[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 12, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E948-E949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      A DANGEROUS TIME FOR AMERICA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 12, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous time for America. Our 
nation has absolutely no defense against ballistic missile attack and 
our enemies are well-aware of this vulnerability. North Korea, Iran, 
Iraq, Libya and other rogue nations are currently developing long-range 
ballistic missiles to deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear 
warheads to our shores.
  Communist China already has this capability. Just last year, the 
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) confirmed 13 of China's 18 long-range 
nuclear-tipped missiles were targeted at U.S. cities, In 1996, China 
threatened to launch those missiles on American targets, including Los 
Angeles, if our country intervened on behalf of Taiwan during China's 
threatening missile ``tests'' over that country. China's Lt. General 
Xiong Guang Kai remarked that Americans ``care more about Los Angeles 
than they do Tai Pei.'' Communist China still has over 100 CSS-6 
missiles pointed at Taiwan and the number is expected to grow to 600 in 
the coming years.
  Revelations China has been actively stealing U.S. nuclear warhead 
secrets from Los Alamos is no comfort either. The information China 
acquired concerns advanced, miniaturized nuclear warheads which will 
allow China to place multiple warheads on new intercontinental 
ballistic missiles (ICBMs). If China launches these missiles at the 
United States, Los Angeles could be but a fly-over mark on the way to 
Washington, Chicago, New York, and other ``target-rich'' cities.
  China is aware the United States cannot defend against ballistic 
missile attack and actively exploits this weakness. Rather than 
investing resources in modern aircraft and warships, China is instead 
fully funding its missile programs. Over the next several years, China 
can be expected to field a new mobile intercontinental ballistic 
missile. China is also developing an impressive and advanced 
reconnaissance-strike complex utilizing satellite technology to provide 
precise targeting data to its highly accurate ballistic missiles.
  While temporarily less aggressive, Russia remains a serious ballistic 
missile threat as well. Russia still maintains over 20,000 nuclear 
weapons and in 1993 issued a national security policy placing even 
greater reliance upon nuclear deterrence do to economic crisis and a 
sharp decline in conventional military capabilities. Not only do such 
economic and political difficulties enhance the threat of an 
intentional launch, but they heighten the prospects for an 
unintentional launch. The United States remains helpless and 
defenseless against any launch.
  In response to the confirmed and escalating threats to our nation, 
both the House and Senate in March 1999 overwhelmingly passed 
legislation establishing U.S. policy to deploy a National Missile 
Defense. At the same time, the Clinton administration has taken every 
conceivable stop to oppose such a defense, to the point of championing 
an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty the U.S. signed in 1972 with a 
country that no longer exists--the Soviet Union. Mr. Speaker, President 
Clinton has decided, as a matter of affirmative policy, not to

[[Page E949]]

field a defense against long-range ballistic missiles.
  Despite the stark differences between the Congress and the president 
in commitment and accomplishment relating to missile defense, however, 
President Clinton's National Security Council Advisor on April 12, 1999 
was quoted in Aviation Week & Space Technology as remarking that 
lawmakers have been less productive than the president in advancing an 
effective missile defense. In the article, Robert G. Bell ``assail[ed] 
[Congress'] focus on rhetoric, deadlines and parochial interests, while 
avoiding the hard work of helping guide the architecture of a National 
Missile Defense system.''
  Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's National Security Council Advisor is 
dead wrong on the record of National Missile Defense. Therefore, I 
hereby submit for the Record, the full text of the letter I have today 
posted to Mr. Bell in response to his comments.

                                                   April 30, 1999.
     Mr. Robert G. Bell,
     National Security Council Advisor, The White House, 
         Washington House, DC.
       Dear Mr. Bell: Aviation Week & Space Technology (April 12, 
     1999, page 21) reported your admission the Clinton 
     administration was late to recognize the threat posed by 
     long-range ballistic missiles, and inaccurately downgraded in 
     definition our previous ballistic missile defense program to 
     a technology demonstration program. The article also 
     indicated you graded lawnmakers ever worse than the Clinton 
     administration, ``assailing their focus on rhetoric, 
     deadlines and parochial interests, while avoiding the hard 
     work of helping guide the architecture of a National Missile 
     Defense system.''


                                 THREAT

       Your admission the Clinton administration was late to 
     recognize the threat of ballistic missiles is a positive 
     development. Recent events have reinforced to Congress the 
     knowledge that long-range ballistic missiles are indeed a 
     clear and present threat to the national security of the 
     United States. The high visibility of long-range ballistic 
     missile threats, highlighted by North Korea's recent test of 
     a missile capable of striking the United States, the warnings 
     from Chairman Donald Rumsfeld and the Commission To Assess 
     the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, and the 
     transfer of critical ballistic missile and nuclear warhead 
     technology to China, argue persuasively for the deployment of 
     a comprehensive National Missile Defense (NMD) system.
       In response to the growing threat from long-range ballistic 
     missiles, both the House and Senate in March 1999 
     overwhelmingly passed legislation making it the policy of the 
     United States to deploy a National Missile Defense. This 
     legislation establishes definitive policy for deployment and 
     sets the stage for follow-on legislation providing for a 
     specific NMD architecture. Clearly, the Congress is actively 
     working to ensure our country is protected from threat of 
     ballistic missile attack.
       Yet the Clinton administration, including Secretary of 
     Defense William Cohen, has failed to acknowledge the United 
     States has a need to deploy a National Missile Defense, even 
     while recognizing the growing threat from long-range 
     ballistic missiles. When the Clinton administration cannot 
     even acknowledge the need to deploy a National Missile 
     Defense, how can it credibly assail Congress for ``avoiding 
     the hard work of helping guide the architecture of a National 
     Missile Defense System?''
       The Clinton administration, hinging the very security of 
     our nation on a single National Missile Defense ``readiness 
     deployment program,'' refuses to acknowledge the existence of 
     a threat warranting deployment and our technological 
     capability to proceed with deployment. It appears the Clinton 
     administraton is waiting until nuclear-tipped ballistic 
     missiles are aimed and inbound to the United States before it 
     will concede the need for an effective missile defense 
     system. The Clinton administration is negligent in its duty 
     to protect the citizens of the United States.


                                RHETORIC

       Defense Secretary William Cohen's January 20, 1999 comments 
     regarding ballistic missile defense were highly suggestive of 
     a new willingness of the Clinton administration to amend or 
     abrogate the outdated and non-binding Anti-Ballistic Missile 
     (ABM) Treaty. Yet, the Clinton administration's position has 
     been refuted in practice by the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization's position of using the ABM Treaty as a reason 
     to block development of effective ballistic missile defenses, 
     particularly space-based ballistic missile defenses.
       Why does the Clinton administration, publicly willing on 
     the one hand to amend or abrogate the ABM Treaty, find itself 
     on the other hand unwilling to develop ballistic missile 
     defenses which may exceed ABM Treaty limits?
       It has been documented Russia constructed a national 
     missile defense system which violated the ABM Treaty. 
     Furthermore, in April 1991, the author of the ABM Treaty, 
     Henry Kissinger, recognized a changed atmosphere following 
     the end of the Cold War, writing: ``Limitations on strategic 
     defenses will have to be reconsidered in light of the Gulf 
     War experience. No responsible leader can henceforth leave 
     his civilian population vulnerable.''
       It would appear President Clinton is indeed irresponsible 
     by intentionally leaving our civilian population vulnerable 
     to ballistic missile attack.


                              ARCHITECTURE

       In 1993, the Clinton administration inherited a 
     sophisticated ballistic missile defense providing global 
     coverage utilizing Space Based Interceptors known as 
     Brilliant Pebbles (which would have been ready for near-term 
     deployment in roughly 4-5 years), Space Based Lasers, 
     Space Based Infrared Sensors (SBIRS), and theater 
     ballistic missile defenses, including Navy Upper Tier 
     (Navy Theater Wide). Shortly after taking office in 1993, 
     the Clinton administration canceled our space-based 
     ballistic missile defense programs, including Brilliant 
     Pebbles, and cut the Space Based Laser program to a token, 
     not even equal to a technology readiness demonstration. 
     These cuts have yet to be reversed by the administration, 
     despite an acknowledgement of the inherent advantages of 
     space-based ballistic missile defenses.
       You clearly recognize the inherent advantages of such a 
     defense, as quoted in Aviation Week & Space Technology 
     (December 4, 1995, page 110): ``At the other end of the scale 
     is the Defense Dominance Model. It is central to High 
     Frontier and the original vision that president Ronald Reagan 
     had in articulating the Strategic Defense Initiative. Under 
     this approach, if both sides build very tall defensive walls, 
     including maximum use of the technical advantages that accrue 
     from deployments in space [emphasis added], you achieve 
     stability through counterpoised defenses, with requirements 
     for offensive arms quite minimal.''
       Today, however, rather than seeking the ``maximum use of 
     the technical advantages that accrue from deployments in 
     space,'' the Clinton administration instead proposes a 
     National Missile Defense architecture devoid of space-based 
     deployments. The National Missile Defense system proposed by 
     this administration will be inherently less effective and 
     decidedly more costly than a National Missile Defense 
     utilizing space-based deployments.
       There is no reason for, nor intention of, the Congress to 
     agree with a proposal for a National Missile Defense 
     architecture of inferior design, particularly when the 
     administration is aware it is deliberately compromising the 
     defense of the American people.


                                summary

       The Clinton administration is mistakenly attacking Congress 
     for ``avoiding the hard work of helping guide the 
     architecture of a National Missile Defense system'' at the 
     same time it fails to even acknowledge the need for our 
     nation to deploy a National Missile Defense. Furthermore, the 
     administration's only proposed system architecture is of a 
     notably inferior design.
       It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch and 
     Commander in Chief of he Armed Forces of the United States to 
     present a coherent and effective National Missile Defense 
     architecture. The Executive Branch is led by a single 
     individual capable of providing guidance for a National 
     Missile Defense designed by a single architect, rather than 
     by 535 architects in Congress.
       Rather than providing for the common defense, rather than 
     being vigilant in protecting the American people, rather than 
     preparing the United States to counter the growing global 
     threat of long-range ballistic missiles, President Clinton is 
     willfully and deliberately leaving the United States 
     defenseless, helpless, and vulnerable to long-range ballistic 
     missiles. I take vehement exception to your remarks as quoted 
     in Aviation Week & Space Technology.
       We must defend our freedom. The United States must deploy a 
     National Missile Defense which includes ``the maximum use of 
     the technical advantages that accrue from deployments in 
     space.''
           Very truly yours,

                                                 Bob Schaffer,

                                               Member of Congress.

     

                          ____________________