in ethnic strife adds to our concerns about their existing nuclear stockpile.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530 represents the proper approach to missile defense. It provides the emphasis necessary on missile defense, and it strikes the proper balance between national and theater missile defensive systems.

In 1983, 1Athe 1Agreat1A communicator Ronald Reagan called this Nation's science community to arms and challenged them1A to1A provide1A the1A ultimate1A defensive system. Through the years, tremendous strides have been made, and though the sacrifices are great, the consequences of failure are even greater.

Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve no less than the very best defensive technology, and H.R. 1530 achieves that goal.

Unfortunately, the Spratt amendment would chain this Nation to the outdated terms and assumptions contained in the ABM treaty we signed with a country that no longer exists. Furthermore, it rejects the necessary emphasis on national missile defense.

I urge my colleagues to support the provisions of H.R. 1530 and reject the Spratt amendment.

[TIME: 1345]

[Page: H5944]

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full time, but I do wish to ask two points of clarification if the gentleman does not mind.

Does this apply only to national missile defense?

The second is, what if this amendment does not pass? What would be the force and effect, particularly in light of the comments made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman will yield, this amendment calls, first of all, as a first priority, for full speed ahead, theater missile defense development. Second, for the development and deployment of a national missile defense system. And, third, for compliance of that system, a national missile defense system--it only applies to that--with the ABM treaty as it stands today or as we may amend it. It simply says stay within the processes of the ABM treaty in developing that system.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Combest). All time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has expired.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am a new Member of this body. I have not been a part of the debates that have gone on on this issue for the past years. I have tried to look at it from the ground up and maybe from a fresh perspective.

It seems to me when you get down to the basics, the question is whether we are willing to defend our people. The fact is that we have absolutely no way to stop a missile that is fired at the United States. The fact is that there are other countries who have missiles that can reach the United States.

The fact is that there is instability and uncertainty in Russia. And the fact is that just 2 weeks ago, China fired a new mobile missile that can reach the United States. The fact is there are a number of other countries that are working as hard and as fast as they can to put our people at risk by acquiring missile technology.

The fact is today we are vulnerable to accidental launch, to a rogue general acting on his own, or to some outlaw state such as Hussein or Qadhafi buying missiles, and we can do absolutely nothing to defend our people against a missile attack. I think that is wrong strategically, and I think that is wrong morally.

We cannot, of course, build a bubble and protect ourselves from all threats, but we can do what we can do. We have technology to make us safer than we are today, and it is silly to tie our hands and not make available for ourselves the possibilities which exist.

I think we have to be particularly careful of those who say, `Yeah, I'm for a missile defense, except' or `under these circumstances.' There should be no conditions on whether we protect the United States or its people.

This bill does not alter existing treaties, but it does allow us to be free to look at all the possibilities. The Spratt amendment would handicap us by only looking at certain possibilities that apply to certain treaties.

We ought to see what works the best, then go about developing that technology, change the treaty as ought to be appropriate and get something there that will protect our people. Frankly, I would push harder and quicker toward deploying a defense than is in this bill, but I think this bill is a minimum of what we can do to protect our people and fulfill our oath.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand I have 7 minutes left. I yield myself 3 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] for 3 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, to all of our colleagues in the Committee of the Whole, I just wanted to let folks know that if you look this bill over, you will see a lot of Republicans and Democrats working together on a number of issues. I have great respect for the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], for all of our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, and for all the Republicans who have worked hard to make this bill go, and the chairman, who I think has put together a very thoughtful package.

Mr. Chairman, we did plus up all of the theater missile defense systems. We put in the amount of money that our experts told us we needed to put in to advance those systems as rapidly as possible.

The sad thing is that when we asked General O'Neill, at the end of one of our hearings, the question as to whether or not these theater systems would stop any fast missiles, that is, stop, for example, the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile that is being developed now, his answer was no. They will stop basically the Model T's of ballistic missiles, the Scuds. But we have not been building missiles to stop high-performance ballistic missiles.

The Spratt amendment goes to ABM . That is going to be a key amendment. The difference between what the committee did and what the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] wants to do this: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] elevates and, I think, liberalizes the ABM Treaty.

For Members of the House, it is important that you understand the ABM treaty. The ABM treaty is extraordinary. It is unique. It is an agreement by the Government of the United States to hold its citizens defenseless against missile attack. If you read it, and you are an average citizens, you are shocked, because it says that you cannot have a defense against nuclear systems.

The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has explained how we incorporated that agreement, as extraordinary as it is, in this standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, where we figured that because both sides had enormous arsenals and some degree of stability, neither side would want to throw the rock. Therefore, we held our own citizens defenseless. We held our own citizens up to nuclear attack without any defense being offered.

I would say that is an extraordinary measure. It is a measure that should be exercised very conservatively because it is an enormous imposition on your citizens, on your constituents.

When you vote on this thing as a Member of Congress, you are telling your own 575,000 constituents in your district that your are going along with an agreement that leaves them exposed deliberately to missile attack.

I do not think we should interpret or enforce that type of an agreement in a liberal way. I do not think we should use our creative juices to try to figure out new ways to hold ourselves at risk. I think we should exercise and follow that treaty very conservatively.

Lastly, the problem is, we made that treaty with one other nation in this world. Today there are dozens of nations who never signed it who are developing missiles. that is the difference between the committee bill and the amendments.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague that whether we viewed it as moral or immoral, this gentleman's position was that we should not have gone down the road toward the development of more heinous nuclear weapons. But the fact of the matter remains that mutual assured destruction did indeed work.

The logic of the gentleman's argument, it is difficult for me to get my brain around the gentleman's argument because at the end of the day, the test of a policy's effectiveness is whether it worked. We did not have a nuclear war, so that that standoff was not keeping American people defenseless. That expensive, dangerous, insane nuclear triad kept everyone from waging war. That is No. 1.

Second, let's put reality into this debate. We keep saying to the American people, did you know we didn't have this? America, $35 billion of your dollars went down a rat hole developing the technology of star wars. The last time this gentleman looked, you look at my bank book, $35 billion is one hell of a lot of taxpayers' money to be spent.

Third, as we speak, America needs to know that we have been spending for the last few years approximately $3 billion per annum, part on theater missile defense, part on Brilliant Eyes, a space-based central system, and part on a national missile defense system.

We are spending money developing this. To, in some way, communicate to the American people that we have not spent billions of their dollars, now way over $40 billion, is to take a flight into fantasy. It is to engage in a disingenuous argument. That money is out there. The only debate between us at this point is whether you ought to be spending more money and go so fast that you violate ABM .

Why is ABM significant? It is significant at this moment, Mr. Chairman, because the ABM treaty is linked by the administration, by the Bush administration and others, to SALT II. SALT II allows us, with the stroke of a pen, to take the Russian nuclear arsenal from 8,500 down to 3,500. We can knock down 5,000 missiles by compliance with ABM , ratification of START II, and you cannot find the dollars, my friend, to build a system effective enough to destroy 5,000 warheads. So you are arguing against yourselves when making that statement.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], I believe this gentleman is in no way desirous of stepping outside the ABM treaty. He is a man of integrity, and I know that his word is real in that regard. But I am suggesting here that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] does not speak for everybody on your side, and I know that there are a number of them who want to break out of the ABM treaty, with all the adverse impacts to America and stability in the world.

[Page: H5945]

I just want to say to my friend, I did not state that we have not spent billions and billions of dollars. I agree we have spent billions and billions of dollars, but the American people are interested in the real state of play and in results. Right now we do not have defenses against missiles. Many of them think we have them. I think the work this committee is doing will bring about defenses, but we do not have them at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized for 3 minutes 45 seconds.

(Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate and I think a very insightful debate from both sides. Let me say as we looked at the defense bill for this year, we looked at what I think will be the two biggest threats this country faces as we approach the 21st century. The first is missile proliferation and deployment, and the second is terrorism.

In our mark we plus up both accounts, to deal with the terrorism we heard about and to deal with the missile proliferation. We plussed up each. We held three full hearings. In the last few years, we did not hold any hearings on missile defense.

This year we have held three full hearings for Members to get classified and unclassified information on what the threat is. We heard there are 77 nations in the world that have cruise missiles, 20 more are building them. We heard about the Russians offering for sale the SS-25. Even the Clinton administration acknowledged just a month ago that the sale of the SS-25 is a violation of the START agreement. Even the Clinton administration acknowledges that. That architecture can be used to hit any city in America by a rogue nation, a mobile launch system.

[TIME: 1400]

We heard that the North Koreans have a system that they are testing now that can reach Hawaii and Guam. And we just heard the Chinese, 2 weeks ago, tested a system that can hit the western United States and Guam as well.

Mr. Chairman, these are real threats. Our bill responds to those. But let me say, Mr. Chairman, our bill is totally consistent with General O'Neill. We don't micromanage General O'Neill. We accept the recommendation of the Clinton administration's expert on missile defense.

In fact we did not even give him all the money he would like to have had. Our mark is totally in line with him and in no way does it violate any part of the ABM treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I will enter in the Record a letter from General O'Neill to me dated yesterday stating that no part of this bill in any way violates any part of the ABM treaty.

The Spratt amendment is a political amendment being offered, I think, in the wrong-headed sense of the word. And let me say why. Our side, the conservative side, wanted to offer an amendment to take on the ABM treaty in this bill and I said, If you do, I will come to the floor and I will lead the fight against it. And that amendment was not offered. It was withdrawn.

Now, we are going to be asked to vote on an amendment that takes this bill over the line and says not only do we want it to comply with ABM , but all future modifications of ABM . So, we want to limit the ability of our defense experts to look at how we can best defend America.

This bill is not about the ABM treaty. We have agreed to a separate vote on the ABM treaty; a separate debate. This bill is about defending America.

We want to give our defense experts the chance to tell us, based on the threats that are there, how we can best defend the country. If we want to have a vote on ABM , let that occur at some other time and some other place. But it should not be on this bill. And I resent the fact that that amendment is being offered.

Mr. Chairman, I would encourage our Members and our colleagues to do what members of the committee did in a bipartisan manner. We rejected the Spratt amendment in a bipartisan vote of 33 to 18 saying this is not the place to discuss the merits of the ABM treaty.

I repeat again, General O'Neill, on the record in writing, has stated that nothing in this bill, nothing in any way, shape, or form, violates the terms or the conditions of the ABM treaty. That debate can occur at the appropriate time.

I would also ask our colleagues to support the leadership, Speaker Gingrich and our entire House leadership, in opposing the Dellums amendment which would also gut this effort. And I thank our colleagues for their cooperation in the spirit of debate.

The letter previously referred to follows:

[Page: H5946]

Most Americans are unaware that this Nation currently has no ability to defend itself against an accident missile launch or an attack by a terrorist nation or rogue military commander. That, however, is indeed the case.

With the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies, we cannot accept this shortcoming. There are too many nations--Iran, North Korea, and Iraq, among them--pursuing these capabilities. Meanwhile, the confiscation of highly enriched uranium on the black market indicates the deterioration of internal security controls over nuclear materials in the former U.S.S.R. Under the circumstances, we cannot remain complacent about our lack of defensive options.

H.R. 1530 increases the President's request for ballistic missile defense funding from $3.1 to $3.8 billion. This funding will step up efforts on both theater missile defenses, which are desperately needed to protect our service people in the field, and on national missile defenses, which we must pursue now, before renegade nations can threaten us.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the committee's bill and oppose weakening amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendments printed in subpart D, part 1 of the report relating to ballistic missile defense, which shall be considered in the following order:

By Representative Spratt and by Representative Dellums.

It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in subpart D of part 1 of the report.