John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Spratt-Payne-Coble-Ballenger- Hefner-Rose amendment to H.R. 450. Basically, Mr. Chairman, this amendment carves out several selected exceptions to this regulatory freeze to allow for rules that American businesses have actually sought and supported. Our amendment would mean the moratorium would not apply to five subject areas: No. 1. Trade sanctions against China. Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes, the administration may, I cannot say this with any certainty, but it may be barred or at least impeded from imposing sanctions against China for pirating our patents and copyrights. Section 6 of the bill does exclude from the freeze ``statutes implementing international trade agreements.'' But the sanctions we would impose upon China do not implement any international trade agreements, they are sanctions imposed under our own trade laws. So they may not be precluded as a rule-making action as this bill is written now. Our amendment would make certain simply that we can sanction China for pirating our patents and copyrights, and I do not see how anybody can oppose that. No. 2. Implementation of the so-called Customs Modernization Act. American exporters and importers alike support the Customs Modernization Act because it cuts costs and cuts delays as well. The Customs Service supports it because the Modernization Act saves millions of dollars and allows Customs to streamline its operations and get rid of obsolete requirements. H.R. 450 will potentially stop Customs from implementing by regulation all parts of the Modernization Act. Surely there is no reason for us to do that. The Spratt-Payne- Coble-Ballenger-Hefner-Rose amendment would ensure that this bill does not inadvertently get in the way of Customs modernization. There is nothing wrong with that. No. 3. Wider access to telecommunications, the so-called auction of the spectrum. H.R. 450 will potentially suspend rules that govern the auction of the spectrum that have been issued recently and it could require the FCC to shut down its auction for as much as the next 10 months. Since December, these FCC auctions have raised $6.1 billion. Do we want to have H.R. 450 stop the Government from collecting revenues of this magnitude for the rest of the year? Do we want to prevent the FCC from making available additional spectrum to police and public safety officials under new and revised regulations? Our amendment would make certain that we do not do that. No. 4. Improved opportunities for regional stock exchanges. The SEC issued rules this month to allow for increased competition among regional stock exchanges. H.R. 450 would freeze these rules with all others. Our amendment would simply ensure that they go forward. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Customs is about to issue textile rules of origin which we just talked about that will authorize our Government to stop exporting countries like Hong Kong from shipping to us goods under their quota which are actually made in China. This is a form of fraud. Surely we do not want to block rules that crack down on fraudulent trade. That is why we just accepted the Burton amendment, but mine goes further and deals with other textile and apparel import rules and regulations that deal with fraud, evasion and circumvention. For example, Customs has recently issued another rule that stiffens the penalties against textile transshipments which are a form of fraud and quota evasion. This amendment would simply allow that these regulations against trade fraud and evasion take effect. That should not be objectionable to anybody, particularly since the Burton amendment was just accepted without objection without any more than a voice vote. I say to my colleagues, regardless of how you want to vote on H.R. 450, you ought to vote for this amendment. If you want to have our Government have the power to impose trade sanctions upon China, you should vote for this amendment. If you want to see the auction of the spectrum and the billions of dollars it is generating in revenues for the Treasury go forward under new clarified rules of procedure, then you should vote for this amendment. If you want to crack down on fraud and evasion by countries that ship billions of dollars into our markets but flout our rules of trade, then you should vote for this amendment. These are regulations, as I said at the outset, that American businesses have sought and supported, many of us in this House have sought and supported them, and we gain nothing and we lose a lot by freezing actions on them for 13 solid months. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SPRATT. There are rules now pending which have been issued by the FCC that will deal with additional auctions of the spectrum in a certain megahertz range. We will have members of the Committee on Commerce come here shortly and speak to that. But basically if those rules do not go forward, then the auction itself could be impeded and billions of dollars could be in jeopardy.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne].

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, one key advantage of the Obey amendment is that it will allow the Secretary of Defense to decide what to cut and what not to cut in order to pay for this supplemental. In particular, this is why I rise to speak in support of it, it will allow the Secretary to avoid some $250 million in rescissions from environmental restoration and waste cleanup accounts, $150 million off the DOD account and $100 million off the DOE account. Now, I know there is a widespread notion in this body and outside this body that somehow or another these appropriations do not really belong in the defense spending bill anyway, that But in truth, we did put this $1.78 billion in the defense authorization, the defense appropriations bill because we suddenly turned green or the Defense Department suddenly became environmentalists. These are not projects that DOD and DOE have decided would be nice to have. They are necessary. They are required by law. They are imposed on the Department by regulations, by court decrees that they have entered into in State after State. And we are not just skimming these accounts, $150 million off DOD, $1.78 billion seems like it is not that big a hit, $100 million does not sound like much when DOE gets about $3 billion for this particular type of activity. But they are already at the margin because DOD has already squeezed these accounts and so has DOE. And do not take my word for it. Let me quote the eloquent words of Gov. Pete Wilson of California in a letter he wrote to the Secretary of Defense dated January 25, 1995. The recent decision by Congress to cut environmental restoration for 1995 continues a disturbing trend begun last year when Congress rescinded 507 million from the BRAC account. California was reassured that this rescission would not affect environmental work at closing military bases, but work was indeed scaled back at several California military bases due to the cut. If the Federal Government will not keep its cleanup obligations, how can we expect private industry to do the same? California expects DOD to comply with the federal/state cleanup agreements it has sighed at California military bases. DOD is contractually obligated to seek sufficient funding to permit environmental work to proceed according to the schedule contained in those agreements. California will not hesitate to assert its rights under those agreements to seek fines and penalties and judicial orders compelling DOD to conduct the required environmental work. If we pass this supplemental, we will in effect say that DOD is not subject to the same laws as other businesses.

Mr. SPRATT

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SPRATT. Let me introduce an objective source. We passed in 1991 the Missile Defense Act calling for the deployment of a limited defense system by 1996. It originated in the Senate. It also called for a study by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office and by the Secretary of Defense to be submitted to Congress in 6 months, and I have that study here. It came in 1992 from the Bush administration. On page 41, here is the conclusion: For a limited defense system, according to SDIO estimates, acquiring six limited defense sites in brilliant eyes is expected to raise the total cost of the limited defense system, they recommended six sites, on the order of $35 billion, 1991 money. This is a limited defense system, Bush administration, $35 billion, and they say this is a preliminary estimate. What happens if you add brilliant pebbles, which was not included, next page? The anticipated incremental cost of acquiring such a space-based interceptor system involving 1,000 brilliant pebbles as part of the overall architecture would be about $11 billion in 1991 money, including associated technology-based activities. That is $46 billion. This came from the Bush Defense Department, officially submitted to Congress.

Mr. SPRATT. I just wanted to ask the gentleman, who had generously offered to reduce environmental funding in order to fund ballistic missile defense, if he had seen the letter from his Governor of California, Governor Wilson, chastising the Secretary of Defense for not fully funding environmental restoration in this budget and for rescinding some environmental money and saying that he would pursue the Secretary of Defense to the full extent of the law. I do not want to pit the gentleman against his own Governor.

Mr. SPRATT. Excuse me; will the gentleman yield? The gentleman is saying that title 2 should be read to be carte blanche to the Secretary of Defense. Waiting on him to write the check and say what is needed?

Mr. SPRATT. Those two are necessary to this. I voted for the last particular amendment because I think that probably the theater missile defense, to reach its optimal efficiency, will need some satellite assistance to cue the missiles.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 41.

Mr. SPRATT. We accept the amendment. Is that not sufficient?

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. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, title I of this bill professes alarm at the downward spiral of defense spending. It raises the specter of hollow forces. However, when we turn to title II of the bill, to see what it would do, we find what it wants to do is sink billions of dollars into a new national defense missile defense system. Mr. Chairman, one sure way of fulfilling the dire prophecies in title I, the preamble of this bill, is to sink huge sums into a national defense, system especially if it deploys space-based interceptors at the earliest practical date. That is why, when the bill comes up for amendment, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and I will offer three related amendments. We support a strong defense. I support and believe in ballistic missile defense. However, I first want to make sure that our forces, although downsized smaller, are ready to fight. I want to make sure that the equipment they fight with is second to none. I want to ensure quality of life to our troops and their families. Mr. Chairman, we offer these three amendments, because if title II becomes law without them, it could be taken to mean that deployment of a national missile defense system made up of space-based interceptors, such a system could easily cost $25 billion, and that $25 billion can only be funded at the expense of other priorities, like readiness and theater missile defense. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to make sure that a national missile defense system is not put ahead of other priorities. I do not mean to preclude it, I simply mean to put it in its right order. My amendment will require that readiness and modernization should be funded first and should take priority over national missile defense; second, that theater missile defense should take priority over national missile defense, because it deals with a threat here and now; third and finally, that any national missile defense system should start with a ground-based system and not a space-based interceptor.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Over $16 billion.

Mr. SPRATT. Does the gentleman know the cost of the Patriot system, all of them, from 1967 forward? He is not here to tell the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] that it was LBJ's program.

Mr. SPRATT. I was simply trying to simplify. In my opinion, if the gentleman will read the other amendment which I filed in the Record, a ground-based system includes by definitions space-based sensors. It could have ground pop-up sensors, as the gentleman knows. At one time the ground-based system had pop-up sensors that would have been launched only at a time of threatened attack.