[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1835-E1836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NUCLEAR THREATS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 28, 1998

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I recently received 
correspondence from Ms. Jennie B. Smith, of Ft. Collins, CO, in 
response to an article by Mr. Joseph C. Anselmo (``Defector Details 
Plan to Plant Nukes in U.S.'') in Aviation Week & Space Technology on 
August 17, 1998. The referenced article details testimony by a former 
Russian intelligence agent concerning plans by the Soviet military to 
smuggle portable nuclear devices into the U.S. for use in the event of 
an all-out nuclear war. I hereby submit Ms. Smith's comments for the 
Record.

       While we at Citizens for a Strong America (CFSA) cannot 
     further substantiate or dispute the claims made by the high 
     ranking Russian defector who spoke before the House panel, we 
     would urge Congress to not minimize the possible truth in his 
     claims. We agree with his warning that Russia ``remains a 
     serious threat to U.S. national security because of its 
     proliferation of weapons for profit to nations such as Iran 
     and Libya.'' However, we add that the breakup of the Soviet 
     Union creates insecurity with their existing ICBMS in the 
     hands of Russian states, unrest and near collapse of the 
     Russian government, not to mention that Start II treaties are 
     yet to be signed. Arms control has never deterred 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Neither is it 
     prudent on our part to ignore Alexander Lebed's own concerns 
     of ``scores'' of unaccounted for Russian nuclear suitcases as 
     merely an accounting system flaw, as Thomas Cochran suggests. 
     While he reports that even the U.S. has had accounting 
     problems with its own nuclear weapons, we would place more 
     confidence in our accounting measures than Russia's. There 
     are far too numerous accounts of the loose and dangerous lack 
     of control within Russian military of their nuclear weapons 
     and equipment. Clearly not an apple-to-apple comparison, and 
     worrisome for the type of naivete that keeps us undefended.
       As a peaceful nation, we as Americans struggle with the 
     possibility of the unthinkable, however, the threat of 
     terrorism on our

[[Page E1836]]

     soil is a ``clear and present danger''. The primary mission 
     of CSFA has been the deployment of a ballistic missile 
     defense program for the U.S. and its allies as soon as 
     possible. We believe a nuclear explosion on a large scale 
     would be far more devastating and is a real and credible 
     threat. Common sense, however, dictates that the United 
     States government must counter both threats, a ballistic 
     missile attack and ``suitcase terrorism''. At the current 
     level of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon 
     proliferation among countries not bound by a policy of 
     deterrence, we cannot afford to wait on either.
       We, therefore, urge Congress to implement a dual-prong 
     strategy to address terrorist threats, whether from ICBMs or 
     suitcase weapons from any source: Deploy ballistic missile 
     defense as soon as technologically possible; Increase funding 
     for the development of nuclear, biological, and chemical 
     weapon detection systems (Wide Area Tracking System); 
     Increase the security of our borders from smugglers of 
     weapons of mass destruction who could use similar modes as 
     drug smugglers, e.g. cars, speedboats, small planes and 
     hidden runways; and, Increase the security in our cities to 
     reduce the threat of terrorist incidences from occurring, 
     whether in planes, trains, buses, cars, subways, ships, 
     buildings, airports.
       Unrelated to the article, however, of note, the Clinton 
     Administration's plan for missile defense is based on a 
     purposefully incomplete assessment of the threat of missile 
     attack on American soil, and is a senseless policy of 
     intentional vulnerability, while cutting funding for R & D 
     and deployment to a subsistence level. While the 
     Administration and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     Gen. Hugh Shelton rely on the Intelligence Community to 
     provide the necessary warning of the development and 
     deployment by a rogue state of an ICBM threat to the U.S., 
     the Rumsfeld Commission pointed out in their recent report 
     that ``through unconventional, high-risk development programs 
     and foreign assistance, rogue nations could acquire an ICBM 
     capability in a short time and that the Intelligence 
     Community may not detect it.'' We were obviously under-warned 
     about India and Pakistan's nuclear testing capabilities. 
     (Inhofe News Release and Heritage Foundation Executive Memo 
     543 attached.)
       Also of note, China produced 6 new CSS-4 ICBMs in the first 
     4 months of this year and will produce 2 more before 
     relocating its production plant, increasing its nuclear 
     arsenal by one-third, according to Pentagon intelligence 
     officials. All were targeting the United States. The Rumsfeld 
     Commission report stated: ``China also poses a threat to the 
     United States ``as a significant proliferator of ballistic 
     missiles, weapons of mass destruction and enabling 
     technologies,'' citing extensive transfers to Iran, Pakistan 
     and Saudi Arabia. The report also assesses that China is 
     unlikely to reduce its transfers of technologies and experts 
     to nations seeking missiles.
       We support the Heritage Foundation's Missile Defense Study 
     Team (Team B) solutions for Congress in acquiring missile 
     defense: Ignore the ABM Treaty, ``legally it is dead''. 
     (Heritage Foundation Executive Memo No. 543.) Establish a 
     policy for deploying a national missile defense system as 
     soon as technologically possible. (Unfortunately, Senate bill 
     defeated 9/9/98 by one vote.) ``Upgrade the Navy's fleet of 
     Aegis cruisers; cost $3 billion, deployable the fiscal year 
     2002.
       Follow up with deployment of space-based interceptors and 
     space-based lasers.'' Stop the delay; we do not have 10 
     years.

  Mr. Speaker, these observations are representative of the growing 
concerns held by the many Americans paying attention to the topic of 
national security and terrorism.
  Hearings held during the 105th Congress on the topics of ballistic 
missile defense and small-munitions terrorism have raised legitimate 
questions which must be resolved by this House. In pursuing such 
solutions, I commend Ms. Smith's comments to our colleagues. Thank you 
Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________