AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SPENCE
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 39, printed in the Congressional Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Spence: At the end of title II (page 12, after line 25), add the following new section.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States and its allies face existing and expanding threats from ballistic missiles capable of being used as theater weapon systems that are presently possessed by, being developed by, or being acquired by a number of countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea.
(2) Some theater ballistic missiles that are currently deployed or are being developed (such as the Chinese CSS-2 missile and the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile) have capabilities equal to or greater than the capabilities of missiles that were determined to be strategic missiles more than 20 years ago under the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement I (SALT I) Interim Agreement of 1972 entered into between the United States and the Soviet Union.
(3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was not intended to, and does not, apply to or limit research, development, testing or deployment of missile defense systems, system upgrades, or system components that are designed to counter modern theater ballistic missiles, regardless of the capabilities of such missiles, unless those systems, system upgrades, or system components are tested against or have demonstrated capabilities to counter modern strategic ballistic missiles.
(4) It is a national security priority of the United States to develop and deploy highly effective theater missile defense systems capable of countering the existing and expanding threats posed by modern theater ballistic missiles at the earliest practical date.
(5) Current United States proposal in the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC) would multilateralize the ABM Treaty, making future amendments or changes to the Treaty more difficult, and would impose specific design limitations on United States theater missile defense (TMD) systems that would significantly compromise the United States TMD capability.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that further formal negotiations in the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC) and any informal discussions or negotiations on either the demarcation between theater missile defense (TMD) systems and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, or any other effort that bears on the viability of the ABM Treaty, including multilateralization of the treaty, should be suspended until the One Hundred Fourth Congress has had the opportunity to review those matters.
[Page: H1810]
One of the highest priority defense capabilities currently under development by the Department of Defense is theater missile defense. The U.S. theater missile defense systems are designed to defend our U.S. military forces deployed overseas, along with friendly forces and allies, from ballistic missile attack.
The threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles is expanding. Several countries, including North Korea, are developing missiles of increasing range and accuracy. Others, such as Iran, have purchased missiles and production technology from North Korea. Such proliferation underscores the importance of fielding, at the earliest practical date, advanced TMD systems, as advocated in title II of this bill.
Unfortunately, our ability to field high-effective TMD systems is in jeopardy. Specifically, under the guise of `clarifying' the terms of the 1972 anti-ballistic treaty, this administration has proposed in talks with Russia and others to impose specific design limitations on two theater missile defense systems that will significantly compromise our United States capability.
They have also proposed to multilateralize the ABM Treaty, making future amendments or changes to the treaty, such as those to deploy an effective missile defense of our country, more difficult.
Based on these concerns, I cosigned a letter to President Clinton on January 4, along with the entire House Republican leadership, suggesting that further negotiations be suspended until the new Congress had an opportunity to examine those issues in detail. Unfortunately, the President's reply rejected our suggestion and stated his intention to continue negotiating such an agreement.
I would note that, according to a February 13, 1995, Washington Times article, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch also has grave misgivings about the current U.S. negotiating approach, as does our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili. According to the Times, Mr. Deutch in a as follows:
[Page: H1812]
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise first of all, along with a number of other Members on this side, to make inquiries as to exactly what the purpose of this particular proposal is.
First of all, could I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the particular objection we have, other than the fact that we are multilateralizing the ABM Treaty, and I do not think we multilateralized it, they did, when they splintered into a number of different countries.
The former Soviet Union is no more, so countries which have missile weapons, that missile defense system is still there.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the administration, by the President's own admission, because he has sent a letter back to the Republican leadership after they initiated a letter essentially asking the President, having heard reports from the Pentagon that senior arms negotiators were attempting to expand or were discussing with the Soviet Union, with their negotiation team, the expansion of the ABM Treaty to include limitations on theater defenses, and concerns with that negotiation position were expressed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shalikashvili.
They were expressed at the hearing in which the gentleman sat in with me when the Secretary of Defense appeared before us. My understanding of his words, the transcript speaks for itself, is that he, too, was concerned with negotiating limitations on theater defenses.
The Republican leadership sent a letter to the President and asked him not to engage in negotiations that would limit theater defensive systems. Let me say that the President responded with a letter, and I can get the letter and we will have it before me, but as I recall, the letter did not say or did not alleviate the concerns of the Republican leadership.
Mr. SPRATT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to clarify the question, the gentleman's real concern is not multilateralizing it, because that is sort of a fact accomplished by the breakup of the Soviet Union, but it is the fact that this administration seems to have expressed concerns about the THAD in particular.
Mr. HUNTER. No, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman will continue to yield, there were two concerns expressed by the Republican leadership. One is multilateralization, bringing in the former Soviet States, Byelorus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and others, but it was also the limitations that are projected to be placed on the development of theater defensive systems that has upset both our own military people, who are concerned about protecting American military contingents in theater, and a number of people, I think, on both sides of the aisle.
Therefore, the Chairman's resolution, as I understand, is a sense of the Congress resolution advising the President that we do not wish him to place constraints on theater ballistic missile systems through the ABM Treaty.
Mr. SPRATT. The provision that is printed in the Record ends by saying `These negotiations should be suspended until the 104th Congress has had the opportunity to review these matters.'
I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, does he have in mind simply a hearing? What is the opportunity of review?
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, since I am the world's greatest expert on my own opinion and my own perception, I think it is a terrible mistake to enter in, when Navy upper tier, I think the best theater defense system that the Navy is developing, is possibly going to be constrained under what the President's negotiators have proposed, I think it is a mistake to impose limitations on theater defensive systems when we have a rapidly evolving threat coming from China, from North Korea, from other sources.
My own opinion is I think we should not constrain theater defensive systems. I think we need to have our intelligence personnel appear before us. I think we need to see if Secretary Perry is going to prevail, and if General Shalikashvili is going to prevail.
Mr. SPRATT. What the gentleman is seeking is just a hearing with the relevant parties and interests before the committee so we could better understand what is going on and express our opinion?
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would advise my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, also to work with the administration and try to change their opinion.
What I would like to do and what others would like to do is change the position of the administration and not constrain theater missile defense. I think it is a very difficult thing to do right now when the threat is evolving rapidly, and I think also the multilateralization is a problem.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for expressing some clarification of what it is they seek. I have no particular problem with it. I propose simply that we accept it and move on.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I believe it is important to send a clear message to President Clinton that a majority of Members in this Chamber do not agree with the administration's position with respect to the ABM Treaty.
Along with a number of other senior Republicans, including Members of the Republican leadership, I requested the President to suspend ongoing negotiations with regard to the ABM Treaty until he consulted with the 104th Congress.
The President respectfully declined to do that. That's because the administration is in the midst of negotiating changes to the treaty that could undercut our ability to deploy highly effective TMD's.
The administration is also seeking to add other countries as signatories to the ABM Treaty. That could pose an obstacle to deployment of effective missile defenses for our national territory.
This amendment is a shot across the bow to the administration, sending a clear signal that we are serious about this issue.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Spence's amendment.
[Page: H1814]
Mr. Chairman, let us move on. This is about hearings. We ought to have them. We are on the record saying we ought to explore these insignificant questions.
Let us not debate this matter. Let us accept it, and move on to other more substantial and substantive amendments. We are prepared to deal with it. I would have hoped that my colleague would have alerted me earlier about this amendment and we could have talked about it in committee, we could have looked at it thoroughly in committee.
Notwithstanding that, let us get beyond this, accept the amendment, and let us move on to other items.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important policy decision that the administration is undertaking right now with respect to theater defense limitations.
[TIME: 1710]
I think it is an extremely important issue. I would like to get a vote on it because I think it is important to have a sense of the House, regardless of the final outcome of the bill, on this issue. I think it is a very important arms control limitation amendment. And I would like to have a vote.
Mr. SPRATT. We accept the amendment. Is that not sufficient?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has the time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Let me first respond to my colleague by saying, look, we all know there are very significant amendments here. Take the amendment. Every time you call for a vote, you take out of the debate much more significant amendments that we need to debate here. You are going to win today. We thought you had written the bill the way you wanted to write it in the first place. You have got the votes to do it. Why now trample upon the little bit of time that we have to try to make up for it here? You could have written this bill any way you wanted to. We accept the amendment, and let us go forward.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Is the distinguished and esteemed gentleman acknowledging, or am I hearing something incorrectly, that the policy is flawed as stands and should be changed?
Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman knows that both of us are very articulate people. We need not put words in each other's mouth. I am saying very specifically, you have got the votes. Go on and accept the amendment. Let's not filibuster this issue. Let's get on to other amendments that are very important. That is exactly what the gentleman is saying.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend the gentleman for yielding.
Let me just say to him that if this were a motion to adjourn or some kind of a delaying motion, I would agree with him completely. I am just saying to my friend, and I hope he will accept this, I think this is a very important part of arms limitation. It got a lot of us riled up when we saw it happening. You and I know the difference between having a vote in which you have real numbers on the scorecard instead of an acceptance where we say, `Well, we accepted it to get it off the table and under the carpet.'
I do intend to call a vote on it because I think it is important to have a vote. I guarantee my friend I will be short of words for the rest of the day.
Mr. DELLUMS. If I might reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, then let's get on with it. Call for the vote and let's do it.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the need to move on when both sides are in agreement about who is going to win today here on an important amendment. I have not criticized anybody on the other side of the aisle for raising a little ruckus around here about the Republican Contract With America and having the most unusual 100-day period we have ever had here. The reason I have not objected to the passion of anybody on the other side, from the new conscience of the minority, Harold Volkmer, or to any other passion is that I spent one-third of my adult life, no, one-third of my entire 60 years in the minority on this side and I feel your pain, and I mean it. But this is a moment I have waited for, for a long time.
Look, Mr. Chairman. We all know that over 1 million Americans are following this debate on C-SPAN. That is the Rose Bowl filled 100 times, or 10 times. That is the Coliseum filled 10 times. And they don't have close-up cameras all the time.
I want to make a few points as the self-appointed historian of this body, and I don't know who takes that role in the Senate.
Fifty years ago today, the Nazi empire of Hitler's Fortress Europe was pushing buttons and launching in this month of February, 50 years ago, hundreds of ballistic missiles. Their guidance systems were rudimentary, but they were good enough to kill innocent men, women, and children all over southern England. And those that did not make the route killed innocent people as they fell on the Netherlands or Belgium working their way to wreak havoc. Hitler's V-1, a cruise missile in today's terminology, and his V-2, a ballistic missile, were not named V for victory, they were named V for vengeance. Believe me, we can, God forbid, have in the future what one of the great liberal papers of America calls a `rogue missile' coming at us.
Listen to what one of America's 3 major newspapers says in closing in an editorial that I found much exception to on technological points, but listen to this closely. And I will tell who it is afterward:
`While it remains a global power and within the limits of technological and financial sense,' and this is what we will debate with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] in his forceful and articulate manner in hearings later in the year, `the United States must be able to protect forces that it sends on distant missions. And also to protect our allies. There lies the irreducible rationale for an effective theater missile defense.'
That is the liberal great Washington Post.
Now, while we possess the technology to defeat a threat, certainly at the level of Hitler's vengeance weapons, we now have the ability to detect, to intercept, and to destroy incoming missiles, but we still do not have the ability to protect one single American city, not a village, hamlet, or town, not an innocent man or woman anywhere in the continental United States or our possessions from Guam, where our day begins, to the Virgin Islands, from Alaska to Hawaii, nowhere can we defend ourselves from missiles. And we still hear voices in this Chamber defending the ABM treaty signed with an evil empire, an entity that is gone. It does not exist anymore.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DORNAN. We must later in the year address this ghastly problem of us failing the Preamble to our great Constitution, the original contract, to provide for the common defense.
There are lots of statements people make around here out of polling, from all sorts of great pollers on both sides of the aisle, and we say it is true that most Americans are opposed to most abortions, then we debate that ad nauseam.
Then we have all sorts of things, we say do Americans want this, do they want that?
Here is a statement that I say that I know cannot be refuted. Not 0.1, not 1 percent of this Nation knows that with the trillions of dollars spent under Reagan-Bush or a quarter of a trillion that we are going to spend every year into the future, that is $1 trillion during the Clinton years, that we are unable to defend ourselves from some rogue missile sent by some terrorist group.
I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] carefully talks----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has again expired.
[Page: H1815]
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, with all due respect, we are operating here with a very tight time constraint. We do appreciate your historical perspectives. But I think we do have to move on and get to the substance of this bill. We have real concrete concerns that we have got to view here with the American public and with our colleagues and we have got to move on. We would ask that we call for a vote on this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield, I would ask my colleagues since we are going to call for a vote, I think a vote is important to send a message to the President. I would ask my colleagues to refrain from making more speeches so there is time left for the other side to offer the amendments that they have planned in the next several hours.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, with the caveat that this would be the last 30 seconds, that we are going to restrain ourselves from the unanimous consent and ask for the vote immediately following this 30 seconds, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DORNAN. The gentleman is so gracious, I will cut it to 15 seconds to finish my point.
I look forward to a debate with one of the fairest former chairmen ever, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] on the danger of suitcase bombs being dumped out of old freighters into the mud of our harbors. That is equally as dangerous as a rogue missile. We will discuss that later. But we must fulfill this part of the contract on theater missile defense.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 320, noes 110, not voting 4, as follows:
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
