Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4, Declaration of Policy of the United States Concerning National Missile Defense Deployment with a Senate amendment. The rule is twofold. First, it makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment in the House. Second, the rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 is a straightforward bill, declaring that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as it is technologically possible and to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. Mr. Speaker, in 1957, during a speech here in Washington, D.C., General Omar Bradley warned that we are now speeding inexorably towards a day when even the ingenuity of our scientists may be unable to save us from the consequences of a single rash act or a lone reckless hand upon the switch of an uninterceptible missile. Forty-two years later, General Bradley is still right, not because we may be unable to stop an incoming missile, but because we cannot. Not long ago, this House approved the national missile defense program by a margin of 317 to 105, a ratio of better than three to one. I am urging my colleagues to demonstrate their overwhelming support for this rule and its underlying bill once again. Besides thousands of nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles maintained by Russia, China has more than a dozen long-range ballistic missiles targeted at the United States, and countries like North Korea and Iran are developing ballistic missile technology and capability much more rapidly than once believed. The argument that rogue nations need more than a decade to obtain ballistic missile capability is both technically irresponsible and politically naive. The threat is real. The threat is here. The threat is now. Even worse, most Americans do not realize that we have absolutely no defense, none at all, against a missile attack. We have been lulled into a false sense of security, unaware that nations across the globe are currently developing ballistic missiles which pose an immediate threat to our security. In fact, just last year, Iran launched a medium-range ballistic missile with the help of North Korea and Russia. We can protect ourselves from missiles of these potentially hostile nations. Deployment of a national mission defense system would cost less than our last six military peacekeeping missions. Let us pass this rule and pass this declaration of policy and protect our Nation and its people from the threat of a missile attack. I would like to commend the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, for their hard work on this very important measure. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is important that we take a look at reminding ourselves as we debate this rule that the national missile defense program, the vote most recently held in this House, was 317-105, better than a 3 to 1 ratio of the Members of this great body in support of a national missile defense program. Number two, on some of the questions with the rule, I would remind all of my colleagues that at the Committee on Rules yesterday, it was a voice vote on the rule approval that we have before us today. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must go back to my opening remarks, that most Americans do not realize that we have absolutely no defense, none at all, against a missile attack. We have been lulled into a false sense of security, unaware that nations across the globe are currently developing ballistic missiles which pose an immediate threat to our security. Mr. Speaker, today is the day to act. I urge passage of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is the House leading expert on missile defense. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the plans of the Committee on Rules in regard to H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and the Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Today the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) informed the House of the Committee on Rules' plan regarding these bills in two ``Dear Colleague'' letters. The Committee on Rules will be meeting the week of May 24 to grant a rule which may restrict the offering of amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services on May 19. A copy of the bill and report will be available for review in the office of the Committee on Armed Services on Monday, May 24. The bill is also expected to be available for review on the Committee on Armed Services' web site this evening. Any Member contemplating an amendment to the bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief explanation to the Committee on Rules in H-312 of the Capitol no later than Tuesday, May 25 at 5 p.m. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services. The Committee on Rules is also planning to meet the week of May 24 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for floor consideration for Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The Committee on Appropriations ordered the bill reported Thursday, May 20, and is expected to file its committee report on Thursday, May 25, 1999. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol no later than 12 p.m. on Tuesday, May 25. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. Copies of the bill may be obtained from the Committee on Appropriations in room H-218 of the Capitol. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 174 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 174 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1654, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and for other purposes. The rule provides for one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule waives points of orders against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII, requiring a three-day layover of the committee report. Additionally, the rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be open for amendment at any point. The rule further waives points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, prohibiting nongermane amendments. The Chair is authorized by the rule to grant priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 174 is a fair and open rule for consideration of H.R. 1654, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act. It is my understanding that some Members may wish to offer germane amendments to this bill, and under this open rule, they will have every opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, this seems an appropriate week for us to consider this rule and its underlying bill, H.R. 1654. Across our Nation, Americans from every age group and every walk of life have shown our Nation's continuing fascination with the mysteries of space. Last night as the clock struck 12 o'clock, thousands upon thousands of people took part in an unprecedented phenomena across these United States, lining up to see the sequel to the 22-year-old movie, Star Wars. But our country's fascination with space and space exploration is rooted as much in science as it is in science fiction. Long before anyone heard of George Lucas or Darth Vader, Americans were fixated on the small screen in their living rooms to bear witness to Alan Sheppard's first manned Mercury space flight and Neil Armstrong's first steps on the room. And, baby boomers and generation- Xers alike shared in two historic flights, John Glenn's first orbit of the Earth aboard Friendship VII in 1962, and his return to space 36 years later aboard the Shuttle Discovery. This rule and its underlying bill will allow NASA and America's space program to move forward with a multinational space station. In addition to our Nation's contribution, 15 other countries have invested $5 billion in the International Space Station program, and continued U.S. support will show the world our commitment to the international science projects. Further, the ISS means over 75,000 American jobs. With this space station, with moving our space program forward, young Americans will continue to be attracted to fields and job markets like science and engineering, areas that are key to making American industry more competitive across the globe. I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) for their hard work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to both support this open rule and the underlying bill. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 174 is an open rule, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 175 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 175 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1553, the National Weather Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of 1999. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 for the National Weather Service, Atmospheric Research, and National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule further provides that it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science and now printed in the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be open for amendment at any point. The Chair is authorized by the rule to grant priority to recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I believe that House Resolution 175 is a fair rule. It is an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 1553, the National Weather Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of 1999. It is my understanding that some Members may wish to offer germane amendments on this bill, and under this open rule they will have every opportunity to do so. H.R. 1553 authorizes funding for several very important weather service programs in the United States. In fact, funding for the National Weather Service alone is about one-third of the total annual National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget. Mr. Speaker, as the events of Monday, May 3, in Oklahoma showed us, we are still often powerless against the fury of Mother Nature. An outbreak of more than 40 tornadoes claimed 44 lives, destroyed or heavily damaged 5,200 homes, and left more than $1 billion in property damage in its wake. The damage to life, property, and community was devastating, but it could have been even worse without the National Weather Service's first tornado warning at 4:45 p.m. This rule, and its underlying bill, will help improve, modernize and automate weather observations and improve public forecasts and warnings of severe weather events. The fact is the National Weather Service provides a valuable source of early warning and observations to the American people. Whether a tornado or hurricane, blizzard or tropical storm, this rule and its underlying bill can save countless lives and property by assuring early and accurate warning systems. Further, atmospheric research programs have helped improve severe weather forecast and warning capabilities, and improved knowledge about severe storms and the science of weather modification, important for U.S. transportation and agriculture. I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the ranking member, for their hard work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support both this open rule and the underlying bill. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 175 is a fair, completely open rule, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on this resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Vincent J. Stanley, Jr., who will be honored on May 18th with the Annual Rotary Award of the Rochester Rotary Club. Mr. Speaker, Rotary International's motto, ``Service Above Self,'' aptly applies to Vince Stanley. In addition to his success in business as founder and President of V.J. Stanley, Inc., Vince Stanley's leadership and generosity has improved the quality of life of countless people in his community. Through his work with the Rochester Rotary Club, he has made it possible for hundreds of school children to attend summer camp. As a former President of the Rochester Red Wings baseball team, Vince initiated special handicapped seating within the stadium and continues to provide thousands of underprivileged children with tickets to baseball and hockey games and LPGA events. Vince's generosity aided in the formation of Hope Hall, a school that serves children with special learning needs. Through his involvement with the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), Vince continues to make a difference for small businesses in his community, and throughout our nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this House of Representatives join me in congratulating Vince Stanley, on the occasion of his being honored by the Rochester Rotary Club with its annual award, and for his continued generosity and dedication to community service.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), I must say that editorials are supposed to be thought- provoking, and while I am a daily reader of the New York Times and their editorial pages have given me great opportunities to reflect on their comments and some of my views, it is true that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has pointed out the bug's legal bite which appeared in today's in Los Angeles Times has also given me thought- provoking aspects of a message that I think the gentleman has outlined. But I think the first paragraph really sets the tenor for my cosponsorship and support of this legislation, what figures to be the most costly aspect of the so-called Year 2000 bug. Mr. Speaker, it could be an onslaught of Y2K-related lawsuits, many of which might use the Y2K hook to seek damages for frivolous or unrelated problems. That, should it come, could well surpass the cost of real Y2K problems. Clearly, temporary liability protections should be in place. It is clear to me that uncertainty must be the first word in Y2K discussions. No one is certain what will happen in our digitally- interconnected world should some computers and electronic machinery fail to deal with the year 2000. The threat of Y2K legislation, replacing coordination and teamwork with the threat of adversarial litigation is hampering the private-sector effort to solve the Y2K problems by adding another whole layer of uncertainty to Y2K planning and discouraging cooperation. H.R. 775 is focused on replacing the adversarial blame game with the kind of private-sector cooperation needed to get Y2K problems solved. The bill enjoys bipartisan support and is backed by a very broad coalition of private sector groups, the private sector coalition, far beyond high-tech companies that produce computers and software. Instead, it includes industries, big businesses and small that use these products and see themselves as potential plaintiffs as well as potential defendants. Finally, the threat of lawsuits is not driving companies to solve their Y2K problems. Instead, business simply wants to be in business in the year 2000. There is no greater incentive for business to find Y2K solutions than next year's bottom line. Legal uncertainty is a hurdle that stands in the way. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation reduces excessive litigation; it encourages mediation and for businesses to solve its problems; and, finally, it protects everyone's right to a day in court. Mr. Speaker, the rule that is before us is fair, it is bipartisan, it gives a clear opportunity for debate today. I urge passage of the rule.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of one of Capitol Hill's most hard-working and talented reporters. As a member of the Washington Bureau of The Buffalo News, Jerry Zremski's Washington dispatches are an important and invaluable source of information for my constituents on the activities of this Congress. Jerry was recently named a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, a prestigious honor afforded to only 12 journalists throughout the United States of America. Jerry will begin his fellowship at Harvard in the fall, at the world's oldest mid-career fellowship program for journalists. A graduate of Syracuse University, where he earned a bachelor's degree in journalism, and American University, where he received his Master's Degree in Political Science, Jerry Zremski has distinguished himself in his profession, and I ask that this House of Representatives join me in honoring Jerry's achievement in earning the Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of the dedication of the Wyoming County Courthouse in Warsaw, New York, in the name of the Conable family, whose members have a long and proud history of dedication to public service. Family patriarch Barber Conable served as Wyoming County judge from 1924-1951. Following his retirement, his son, John Conable assumed the judgeship from 1952-1983. John's brother, Barber Conable, Jr., went from practicing law in nearby Batavia to this House of Representatives, where he served for 20 years as a Member of Congress. Following his service in the House of Representatives, Barber Conable, Jr. served as President of the World Bank, from which he retired several years ago. As we noted at the building's dedication ceremony on April 27th, no other family in Wyoming County's history has come close to the level and commitment of public service as the Conables. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this House of Representatives join me in saluting the Conable family for their tremendous dedication to public service, and to salute all the residents of Wyoming County on the occasion of the dedication of the Wyoming County Courthouse.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and acknowledge the men and women of the Hutchinson Hose Company in Amherst, NY. In 1835, residents of ``Williams Mills'' first donated a portion of their taxes toward the purchase of a fire engine, recognizing the community's need for fire protection. Since the time of that $228 wooden wagon, Hutchinson Hose, which received its modern-day name in 1908 in honor of Edward H. Hutchinson, has grown with its community, providing superior fire protection for the residents of Williamsville. For 164 years, the men and women of Hutchinson Hose have lived up to their early-day moniker of the ``Rough and Ready Fire Engine Company Number One,'' and it is with great pleasure that I commend them during our deliberations today. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay special recognition to Mr. Irvin J. Lorich and Mr. David Sherman. Irvin will be honored on Saturday, May 1, 1999, for 50 years of dedicated volunteer service; and Mr. Sherman, a distinguished journalist and editor, will again be sworn-in as President of the Fire Company, the longest tenured president in fire company history. Mr. Speaker, I know that the entire House of Representatives joins me in saluting the hard work and dedication of the Hutchinson House Company, and two of its most distinguished members, President Dave Sherman and Mr. Irvin Lorich.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 145, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 145 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999. The purpose of this legislation is to improve the quality of coastal recreational waters by establishing national uniform criteria for testing and monitoring coastal recreational waters. In addition, H.R. 999 establishes uniform notification to the public on the quality of those waters in order to protect both the environment and public health. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be open for amendment by section. Additionally, the rule provides for the consideration of the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report, if offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) or his designee. The rule further provides that the manager's amendment shall be considered as read, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall not be subject to amendment or to a division of question, and is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. If adopted, the amendment is considered as part of the base text for further amendment purposes. The Chair is authorized by the rule to grant priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, I believe House Resolution 145 is a fair rule. It is an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act of 1999. As I understand it, some Members may wish to offer germane amendments to this bill, and under this open rule they will have every opportunity to do so. H.R. 999 establishes uniform criteria for testing coastal recreation waters and for public notification of water quality. Indeed, as this Nation's first and most ardent conservationist, President Theodore Roosevelt noted upon the establishment of the Waterways Commission our natural resources are so closely connected that they should be coordinated and should be treated as part of one coherent plan and not in haphazard or piecemeal fashion. By establishing public notification, this bill will not only protect public health, but will encourage tourism and business development along our coastal areas. Each year, an estimated 180 million people from around the world visit America's coastal waters for recreational purposes, supporting over 28 million jobs and leading to investments of over $50 billion each year in goods and services. Madam Speaker, H.R. 999 is not a regulatory bill. It gives the EPA no new regulatory authorities. The bill instead offers an incentive to State and local governments to test beaches for pathogens which are dangerous to human health. By establishing a grant program, H.R. 999 gives the States the ability to monitor the safety of coastal recreational waters and to set a deadline for updating State water quality standards for these waters to protect the public from disease-carrying organisms. In my own district, which includes a portion of Lake Ontario, this bill will encourage tourism by furthering public confidence in the water quality. By ensuring that water quality, the very integrity of our waterways, this bill will meet President Roosevelt's challenge that this Nation should strive to leave to the next generation the national honor unstained and the national resources unexhausted. I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their hard work on H.R. 999, and I urge my colleagues to support both this open rule and the underlying bill. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, House Resolution 145 is fair, a completely open rule, and I urge its adoption. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a closed rule for H.R. 4, the National Missile Defense bill. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that it will be in order, upon receipt of a message from the Senate transmitting H.R. 4, with Senate amendments, to consider in the House a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendments and request or agree to a conference with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 is a simple, one-sentence bill declaring that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense. During remarks at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in my home State of New York, President Ronald Reagan said that ``a truly successful army is one that, because of its strength and ability and dedication, will not be called upon to fight, for no one will dare provoke it.'' Indeed, President Reagan's policy of peace through strength was the beginning of the end of the Cold War and established the United States as the world's only remaining superpower. But the end of the Cold War did not bring about the end of a lasting threat to our Nation's security and our people's safety, which is why I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4, which will establish a national missile defense system. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, ``eternal vigilance,'' wrote Jefferson, ``is the price of liberty.'' Yet our current national missile defense has neither the ability nor the technology to ensure that either our safety or our liberty is held in the United States. Even as we sit at the dawn of the next century, the United States could not defend itself against even a single incoming ballistic missile. Mr. Speaker, that fact bears repeating. Our current national defense could not shoot down even one incoming ballistic missile let alone the thousands that stand ready to point toward our Nation's borders. According to the Rumsfeld Commission, the threat to America and her people from a ballistic missile attack is not only very real but even greater than once expected. Besides thousands of nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles maintained by Russia, China has more than a dozen long-range ballistic missiles targeted at the United States, and countries like North Korea and Iran are developing ballistic missile technology and capability much more rapidly than once believed. Another astonishing fact is that the overwhelming majority of the American people, some 73 percent, is unaware of the threat to their country, their homes, and their families. They believe we already have the technology to knock down and defeat a ballistic missile attack. We do not. The American people are entitled to know the truth, just as they are entitled to us doing something about it to ensure their safety and their lives. They are also entitled to know the facts about the cost of a national missile defense. And the facts are that the current national missile defense plans account for one-half of 1 percent of anticipated defense spending from fiscal year 2000 through 2005 and less than 2 percent of the Department of Defense's entire modernization budget during these years. The threat of a ballistic missile attack is real, as real as our resolve must be to protect all Americans by deploying a national missile defense. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, President Reagan taught us that we could be victorious against the Cold War threat of nuclear annihilation by adopting a policy of peace through strength. Now we must be victorious against the threat of a ballistic missile attack by adopting a policy of peace through security, the security that a national missile defense will provide our country and our citizens. I would like to commend the Committee on Armed Services chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, for their hard work on this very important measure. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the ranking member that yesterday the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) outlined that there would be more than ample debate in the hour that we have on the rule now, in the two hours of debate, and the hour on consideration of the conference resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).