HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, October 28~ 1985 the House Met at 12 O'clock Noon

October 28, 1985 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 29207 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, October 28~ 1985 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. ANDREWS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. ABDNOR, be reappointed, given his involvement The Chaplain, Rev. James David Mr. KASTEN, Mr. D'AMATO, Mr. HAT in the Aquino assassination and his in Ford, D.D., offered the following FIELD, Mr. CHILES, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. ability to lead the Philippine military prayer: BYRD, and Mr. LAUTENBERG to be the insurgency. Let the Javor of the Lord our God be conferees on the part of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, like the Shah, Presi upon us, and establish Thou the work The message also announced that dent Marcos has lost touch with his of our hands upon us; yea, the work of the Senate had passed a bill, joint res people and with reality. Let us act now our hands establish Thou it.-Psalm olutions, and a concurrent resolution before we are forced to pull the rug 90:17. of the following titles, in which the from under him. Let us act now so Gracious God, bless the work of our concurrence of the House is requested: that our security interests are pre hands that it may be pleasing in Your S. 1570. An act to amend the Fair Labor served and the Philippine people, our sight. May what we do contribute to Standards Act of 1938 to provide rules for friends and allies, do not fall under justice between peoples and peace be overtime compensatory time off for certain Communist hands. tween the nations. May our hands and public agency employees, to clarify the ap hearts, our strength and our witness, plication of that act to volunteers, and for other purposes; be used to Your glory and as an ex S.J. Res. 207. Joint resolution to designate FEDERAL TRUST FUNDS pression of good will to all the people November 1, 1985, as "National Philanthro of Your creation. In Your holy name, Government employees be extended be losing up to $300 million in interest Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, money that belongs to those trust through December 31, 1985; the deteriorating situation in the Phil H.J. Res. 308. Joint resolution designating funds because of our failure to act. the week beginning on October 20, 1985, as ippines and the subsequent press re I hope Members will take a look at "Benign Essential Blepharospasm Aware ports this weekend that President this legislation which would restore ness Week"; and Marcos has an incurable disease, with that money. H.J. Res. 322. Joint resolution to provide perhaps only 1 year to live, suggests for the designation of October 1985, as "Na that the United States needs a new tional Sudden Infant Death Syndrome policy towards the Philippines in order GRAMM-RUDMAN Awareness Month". to avoid another Iran. The message also announced t hat The Reagan administration has of the following title: Communist takeover and preserve Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3244. An act making appropriations American security interests, specifical supporters of the so-called Gramm for the Department of Transportation and ly, Subic and Clark bases. Specifically, Rudman proposal are like a man related agencies for the fiscal year ending we need to attach strong conditions to jumping off the Empire State Building September 30, 1986, and for other purposes. our assistance to that country. First of and, on passing the fifth floor, an The message also announced that all, we need to press for fair and imme nounces, "So far so good." the Senate insists upon its amend diate Presidential elections so that an The House is on record in support of ments to t he bill

51-059 0--!l7-:l4 I Pt. 21 I 29226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE October 28, 1985 addressing the concern of these govern Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District and public employees working overtime. It also ments. the Washington County Fire District No. 1. gives State and local governments until Mr. AuCOIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in The Garcia decision denied workers in April 15, 1986, to revise personnel practices strong support of H.R. 3530, amending the Oregon some of their collective bargaining and exempts volunteers from coverage. Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to com rights, and substantially increased the cost Let me emphasize that this represents a mend the members and staff of the House to local governments. major compromise effort. The bill is the Labor Standards Subcommittee, and in Although this legislation before us does culmination of the efforts of local govern particular my friends Congressman not rescind the Garcia decision, it does ad mental associations and representatives of MURPHY, the subcommittee chairman, Con dress the major concerns raised by these public employee unions, among them the gressman HAWKINS, chairman of the Edu local government officials and their em National League of Cities, the National As cation and Labor Committee, and Con ployees. The issue of "comp time" has been sociation of Governmental Employees, Na gressmen BARTLETI' and JEFFORDS for resolved, as has the controversial aspect of tional Governors' Association, AFSCME, their hard work and their willingness to retroactive liability. The confusion over and the Amalgamated Transit Workers, listen to all sides in this complex issue. what constitutes a "volunteer" has also and their willingness to reach an accepta I believe Congress has tackled a complex been cleared up. These were the major ble solution. Because all parties were able and controversial issue and come up with a stumbling blocks which Chairmen MURPHY to resolve this issue through compromise, it workable compromise. That doesn't seem to and HAWKINS had to contend with, and 6 clearly demonstrates the willingness of all happen often enough in Washington. months ago it looked as though a consen sides to avoid what could have resulted in Mr. Speaker, last spring when the Su sus would never be reached. However, it is an unnecessary stalemate. preme Court made its now famous Garcia a tribute to their hard work, and to the I would ask that a summary of the bill be ruling, the local government employees hard work of the representatives of both printed in the RECORD. must be covered by the Fair Labor Stand the local governments and the employee ards Act, it was hailed by those who felt unions that we have before us a bill which I. COMPENSATORY TIME local government employees deserved the both sides have unanimously endorsed. Al Public safety, emergency service or sea same rights and protections that both Fed though neither side is completely satisfied sonal workers may not accumulate more eral workers and those in the private sector with this legislation, the fact that it is en than 480 hours of compensatory time, while enjoy. However, local governments began dorsed by the National League of Cities, other state and local workers may not accu mulate more than 180 hours. After these assessing the costs of these new statutes, the National Association of Counties, and hours have been reached, employees must which denied the use of compensatory time the American Federation of State, County, be paid overtime pay equivalent at least to for payment of overtime hours worked, and and Municipal Employees of the AFL-CIO time-and-a-half. Also, the bill provides for realized that they would either have to cut shows that it is a genuine compromise in employees to be paid for accrued compensa services or raise taxes in order to meet the truest sense of the word. tory time at the time of termination, based these new labor costs for which no money It is now up to the Department of Labor on average pay over the past three year had been budgeted. to assist the local governments with the time period. In Oregon this decision was met with technical questions which will invariably II. SPECIAL DETAIL, OCCASIONAL WORK AND almost universal opposition. Although most arise once this legislation becomes law. It SUBSTITUTION Oregonians agreed that local government is essential that we avoid the confusion, Special detail, occasional and mutual aid employees throughout the country deserved delay, and uncertainty which arose over employment for a second employer or in a the protections of the Fair Labor Stand the Supreme Court's original decision last second capacity will not be considered in ards Act, these protections were redundant February. With the implementation of this calculating overtime pay. and unnecessary in Oregon, which has very legislation on April 15, 1986, the Depart In addition, public employees may substi strict State labor laws. Local government ment of Labor has a responsibility to see tute for one another without the substitu employees in Oregon felt that this decision that local governments have all the neces tion affecting overtime pay. denied them the benefits which they had sary information available to them in order III. VOLUNTEER WORK agreed to in collective bargaining negotia to carry out these new statutes. I know the The bill exempts volunteers from cover tions, including the right to be "paid" in local offices of Federal Wage and Hour are age of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Also, it comp-time, rather than in cash, for over willing to assist local governments with exempts public agencies from violations of time hours work.OO. This is an arrangement their questions regarding the Fair Labor minimum wage laws for services performed which can be very beneficial to some em Standards Act, and am pleased that the De by volunteers before April 15, 1986. ployees, and they wanted to continue to partment of Labor has initiated a toll-free IV. LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES EXEMPTIONS have this option available. Local govern number to assist in this process. That State and local legislative employees, ments agreed that because the pay and number is 1-800-233-3572. except library employees, are exempt from overtime contracts with employees had Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today coverage. been agreed to under collective bargaining in strong support of H.R. 3530, legislation OTHER PROVISIONS arrangements, there was no need for the which would amend the Fair Labor Stand The bill allows public employers to defer Federal Government to intercede in these ards Act and applaud my colleagues on the monetary overtime compensation for hours mutually agree upon contracts. committee for offering this compromise so worked after April 15, 1986, until August 1, With the tremendous Federal deficit now lution addressing the problems of the Su 1986. crippling our economy, the Federal Gov preme Court decision in the recent Garcia It also bars discrimination against any em ernment is being forced to cut back on pro case. ployees who may have asserted coverage grams that assist State and local govern The House of Representatives took an under the FLSA overtime provisions. ments. This is hard enough on local gov early initiative by approv'ng an amend I would urge this body to approve this vi ernments without the added expense which ment on the 1986 Labor Department appro tally important legislation and end the un the Garcia decision created. It is no wonder priations bill calling on the Department to certainty which has resulted from the that many of the cities and counties in my suspend enforcement of the Garcia decision Garcia decision. congressional district felt frustration over pending further congressional action. The Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I this situation. I heard from the mayors of Labor Department followed suit by volun yield back the balance of my time. Tigard, Newberg, Astoria, North Plains, tarily agreeing to delay implementation of The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Portland, Sherwood, Columbia City, and these standards until we had the opportuni question is on the motion offered by Hillsboro. I also heard from county com ty to consider a comprehensive legislative the gentleman from Pennsylvania missioners in Yamhill, Clatsop, and Tilla solution. The legislation before us today [Mr. Murphy] that the House suspend mook Counties. The Garcia decision also represents that solution. the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3530, offended fire fighters, both paid and volun H.R. 3530, of which I am pleased to co as amended. teers. I was informed of the adverse effects sponsor, allows for either monetary com The question was taken; and No overtime compensation in the SPECIAL DETAILS, OCCASIONAL OR SPORADIC as amended, was passed. form of compensatory time off may be ac EMPLOYMENT, AND SUBSTITUTION A motion to reconsider was laid on crued by any employee of a public agency SEC. 3. (a) SPECIAL DETAIL WORK FOR FIRE the table. which is a State, a political subdivision of a PROTECTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOY State, or an interstate governmental agency, EES.-Section 7 <29 U.S.C. 207> is amended Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask in excess of 480 hours for hours worked unanimous consent to take from the by adding after subsection If compensation is paid to an employ cluding activities of security personnel in clarify the application of that act to ee for accrued compensatory time off, such correctional institutions> and who, solely at volunteers and for other purposes, and compensation shall be paid at the regular such individual's option, agrees to be em ask for its immediate consideration. rate of compensation earned by the employ ployed on a special detail by a separate or ee at the time the employee receives such independent employer in fire protection, The Clerk read the title of the payment. Senate bill. law enforcement, or related activities, the "(4) An employee who has accrued com hours such individual was employed by such The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is pensatory time off authorized to be provid separate and independent employer may be there objection to the request of the ed under paragraph <1 > shall, upon termina excluded by the public agency employing gentleman from Pennsylvania? tion of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time at the regular rate of such individual in the calculation of the There was no objection. hours for which the employee is entitled to The Clerk read the Senate bill, as compensation earned by the employee at the time the employee receives compensa overtime compensation under this section if follows: tion for overtime. the public agency- s. 1570 "(5) An employee of a public agency " requires that its employees engaged in fire protection, law enforcement, or secu Be it enacted by the Senate and House of which is a State, political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental rity activities be hired by a separate and in Representatives of the United States of dependent employer to perform the special America in Congress assembled, agency- " who has accrued compensatory time detail, SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE TO ACT off authorized to be provided under para " facilitates the employment of such SECTION 1. (a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may graph <1 >. and employees by a separate and independent be cited as the "Fair Labor Standards " who has requested the use of such employer, or Amendments of 1985". compensatory time, "(C) otherwise affects the condition of (b) REFERENCE TO ACT.-Whenever in this employment of such employees by a sepa Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in shall be permitted by the employee's em rate and independent employer.". terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a ployer to use such time within a reasonable (b) OCCASIONAL OR SPORADIC EII:PLOY section or other provision, the reference period after making the request if the use of MENT.-Section 7

prohibits both the development appears to be a clear violation. The booklet ommendations. A copy of the latter, as re [sozadanieyl and testing of space-based I co-authored this spring contains a series of vised in August, is attached as Exhibit E. antimissile defense systems or components. specific recommendations These documents reflect my views on the The treaty provisions relate to any systems which were intended to start a·constructive correct interpretations of the ABM Treaty designed, as defined by Article 2, for fight process consistent with Secretary Shultz's and basic issues raised by current U.S. and ing against strategic ballistic missiles or stated goal of reversing the erosion of the Soviet BMD programs. their elements on flight trajectories. Since ABMTreaty. In my judgment, the FY85 Arms Control the antimissile defense components being In conclusion, let me suggest approaches Impact Statement prepared by the Reagan created within the "star wars" program are for three Agreed Statements based upon, Administration correctly states the agree designed for precisely this purpose, that is and entirely consistent with, my recollection ment reached with the Soviets in 1971-72 on are intended to replace the antimissiles of the SALT I negotiating record which the meaning of Article VO>. It provides (pp. mentioned in the treaty , all provisions of the Treaty, particularly Article V<1>: "The ABM Treaty bans the development, treaty relate to these, regardless of the ( 1 > First Agreed Statement to Article teasting and deployment of all ABM sys degree of 'exoticness' of their principles of 110). As used in this Treaty, "AMB sys tems and components that are sea-based, operation. It is high time the irresponsible tems." "ABM systems or components," air-based, space-based or mobile land-based. "interpreters" [tolkovaterlil from Washing "ABM systems and components" and "ABM .. . The ABM Treaty prohibition on devel ton gave up their useless and dangerous oc systems or their components" include ABM opment, testing and deployment of space cupation, listened to the voice of the world interceptor missiles, ABM launchers, and based ABM systems, or components for such public, which they are trying to delude, and ABM radars as defined in Article 11<1 > and systems, applies to directed energy technolo directed their efforts to positive goals. And any devices based on other physical princi gy for any other technology used for this they do have something to think over: The ples which are capable of substituting for or purpose.) Thus, when such directed energy set of Soviet initiatives offers broad scope performing the functions of ABM intercep programs enter the field testing phase they for constructivism." tor missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM become constrained by these ABM Treaty Finally, Marshal Sergei Akhormeyev, the radars. obligations." [Emphasis added.] Chief of the Soviet General Staff, made (2) First Agreed Statement to Article VO>. The SDI Report to Congress applies to ABM components especially Appendix B, is consistent with He said the ABM Treaty "unambiguously and any devices based on other physical this statement. bans" the development, testing and deploy principles which are capable of substituting ment of space-based ABM systems. See New for or performing the functions of ABM IX York Times, October 19, 1985 . components, any of which are sea-based, air In the Soviet parliamentary ratification Marshall Akhromeyev explictly confirms based, space-based or mobile land-based. deliberations, the First Deputy Minister of the historic U.S. position of the ban on <3> Second Agreed Statement to Article Foreign Affairs, Vasily V. Kuznetsov, "on space-based "exotic systems." The Subcom- VO>. As used in Article VO>. "develop" 29246 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE October 28, 1985 refers to that stage of the research and de Proclaimed by U.S. President October 3, missiles at launch sites, and <2> ABM radars velopment cycle at which field testing, ob 1972 within no more than six ABM radar com servable by national technical means, is ini Instruments of ratification exchanged Octo plexes, the area of each complex being cir tiated on ABM components or on any de ber 3, 1972 cular and having a diameter of no more vices which are capable of substituting for Entered into force October 3, 1972 than three kilometers; and or performing the functions of ABM compo The United States of America and the (b) within one ABM system deployment nents. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, herein area having a radius of one hundred and The third suggestion is obviously incom after referred to as the Parties, fifty kilometers and containing ICBM silo plete. It points out the compelling need to Proceeding from the premise that nuclear launchers, a Party may deploy: <1 > no more begin the difficult process of resolving some war would have devastating consequences than one hundred ABM launchers and no of the ambiguities inherent in the ABM for all mankind, more than one hundred ABM interceptor Treaty. The Standing Consultative Commis Considering that effective measures to missiles at launch sites, <2> two large sion was established with this as one limit anti-ballistic missile systems would be phased-array ABM radars comparable in po of its assigned tasks. The SCC has been un a substantial factor in curbing the race in tential to corresponding ABM radars oper derutilized. The sec could easily, and strategic offensive arms and would lead to a ational or under construction on the date of quickly. also review and revise Agreed State decrease in the risk of outbreak of war in signature of the Treaty in an ABM system ment D to make its intended meaning clear volving nuclear weapons, deployment area containing ICBM silo er. A starter in replacing Agreed Statement Proceeding from the premise that the lim launchers, and <3> no more than eighteen D could be: itation of anti-ballistic missiles sysiems, as ABM radars each having a potential less First Agreed Statement to Article III. Ar well as certain agreed measures with respect than the potential of the smaller of the ticle III prohibits the deployment of fixed to the limitation of strategic offensive arms, above-mentioned two large phased-array land-based devices based on other physical would contribute to the creation of more fa ABM radars. principles which are capable of substituting vorable conditions for further negotiations for or performing the functions of fixed on limiting strategic arms, ARTICLE IV land-based ABM systems or component:; as Mindful of their obligations under Article The limitations provided for in Article III defined in Article II. VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation shall not apply to ABM systems or their First Agreed Statement to Article IV. of Nuclear Weapons, components used for development or test Fixed land-based devices based on other Declaring their intention to achieve at the ing, and located within current or addition physical principles which are capable of earliest possible date the cessation of the ally agreed test ranges. Each Party may substituting for or performing the functions nuclear arms race and to take effective have no more than a total of fifteen ABM measures toward reductions in strategic launchers at test ranges. of ABM components as defined in Article arms, nuclear disarmament, and general and II may be developed and tested at ABM complete disarmament, ARTICLE V test ranges described in Article IV. Desiring to contribute to the relaxation of 1. Each Party undertakes not to develop, First Agreed Statement to Article XIV< 1 >. international tension and the strengthening test, or deploy ABM systems or components Any obligation in this Treaty may be dis of trust between States, which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, cussed in accordance with Article XIII and Have agreed as follows: an amendment adopted in accordance with or mobile land-based. Article XIV. ARTICLE I 2. Each Party undertakes not to develop, The six suggested Agreed Statements do 1. Each party undertakes to limit anti-bal test, or deploy ABM launchers for launch not even touch on the question of distin listic missile systems and to adopt ing more than one ABM interceptor missile guishing a "component," or device capable other measures in accordance with the pro at a time from each launcher, not to modify of substituting for or performing the func visions of this Treaty. deployed launchers to provide them with tion of a component, from a "subcompo 2. Each Party undertakes not to deploy such a capability, not to develop, test, or nent," assembly, adjunct, etc., or the equal ABM systems for a defense of the territory deploy automatic or semi-automatic or ly difficult question of distinguishing ABM of its country and not to provide a base for other similar systems for rapid reload of related space-based sensors from space such a defense, and not to deploy ABM sys ABM launchers. based sensors for early warning or for other tems for defense of an individual region ARTICLE VI purposes. Counting rules, presumptions, and except as provided for in Article III of this Treaty. To enhance assurance of the effectiveness ad hoc approaches will all be necessary. of the limitations on ABM systems and These challenges will be truly difficult even ARTICLE II their components provided by the Treaty, with the best of intents. 1. For the purpose of this Treaty an ABM each Party undertakes: Before constructive steps can start, how system is a system to counter strategic bal not to give missiles, launchers, or ever, and assuming the Soviets are prepared listic missiles or their elements in flight tra radars, other than ABM interceptor mis to negotiate and not Just posture, the Presi Jectory, currently consisting of: siles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars, capa dent should publicly repudiate the legal ABM interceptor missiles, which are bilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles advice he has recently received from his ad interceptor missiles constructed and de or their elements in flight trajectory, and visors on a narrow scope of Article V and ployed for an ABM role, or of a type tested not to test them in an ABM mode, and other critical Articles of the ABM Treaty. in an ABM mode; not to deploy in the future radars for Congress could contribute to this result by ABM launchers, which are launchers approving an amendment to the pending early warning of strategic ballistic missile constructed and deployed for launching attack except at locations along the periph DOD appropriations bill which limits fund ABM interceptor missiles; and expenditures to the legal standard in the ery of its national territory and oriented ABM radars, which are radars con outward. FY85 Arms Control Impact Statement. This structed and deployed for an ABM role, or would be a positive step as negotiations con of a type tested in an ABM mode. ARTICLE VII tinue with the Soviets prior to the Summit. 2. The ABM system components listed in Subject to the provisions of this Treaty, This whole sorry business could lead to a paragraph 1 of this Article include those modernization and replacement of ABM sys constructive ending if the U.S. and Soviets which are: tems or their components may be carried were to agree privately in Geneva, before, at operational; out. or after the Summit, on Agreed Statements under construction; along the lines that I have suggested. These undergoing testing; ARTICLE VIII should be only the first of many steps undergoing overhaul, repair or conver ABM systems or their components in needed to avoid further erosion of the ABM sion; or excess of the numbers or outside the areas Treaty of 1972. mothballed. specified in this Treaty, as well as ABM sys tems or their components prohibited by this ARTICLE III Treaty, shall be destroyed or dismantled TREATY . BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF Each Party undertakes not to deploy AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIAL under agreed procedures within the shortest ABM systems or their components except possible agreed period of time. IST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF ANTI that: BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS within one ABM system deployment ARTICLE IX Signed at Moscow May 26, 1972 area having a radius of one hundred and To assure the viability and effectiveness Ratification advised by U.S. Senate August fifty kilometers and centered on the Party's of this Treaty, each Party undertakes not to 3, 1972 national capital, a party may deploy: <1> no transfer to other States, and not to deploy Ratified by U.S. President September 30, more than one hundred ABM launchers and outside its national territory, ABM systems 1972 no more than one hundred ABM interceptor or their components limited by this Treaty. October 28, 1985 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 29247 ARTICLE X decision to the other Party six months prior [EJ Each Party undertakes not to assume any to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice The Parties understand that Article V of international obligations which would con shall include a statement of the extraordi the Treaty includes obligations not to devel flict with this Treaty. nary events the notifying Party regards as op, test or deploy ABM interceptor missiles ARTICLE XI having jeopardized its supreme interests. for the delivery by each ABM interceptor The Parties undertake to continue active ARTICLE XVI missile of more than one independently negotiations for limitations on strategic of 1. This Treaty shall be subject to ratifica guided warhead. fensive arms. tion in accordance with the constitutional [FJ ARTICLE XII procedures of each Party. The Treaty shall The Parties agree not to deploy phased 1. For the purpose of providing assurance enter into force on the day of the exchange array radars having potential exceeding three nical means of vertification at its disposal in ant to Article 102 of the Charter of the million, except as provided for in Articles a manner consistent with generally recog United Nations. III, IV and VI of the Treaty, or except for nized principles of international law. Done at Moscow on May 26, 1972, in two the purposes of tracking objects in outer 2. Each Party undertakes not to interfere copies, each in the English and Russian lan space or for use as national technical means with the national technical means of verifi guages, both texts being equally authentic. of verification. cation of the other Party operating in ac For the United States of America: RicH [GJ ARD NIXON, President of the United States of cordance with paragraph 1 of this Article. The Parties understand that Article IX of 3. Each Party undertakes not to use delib America. For the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub the Treaty includes the obligation of the US erate concealment measures which impede and the USSR not to provide to other verification by national technical means of lics: L.l. BREZHNEv, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. States technical descriptions or blue prints compliance with the provisions of this specially worked out for the construction of Treaty. This obligation shall not require ABM systems and their components limited changes in current construction, assembly, AGREED STATEMENTS, COMMON UNDERSTAND by the Treaty. conversion, or overhaul practices. INGS, AND UNILATERAL STATEMENTS REGARD· 2. COMMON UNDERSTANDINGS ARTICLE XIII ING THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED 1. To promote the objectives and imple STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF Common understanding of the Parties on mentation of the provisions of this Treaty, SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMI the following matters was reached during the Parties shall establish promptly a TATION OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILES the negotiations: Standing Consultative Commission, within 1. AGREED STATEMENTS A. Location of ICBM defenses the framework of which they will: The U.S. Delegation made the following consider questions concerning compli The document set forth below was agreed upon and initiated by the Heads of the Del statement on May 26, 1972: ance with the obligations assumed and re Article III of the ABM Treaty provides for lated situations which may be considered egations on May 26, 1972 Oetter designa tions added>: each side one ABM system deployment area ambiguous; centered on its national capital and one (b) provide on a voluntary basis such in AGREED STATEMENTS REGARDING THE TREATY BE ABM system deployment area containing formation as either Party considers neces TWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ICBM silo launchers. The two sides have sary to assure confidence in compliance THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS registered agreement on the following state with the obligations assumed; ON THE LIMITATION OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MIS ment: "The Parties understand that the consider questions involving unintend SILE SYSTEMS center of the ABM system deployment area ed interference with national technical [AJ centered on the national capital and the means of verification; center of the ABM system deployment area consider possible changes in the strate The Parties understand that, in addition containing ICBM silo launchers for each gic situation which have a bearing on the to the ABM radars which may be deployed Party shall be separated by no less than provisions of this Treaty; in accordance with subparagraph of Ar thirteen hundred kilometers." In this con agree upon procedures and dates for ticle III of the Treaty, those non-phased nection, the U.S. side notes that its ABM destruction or dismantling of ABM systems array ABM radars operational on the date system deployment area for defense of or their components in cases provided for by of signature of the Treaty within the ABM ICBM silo launchers, located west of the the provisions of this Treaty; system deployment area for defense of the Mississippi River, will be centered in the consider, as appropriate, possible pro national capital may be retained. Grand Forks ICBM silo launcher deploy posals for further increasing the viability of [BJ ment area. this Treaty; including proposals for amend ments in accordance with the provisions of The Parties understand that the potential B. ABM test ranges this Treaty; of statement on April 26, 1972: further measures aimed at limiting strategic the smaller of the two large phased-array Article IV of the ABM Treaty provides arms. ABM radars referred to in subparagraph that "the limitations provided for in Article 2. The Parties through consultation shall of Article III of the Treaty is considered for III shall not apply to ABM systems or their establish, and may amend as appropriate, purposes of the Treaty to three million. components used for development or test Regulations for the Standing Consultative [CJ ing, and located within current or addition Commission governing procedures, composi The Parties understand that the center of ally agreed test ranges." We believe it would tion and other relevant matters. the ABM system deployment area centered be useful to assure that there is no misun ARTICLE XIV on the national capital and the center of derstanding as to current ABM test ranges. It is our understanding that ABM test 1. Each Party may propose amendments the ABM system deployment area contain ing ICBM silo launchers for each Party ranges encompass the area within which to this Treaty. Agreed amendments shall ABM components are located for test pur enter into force in accordance with the pro shall be separated by no less than thirteen hundred kilometers. poses. The current U.S. ABM test ranges are cedures governing the entry into force of at White Sands, New Mexico, and at Kwaja this Treaty. [DJ lein Atoll, and the current Soviet ABM test 2. Five years after entry into force of this In order to insure fulfillment of the obli range is near Sary Shagan in Kazakhstan. Treaty, and at five-year intervals thereafter, We consider that non-phased array radars the Parties shall together conduct a review gation not to deploy ABM systems and their of this Treaty. components except as provided in Article III of types used for range safety or instrumen of the Treaty, the Parties agree that in the tation purposes may be located outside of ARTICLE XV event ABM systems based on other physical ABM test ranges. We interpret the refer 1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited dura principles and including components capa ence in Article IV to "additionally agreed tion. ble of substituting for ABM interceptor mis test ranges" to mean that ABM components 2. Each Party shall, in exercising its na siles. ABM launchers, or ABM radars are will not be located at any other test ranges tional sovereignty, have the right to with created in the future, specific limitations on without prior agreement between our Gov draw from this Treaty if it decides that ex such systems and their components would ernments that there will be such additional traordinary events related to the subject be subject to discussion in accordance with ABM test ranges. matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its Article XIII and agreement in accordance On May 5, 1972, the Soviet Delegation supreme interests. It shall give notice of its with Article XIV of the Treaty. stated that there was a common under- 29248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE October 28, 1985 standing on what ABM test ranges were, 3. UNILATERAL STATEMENTS a cooperative target vehicle of the kind re that the use of the types of non-ABM The following noteworthy unilateral ferred to in item <2> above during the re radars for range safety or instrumentation statements were made during the negotia entry portion of its trajectory or makes was not limited under the Treaty, that the tions by the United States Delegation: measurements in conjunction with the test reference in Article IV to "additionally of an ABM interceptor missile or an ABM agreed" test ranges was sufficiently clear, A. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty radar at the same test range. Radars used and that national means permitted identify On May 9, 1972, Ambassador Smith made for purposes such as range safety or instru ing current test ranges. the following statement: mentation would be exempt from applica The U.S. Delegation has stressed the im tion of these criteria. C. Mobile ABM systems portance U.S. Government attaches to On January 29, 1972, the U.S. Delegation achieving agreement on more complete limi C. No-transfer article of ABM Treaty made the following statement: tations on Strategic offensive arms, follow On April 18, 1972, the U.S. Delegation Article V of the Joint Draft Text of the ing agreement on an ABM Treaty and on an made the following statement: ABM Treaty includes an undertaking not to Interim Agreement on certain measures In regard to this Article UXl, I have a develop, test, or deploy mobile land-based with respect to the limitation of strategic brief and I believe self-explanatory state ABM systems and their components. On offensive arms. The U.S. Delegation believes ment to make. The U.S. side wishes to make May 5, 1971, the U.S. side indicated that, in that an objective of the follow-on negotia clear that the provisions of this Article do its view, a prohibition on deployment of tions should be to constrain and reduce on a not set a precedent for whatever provision mobile ABM systems and components would long-term basis threats to the survivability may be considered for a Treaty on Limiting rule out the deployment of ABM launchers of our respective strategic retaliatory forces. Strategic Offensive Arms. The question of and radars which were not permanent fixed The USSR Delegation has also indicated transfer of strategic offensive arms is a far types. At that time, we asked for the Soviet that the objectives of SALT would remain more complex issue, which may require a view of this interpretation. Does the Soviet unfulfilled without the achievement of an different solution. side agree with the U.S. side's interpretation agreement providing for more complete lim put forward on May 5, 1971? D. No increase in defense of early warning itations on strategic offensive arms. Both radars On April 13, 1972, The Soviet Delegation sides recognize that the initial agreement said there is a general common understand would be steps toward the achievement of On July 28, 1970, the U.S. Delegation ing on this matter. more complete limitations on strategic made the following statement: D. Standing consultative commission arms. If an agreement providing for more Since Hen House radars [Soviet Ballistic Ambassador Smith made the following complete strategic offensive arms limita missile early warning radars] can detect and statement on May 22, 1972: tions were not achieved within five years, track ballistic missile warheads at great dis The United States proposes that the sides U.S. supreme interests could be jeopardized. tances, they have a significant ABM poten agree that, with regard to initial implemen Should that occur, it would constitute a tial. Accordingly, the U.S. would regard any tation of the ABM Treaty's Article XIII on basis for withdrawal fo-: the ABM Treaty. increase in the defenses of such radars by the Standing Consultative Commission The U.S. does not wish to see such a situa surface-to-air missiles as inconsistent with and of the consultation Articles to tion occur, nor do we believe that the USSR an agreement. the Interim Agreement on offensive arms does. It is because we wish to prevent such a and the Accidents Agreement, 1 agreement situation that we emphasize the importance WHITE HOUSE REVISES INTERPRETATION OF establishing the sec will be worked out the U.S. Government attaches to achieve ABMTREATY early in the follow-on SALT negotiations; ment of more complete limitations on stra until that is completed, the following ar tegic offensive arms. The U.S. Executive will rangements will prevail; when SALT is in inform the Congress, in connection with The Reagan administration, reversing the session, any consultation desired by either legal interpretation of previous administra Congressional consideration of the ABM and some of its own past statements, side under these Articles can be carried out Treaty and the Interim Agreement, of this tions by the two SALT Delegations; when SALT statement of the U.S. position. has denied that testing and development is not in session, ad hoc arrangements for except antiballistic missile systems such as any desired consultations under these Arti B. Tested in ABM mode these in the "Star Wars" program are per cles may be made through diplomatic chan On April 7, 1972, the U.S. Delegation mitted under the 1972 ABM treaty. nels. made the following statement: The administration's new interpretation Minister Semenov replied that, on an ad Article II of the Joint Text Draft uses the of the treaty was confirmed yesterday by a referendum basis, he could agree that the term "tested in an ABM mode," in defining senior White House official who briefed re U.S. statement corresponded to the Soviet ABM components, and Article VI includes porters on U.S. objections to the recent understanding. certain obligations concerning such testing. Soviet offer of a 50 percent cut in certain of E. Standstill We believe that the sides should have a fensive missiles in return for a ban on Rea common understanding of this phase. First, gan's Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star On May 6, 1972, Minister Semenov made we would note that the testing provisions of Wars. The Soviet offer was described in the the following statement: the ABM Treaty are intended to apply to briefing as "a place to start" but in its In an effort to accommodate the wishes of testing which occurs after the date of signa present form one-sided and threatening to the U.S. side, the Soviet Delegation is pre ture of the Treaty, and not to any testing U.S. security. pared to proceed on the basis that the two which may have occurred in the past. Next, White House national security affairs ad sides will in fact observe the obligations of we would amplify the remarks we have viser Robert C. McFarlane volunteered a both the Interim Agreement and the ABM made on this subject during the previous new interpretation of the 13-year-old Anti Treaty beginning from the date of signature Helsinki phase by setting forth the objec ballistic Missile treaty in a television pro of these two documents. tives which govern the U.S. view on the sub gram Sunday. Yesterday the senior White In reply, the U.S. Delegation made the ject, namely, while prohibiting testing of House official, who cannot be identified following statement on May 20, 1972: non-ABM components for ABM purposes: under the ground rules of the news briefing, The U.S. agrees in principle with the not to prevent testing of ABM components, confirmed that McFarlane's televised re Soviet statement made on May 6 concerning and not to prevent testing of non-ABM com marks reflected what is now the fixed policy observance of obligations beginning from ponents for non-ABM purposes. To clarify of the administration. date of signature but we would like to make our interpretation of "tested in an ABM Retired ambassador Gerard Smith, chief clear our understanding that this means mode," we note that we would consider a U.S. negotiator of the ABM treaty, said the that, pending ratification and acceptance, launcher, missile or radar to be "tested in administration's interpretation "makes a neither side would take any action prohibit an ABM mode" if, for example, any of the dead letter" of the treaty. Smith said he be ed by the agreements after they had en following events occur: <1 > a launcher is lieves it would make possible almost unlim tered into force. This understanding would used to launch an ABM interceptor missile, ited testing and development under Star continue to apply in the absence of notifica <2> an interceptor missile is flight tested Wars, and probably also actual "building" of tion by either signatory of its intention not against a target vehicle which has a flight the space-based antimissile system "as long to proceed with ratification or approval. trajectory with characteristics of a strategic as you did not deploy." The Soviet Delegation indicated agree ballistic missile flight trajectory, or is flight Administration sources said a new inter ment with the U.S. statement. tested in conjunction with the test of an pretation of the treaty had been under dis ABM interceptor missile or an ABM radar cussion and, at times, intense debate since 1 See Article 7 of Agreement to Reduce the Risk at the same test range, or is flight tested to last summer within the administration's of Outbreak of Nuclear War Between the United an altitude inconsistent with interception of Senior Arms Control Group, or SAC-G. States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist targets against which air defenses are de The administration was moving in the di Republics, signed Sept. 30, 1971. ployed, <3> a radar makes measurements on rection indicated by McFarlane in recent October 28, 1985 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 29249 weeks-though not to the point of claiming "research, testing, development of systems How can that plain meaning have been the treaty "authorized and approved" the based on other physical principles." transformed? By an "interpretation" that testing, which were the words McFarlane The official said there had been "unilater ought to embarrass the most brazen lawyer used Sunday. In administration discussions, al statements" made that the treaty ought in town. sources said, the issue was whether the to limit such exotic systems but he added Article 3 of the 1972 treaty allowed a lim treaty could be interpreted as permitting that "never have the Soviets bought that." ited number of fixed, land-based ABM's. Ar such activities. A final decision was "not The proposed cutbacks in the new Soviet ticle 5 banned the development, testing and completely clear" even after McFarlane arms control offer are "inappropriately deployment of "sea-based, air-based, space made his remarks on "Meet the Press," an linked" to the demand that the United States stop its Star Wars program, the based or mobile land-based" systems. Then, official said. in "Agreed Statement D," the parties said One official said the still-secret negotiat senior official told reporters yesterday. "It's ing record of the ABM treaty is "ambigu a precondition that must be dropped," he they would discuss "specific limitations" on ous" on the point in question and subject to said. exotic new ABM systems if they were "cre "a well justified disagreement" within the That the Soviets have made an offer of ated in the future." government. However, this view is disputed deep cuts is "a very good development," and The claim is that statement D permits by Smith and John Rhinelander, legal coun a sign that Reagan's policies have paid off, new kinds of ABM systems unless the par sel to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the official said. U.S. negotiators will pursue ties now agree to limit them. But the Ameri the ABM treaty. the details in Geneva, he added. can diplomats who negotiated it say the The nub of the issue is whether an Most of the White House presentation, purpose was the opposite. And statement D "agreed statement D" between the U.S. and though, was centered on objections to the itself begins by saying that its purpose is "to Soviet delegations at the time of the treaty Soviet proposal, especially inclusion of U.S. insure fulfillment of the obligations not to signing on May 26, 1972, gives a broad ex Euromissiles and "forward based systems" deploy ABM systems and their components emption from the restrictions of the treaty among the strategic weapons to be cut by except as provided in Article 3." for future types of ABM systems "based on half. This would produce "highly unequal" An old national security hand, asked other physical principles" such as lasers and forces with great advantages to Moscow, the about the new "interpretation" of the directed-energy weapons. Many elements of official said. treaty, said: "You've got to admire their the administration's Star Wars research Those two categories described as support for U.S. allies, were said to consume 1,149 of brass. They have interpreted it 180 degrees program are based on such exotic technolo from its intent. The idea is so preposterous gy. the U.S. entitlement of 1,680 strategic nu clear delivery systems under the Soviet that it would be amusing if it were not so se The purpose of agreed statement D, it rious." said, was "to insure fulfillment of the obli plan. The United States would thus have only 531 missiles or bombers left for deter The serious part is the consequences. The gation not to deploy ABM systems and their new reading would make the ABM treaty "a components except as provided in Article III rence against Soviet nuclear attack, and of the treaty," which originally allowed these would be threatened by a much larger dead letter," as its chief negotiator, Gerard both countries to maintain two conventional number of Soviet weapons. Smith, said last week. And it will have been ABM systems, based on antimissile missiles. The White House also said the Soviet pro killed in a way that casts doubt on the point The agreed statement said that if new posal might unfairly hamper U.S. military of making any arms control agreements ABM systems "based on other physical prin modernization and could have serious verifi with the United States. ciples" are created in the future, "specific cation problems. These aspects of the Soviet Treaties are meant to be serious undertak limitations on such systems and their com proposal have yet to be fully presented in ings. This one was negotiated for a purpose ponents would be subject to discussion ... Geneva, it said. that all the world understood, to limit de and agreement in accordance with Article [From the New York Times, Oct. 14, 19851 fensive systems. The United States Senate XIV of the treaty"-the article explaining consented to the treaty by a vote of 88 to 2. how the treaty could be formally amended. SHADOW ON THE SUMMIT Thirteen years later America would be tell Until the administration's recent change ; to the orders heretofore entered, was granted Ms. OAKAR. Committee on Science and Technology. to: Mr. MARKEY. 2188. A letter from the Principal Deputy , transmitting notification of the trans extend their remarks and include ex Mr. BENNETT. fers of authorizations and appropriations of traneous material:) Mr. DYMALL Y. DOD funds, pursuant to Public Law 97-252, Mr. PARRIS, for 60 minutes, October Mr. KANJORSKI in four instances. section 1101, Public Law 97-377, section 732, 30, 1985. Public Law 98-94, section 120l, Public Mr. PARRIS, for 60 minutes, October Law 98-212, secton 729, Public Law 98-473, SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS section 8025, and Public Law 98-525, section 31, 1985. 1501; jointly, to the Committees on Armed Mr. PARRIS, for 60 minutes, Novem AND CONCURRENT RESOLU TION REFERRED Services and Appropriations. ber 1, 1985. 2189. A letter from the Comptroller Gen . jointly, to the Committees on Government Operations, Mr. NELSON of Florida, for 5 min S.J. Res. 207. Joint resolution to designate Foreign Affairs and Agriculture. utes, today. November 1, 1985, as "National Philanthro Mr. A.NNuNzto, for 5 minutes, today. PY Day"; to the Committee on Post Office Mr. MONTGOMERY, for 5 minutes, and Civil Service. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON today. S.J. Res. 228. Joint resolution relating to the proposed sales of arms to Jordan; to the PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLU Mr. GoNZALEZ, for 60 minutes, today. Committee on Foreign Affairs. TIONS Mr. GAYDOS, for 30 minutes, October S. Con. Res. 76. Concurrent resolution 29, 1985. Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports asking that the President bring the rights of of committees were delivered to the Mr. GAYDOS, for 30 minutes, October the Polish people to the attention of the 30, 1985. Soviet Government; to the Committee on Clerk for printing and reference to the Foreign Affairs. proper calendar, as follows: Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Committee on EXTENSION OF REMARKS Ways and Means. H.R. 2817. A bill to amend By unanimous consent, permission ENROLLED BILL SIGNED the Comprehensive Environmental Re to revise and extend remarks was Mr. ANNUNZIO, from the Commit sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and for other purposes; with an granted to: tee on House Administration, reported amendment . Referred to the Committee of the Mr. BERMAN, and to include extrane Health Service Act to revise and extend to Whole House on the State of the Union. ous matter, notwithstanding the fact the authorities under that act relating to Mr. CONYERS. Committee on the Judici that it exceeds two pages of the the National Institutes of Health and Na ary. H.R. 2713. A bill to amend title 18, tional Research Institutes, and for other United States Code, to modify certain provi RECORD and is estimated by the Public purposes. sions pertaining to restitution, and for other Printer to cost $4,506. purposes; with an amendment