[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 50 (Tuesday, April 13, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DECLARATION OF POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING NATIONAL MISSILE 
                           DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. DEBBIE STABENOW

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 18, 1999

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
discuss my support of H.R. 4, the Missile Defense bill. H.R. 4, 
declares that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a 
national missile defense system. The importance of this legislation can 
be found in its absence to declare the type of system to be created, 
the date of deployment and the location of the eventual system.
  I believe that it would be dangerous to rush into deployment of a 
National Missile Defense (NMD) system without the development of 
appropriate technology. We must not stake America's national security 
on a system which has failed 14 out of 18 tests. This legislation does 
not mandate a date of deployment, which allows technology to advance so 
that when a successful NMD system is developed it can be deployed.
  Additionally, I feel that compliance with the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II are far more 
important in our near future than deploying a limited national missile 
defense. And H.R. 4, does not threaten U.S. compliance by mandating the 
type of system or the number of interceptors necessary. I believe it is 
possible for a national missile defense system to complement 
deterrence, but only through compliance with the treaties already in 
place.
  I am disappointed that the rule prohibited an amendment by my 
colleague Mr. Allen, which would have specifically addressed the issues 
of effectiveness and treaty compliance when deploying a NMD system. For 
this reason, I will oppose the rule and support a motion to recommit 
the bill with instructions to include this amendment. While I believe 
Mr. Allen's amendment would have been a positive addition to this 
legislation, I do not feel it is necessary for my support. H.R. 4, by 
remaining silent on how, when, and where a NMD system will develop 
allows the Administration to negotiate our compliance with our treaties 
and for technology to advance so that an effective missile defense 
system can be deployed.

                          ____________________