Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

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

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an excellent point. Over the past 30 years we have had two wars in America. We had the war on poverty, and we spent $6 trillion and we lost. And we had a strong buildup with support from Democrats and Republicans, and we spent $5 trillion during that same period of time. And what happened? The world is a safe and secure place because we won that. What we are saying is, we want to continue to be strong to deter aggression. We lost the war on poverty where we spent more money, but certainly our investment in defense allows all of us to be here where we are today.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would add, Mr. Chairman, this is the only case I can think of where we are going to see an amendment offered that eliminates a specific type of technology that may or may not be requested by the Pentagon. We could say, ``Why don't we limit the nuclear capability of our aircraft carriers?,'' or ``Why don't we build our nuclear-powered submarine?'' We are talking one technology that may or may not be requested by the Defense Department and saying, ``Do not explore this even if it may down the road provide protection for our citizens.'' I do not understand that mentality. What we are saying is not to force them to deploy a space-based system, we are saying, ``Come back and tell us what it is that you think we should do and how quickly can we do it.'' That is what we are suggesting. I think it is ill-advised in this case to limit the technology.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. One further point besides the sale of Russian submarines to Iran, which we now have documented, we also know that the Russians offered to take the SS-25, which is their mainstay nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, and offer that technology to Brazil to be used for space flight. We know that. So somehow we are thinking that this technology for nuclear capability is staying within Russia. That is just not borne out by the facts. I thank my colleague for yielding.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to point out we are not in disagreement. And in fact if we look as we have cut defense spending over the past 5 years by 25 percent, we have increased nondefense discretionary spending.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. A theater ballistic missile system.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if I might inquire of the author of the amendment, is it his intent that that inclusion of ``any space-based interceptor'' also includes the development and deployment of a ballistic missile system?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Can a point of order be raised when a changed amendment is offered?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. It is allowable now to waive a point or order?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. What section are we amending with this amendment?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: Is it the correct understanding that the Chair is ruling that this amendment is amending a section that is no longer in existence and that is allowable?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Where is that amendment? May I see it? I have not seen it.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The amendment that is being offered is to a section that is no longer in existence because of the passage of the previous resolution. So what in fact are we amending? Maybe I should address that to the parliamentarian. What are we amending?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I just want to add that in that assessment done for the Secretary, General O'Neill tells us that we can get a 90 percent effective rate against three SS-25s that would be the likely scenario of a third world nation getting SS-25 capability. Some would argue that is not possible. I would remind my colleagues, as I know my colleague in the well knows, that it was just a few short months ago that the Russians offered to Brazil to take an SS-25 and use it for a space launch effort. So they in fact are looking at the availability of making the SS-25 architecture available for other countries.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, what we are saying is we want the Secretary to come back to us within 60 days to tell us as soon as practicable when he can deploy the national missile defense system, and he acknowledges publicly he can deploy for not $10 billion, not $20 billion, but $5 billion over 5 years. Now, in terms of the first title of this, readiness, we are all for readiness. As a matter of fact, we were extremely critical of the Secretary when we acknowledged in the committee when he came before us that his defense budget for this year is $5 billion less than the acquisition accounts, than what he told us it would be last year. So we acknowledge that.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for that, and I take back my time. The key problem that I have with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that it does not get at the heart of what this debate is all about, and that is asking the Secretary to report back to us within 60 days for as soon as practicable deployment of the beginning of a national ballistic missile system. Now we have it on the Record, the tiger team that did the research for Secretary Perry looked at three options and, in fact, reported to the Secretary last week that they can begin to deploy a limited national defense system for approximately $5 billion over 5 years. It is not 10, it is not 20, it is not 25; $5 billion. Furthermore, they have stated that technology will give us a 90-percent effective rate for the kinds of targets that it would focus on, namely the SS-25 and a conglomeration of three missiles with three warheads. But we do not want to specifically limit what the Secretary can go back and recommend to us, which is one of the further reasons why I have to object to this. We do not want to tell him what he should, in fact, be looking at. We want to leave that up to him, and we have confidence in the Secretary that within 60 days he will come back and tell us what the parameters of that system should look like.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that point, and I think that is a very important point for us to begin on, that the gentleman from the other side offering this amendment agrees that space-based sensors are important for what the Minority side wants to pursue, and that is a theater missile defense system. I say to my colleagues, ``So, when you hear rhetoric on the floor, people talking about space-based weapons, even this amendment calls for space-based sensors, which I think our colleague would also acknowledge the Russians already have, and in fact have been using, as a part of their operational ABM system around Moscow.'' Let me say the reasons why I have to--my added point would be: ``Why did not the gentleman include that in the text of the amendment?''

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I think----