Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina. amendment in committee, it was very specific as to what the system I would propose would be, and it is in the record. It includes a ground- based system, and it includes sensors, either ground-launched, pop-up systems, or space-based systems, so-called----

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. First of all, I have the highest respect for our colleague on the other side who has offered this amendment. Mr. Chairman, perhaps few in this body have spent as much time on missile defense as our colleague from South Carolina. I want to acknowledge that up front, and his leadership role. I do have a clarifying question I would like to ask of our colleague who offers this amendment, because there has been a lot of rhetoric spoken on the House floor in terms of what we are talking about. If my colleagues listen to our gentleman speak, he never once used the words ``star wars'' during his eloquent statements on the House floor. Now I have counted at least over 60 times the Members on the other side have used that term, which means I am donating $60 to the Science Fiction Writers Foundation to help them in their activities, but our distinguished colleague never used that because he understands what we are talking about here, I think, as well as anyone. But what he does not mention in his amendment when he talks about a ground-based interceptor system is whether or not that includes or even allows for space-based sensors. Would the gentleman qualify that for me, please? My question is, as we have heard all this rhetoric about space-based and all, the gentleman knows well what we talk about when we say space- based sensors which are not actual weapons, but is a method of detecting when missiles are actually launched. Does the gentleman's motion, for the record, his amendment--in fact does he intend to acknowledge it even though he does not say it?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record these articles and this information. The information referred to is as follows: Deputy Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, February 7, 1995. Memorandum for: Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy; Director, Ballistic Missile Defense; Senior Deputy General Counsel, International Affairs and Intelligence. Subject: BMD program logic. Here is a revised outline based on your inputs and pulled together by Ash Carter. As always, your suggestions have been helpful. Attachment. ballistic missile defense I. BMD Program is determined by: A. The threat--present and anticipated. B. Technical and Program Options. C. Cost and affordability--more resources for BMD means some other modernization opportunities must be forgone. D. ABM (and other) treaty implications. II. The Threat A. Present threat against CONUS (AK and HI slightly different) 1. Russian ICBM and SLBM threat. 2. China--CSS4. 3. No Rest of World (ROW) BM threat to CONUS expected before 2005 at the earliest. (Clapper testimony) 4. Vulnerability to surreptitiously delivered or air- delivered nuclear device. B. Future threat against CONUS 1. Russia and China. 2. ROW Proliferator indigenous development, e.g., North Korea, Iran, Libya. 3. Delivery by BM or air breathers, e.g., cruise missile. C. Effective CONUS defense against determined Russian attack (several thousand RVs) problematic. Responses to this threat are vigorous deterrent (NPR) plus priority on preventing reemergence of threat (CTR). against accidental or small attack (< 50 RVs without sophisticated penaids) possible. D. Theater Ballistic Missile Threat 1. Here today--for US and Allies; SCUDs NO DONG, CSS-2, etc. 2. TBM can carry nuclear or unitary/submission CW/BW warheads. 3. If unchecked, significant problem for U.S. forward operations, esp. SWA, ROK. 4. ROW by purchase or SLV conversion. 5. Urgent defense requirements for US and Allies. III. TBM Defense first priority ($2 billion/year) A. Core Program (deployment planned): 1. PAC-3 First Unit Equipped (FUE) 1998 2. THAAD FUE 2002 3. Navy Lower Tier FUE 2000 B. Enhanced Program (technology development): 1. Navy Upper Tier 2. Boost Phase Intercept 3. Corps SAM (MEADS) C. International cooperation emphasized. D. Depending upon performance, any effective TBM system (especially with the over-the-horizon threat cueing) will have some marginal capabilities against faster strategic incoming BM targets in one-on-one engagement. E. U.S. will not accept limitations on TMD capabilities that pose no threat to the basic principles of the ABM Treaty. IV. Technical and Program Options for National Missile Defense (NMD) A. System components include: 1. Early warning/Surveillance 2. Target acquisition and track--mix of ground based multifunction radars, early-warning radars, space based EO/IR sensors. 3. Interceptors--number, location, and performance. 4. Battle Management C3 B. An NMD system requires significant RDT&E before deployment and the system may be either compliant or not compliant with the ABM (and other) treaties. C. The DoD NMD program consists of two elements 1. BMD Technology. R&D on BMD components that could eventually be part of an advanced NMD or TMD system and growth of TMD system for limited NMD capabilities. a. Technology; Kinetic energy Boost Phase Interceptors, advanced sensors, high powered lasers, advanced lightweight projectile (LEAP), small business innovative research, and innovative science and technology b. Expenditures: $170M/year. 2. The Baseline Program. A treaty compliant three year R&D program that will provide the option for deployment over an additional three years, of an initial NMD system which might or might not be treaty compliant. There is room for further growth in system capabilities. a. The system consists of a ground-based radar (GBR), ground-based interceptor (GBI), and space based sensors (SBIR-LEO) for cueing. b. Expenditure: $520M/year (including $120M for SBIR-LEO). D. The DoD budget does not fund an emergency response NMD program that could be more rapidly deployed in case an unanticipated threat emerges or capability was desired, against accidental or inadvertent launch. 1. Such a system consists of 20-50 exo-kill vehicles (EKVs) on MINUTEMAN II or III boosters with DSP, early warning radar, and multifunction radar cueing. 2. This Emergency Response System would take two years to develop (at a cost of $1 billion to the baseline) and two years to deploy (at an additional cost of $2-4 billion to the baseline) 3. The Emergency Response System would not be compliant with either the ABM or START treaty. 4. ERS would be more effective to degree we know what threat it would meet; therefore not wise to commit to deployment until threat is clearer. E. Summary Chart

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, and I will not object because I respect the collegiality and the past cooperation of the gentleman with whom we have worked. Even though I may disagree with his amendment, I want him to have the right to amend it. But I think it further shows that there is confusion about what the intent of the language is, not in the gentleman's mind but the application of the language of this amendment which I think comes about when you try to micromanage what it is that is going to come back in the form of a recommendation to us, but I will not object. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by our committee chairman. This is a sense-of-the-Congress amendment so it is not binding, but it is a very important one because it gets at the heart of what is now going on between our administration and Russia in terms of the ABM Treaty. As our chairman pointed out, both the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in a memo that I will include for the Record, as well as the comments by General Shalikashvili that we are concerned about the administration policymakers not adopting treaty changes which would prohibit the Defense Debarment from deploying new theater defense systems that meet U.S. requirements. What is important for our colleagues on the minority side is that one of their basic contentions is that theater missile defense is of the highest priority. Now, your Deputy Secretary of Defense, or, I should say, ours and our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are both raising a red flag saying, let us not let those negotiators move too fast. So this is an extremely important amendment. I want to get at the heart of why I think it is so important. My first amendment on the floor of this House in 1987, when many of the more liberal Members of our Congress were saying that we should adhere to the strictest possible interpretation of the ABM Treaty, I offered an amendment that acknowledged that the Kransnowarsk radar system in Siberia was in fact a direct violation of the ABM Treaty. Guess what we have found out, Mr. Chairman, after in fact the Russian military leaders have retired and reported what there intent was with that radar? In a recent article in the Russian military historical journal, written by retired General Votintsev, who said the ABM and space defense troops of the National Air Defense Forces, from 1967 until 1985, he states that it was clearly the Soviet Union's intent to break out and violate the ABM Treaty. Many of the more liberal Members in this body, during that debate, were saying, oh, this is wrong. It is just an accident. It is just being used for radar. It is not being used for defensive operations. In fact, here is the general, who was in charge of that system at the time, not publicly stating what we said on this House floor. He said, furthermore, that he was ordered to do this by the Chief of Staff, Marshall Ogarkov and was told that if he did not locate this radar in Krasnowarsk that General Ustinov, the Minister of Defense, directed that anyone who continued to object would be removed of his duties. Mr. Chairman, all of us want to work with the Russians. I cochair the Russian Energy Caucus. I am working with them on their nuclear waste problem. But as Ronald Reagan said, we must trust but verify. What we are saying is that should be the hallmark of our negotiations with the Russians now. We should not let our negotiators bargain away the ability for us to develop a continued theater defense system which the minority side feels so strongly about. This amendment protects that. I applaud my chairman for the amendment, and I would be happy to support it.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Can the gentlewoman point to me where in H.R. 7 the term star wars is?

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us cut through all of the rhetoric we have heard here today. Why is H.R. 7 before us in this body today? Is it only because of Republicans? I think back to last summer when this bill was first drafted. It was not drafted in January of this year. It was drafted because Members of both sides of the aisle said the President made a fundamental mistake. He cut defense spending by $128 billion over 5 years which Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledged was not achievable, and we said we had to do something about that. In fact, here we are today with the General Accounting Office saying we are $150 billion short over 5 years, the Congressional Budget Office saying we are $67 billion short over 5 years and our good colleague and friend Ike Skelton saying we are $44 billion short over 5 years. That is why we empower a commission. Because the leadership does not know what shortcomings we have in terms of spending. No one can agree. So we have to have an independent assessment look at that. The President was wrong in the cuts that he made. While cutting our defense spending over 5 years by 25 percent, he has increased nondefense spending in the defense budget by 361 percent. Can you believe that? The biggest increase in defense spending are non-defense items. We could go through as our good friend suggested just a moment ago who would not yield to me, our good friend from Indiana, we could certainly free up $2 billion to $3 billion a year more just by cutting the waste and the garbage out of the defense bill without adding one dime more money in, and that is where we want to start. This President also made a fundamental mistake when he abandoned national missile defense. He is shortchanging the American people. They think they are being protected from some kind of a rogue missile attack. They are not. There is no protection. Lest we misstate what has been said here, no one on our side is talking about star wars. Our colleagues on the minority regret the labeling that is occurring. I am announcing today as we go through this debate, I am donating $1 to the Science Fiction Writers Foundation for every time our colleagues on this side mention the term ``star wars.'' It has nothing to do with this debate. We are talking about deploying a program that Secretary Perry has said he could deploy over 5 years at a cost not to exceed $5 billion. It is deployable and even the Secretary's own tiger term recommended to him last week that it is doable. It will provide a layer of defense that we do not now have for the entire Nation. We think we should move forward on that. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not and should not be a partisan debate. This debate should be bipartisan as it was in the committee. Because the reasons why this bill is before us, the reasons are that Members of both sides feel that this administration has been shortchanging our military, has been shortchanging our national defense in terms of missile defense, has been shortchanging us in terms of an isolationist defense budget trying to fund an internationalist foreign policy. It just does not work. I urge passage of H.R. 7.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the statement we just heard regarding Desert Storm and other actions is absolutely, totally without merit and untrue. As a matter of fact, 45 minutes ago former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former Democrat turned Republican, just down the hallway totally endorsed this piece of legislation, and said it would have no impact on the President's ability to send our troops abroad. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], one of the newest stars from our committee.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the distinguished chairman of the Military Facilities Subcommittee and a key member of our national security team.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So it would apply across the board to theater and ballistic. So the amendment is actually going further than what we originally thought?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Including theater ballistic missiles?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am asking if that is in fact----

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. In other words, the gentleman is saying that if it is determined that the theater ballistic missile system should have space-based interceptors, it is OK?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we have no idea what the gentleman is amending. That is our problem.

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. What I said is what I said. Do not put words in my mouth. What I said is I want the Secretary of Defense to come back within 60 days and make recommendations to us that we can act on.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, what I would say to the gentleman is, I do not know what the future holds. If I could somehow have a crystal ball, perhaps I could predict that. What I am saying is I am not the defense expert. The people in the Pentagon and our joint chiefs are. If they come back and tell us that they want to have a system that within 5 years we should deploy some kind of system in space, that is something we will have to debate then. But we should not handicap them. We should not tie their hands. That decision should be left for another day.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman's amendment further ties the hand of the gentleman's administration and the Defense Department. What we are saying is, let Secretary Perry come back and tell us what he wants and then we can respond.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if in a year or two the Russians proceed to develop the capability of space- based his amendment?

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am going to roll up my pant legs because it is too late to save my shoes. As we prepare to debate H.R. 7 today, one thing we are going to do throughout this debate is we are going to call Members on the facts. There is going to be a lot of emotion here, and some say when you do not have the facts on your side, you can resort to emotional arguments like throwing out huge numbers, like throwing out neat-sounding terms. But, Mr. Speaker, in today's debate and in tomorrow's debate, we are going to call Members on the facts as they are. If we have a clean and open debate on what H.R. 7 is all about, as we did in the committee, we will find that this is not a Republican issue; we will find, as we did in the committee, that 11 Democrats joined with every Republican for the largest bipartisan vote out of committee of any of the contract items. The final vote was 41 to 13. So as we listen to the rhetoric today, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Members, keep your eyes on your shoes because it is going to be flowing hot and heavy, but we are going to be here to make sure the facts are brought forth and that the arguments that are used to base a decision on the issue will in fact be available for all of our colleagues.