[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E122-E123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      YELTSIN'S NUCLEAR THREAT SHOULD ALARM AN UNDEFENDED AMERICA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 2000

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, former Russian President Boris Yeltsin's 
startling and sobering reminder last November of his country's robust 
nuclear weapons capability was as accurate as it was menacing. Firing 
back at Bill Clinton's public criticism of Russian military assaults on 
Chechen rebel strongholds, Yeltsin roared, ``[Clinton] must have 
forgotten for a moment what Russia has. It has a full arsenal of 
nuclear weapons.''
  Though arguably an impulsive response to embarrassing and unwanted 
criticism, Yeltsin could not have delivered a more concise and 
troubling threat to our Nation's security, nor a more valid and 
fortified one. Despite highly publicized accounts of Russia's 
deteriorating economic, political, and conventional military realities 
and capabilities, the country is anything but lightly armed in nuclear 
weaponry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Russia still maintains over 20,000 
nuclear weapons, most sitting atop highly accurate and fully 
functioning silo- and sub-launched ballistic missiles awaiting final 
target coordinates and a ``fuel and fire'' command.
  Yeltsin's impetuous warning--however untenable to an America placated 
by decisive United States victories in the cold war and the gulf war, 
and blessed with 60 years of domestic tranquility and tremendous 
economic prosperity--should be taken quite seriously. In 1993, Russia 
adopted a national security policy placing even greater reliance upon 
nuclear deterrence due to its worsening economic crisis and 
deteriorating conventional military capabilities. Not only does this 
reality enhance the threat of an intentional launch, it heightens the 
prospects for an unintentional launch too.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States remains defenseless against any such 
launch. American citizens trust that the first responsibility of their 
government is ``to provide for the common defense,'' and must 
accordingly assume there must be in place an effective shield against 
missile attack. This,
  In fact, long-range ballistic missiles are the only weapons against 
which the U.S. Government has decided, as a matter of policy, not to 
field a defense. Bill Clinton is a fierce defender of this doctrine of 
deliberate vulnerability and repeatedly threatened to veto any serious 
congressional legislation enacted to the contrary.
  Clinton's doctrine is predicated upon antiquated agreements dating 
back to 1972 when the United States signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
(ABM) Treaty with the former Soviet Union. At the time, and until 
relatively recently, the U.S.S.R. was the only nation known to be 
capable of delivering nuclear warheads to our shores. The world is 
different now, and the U.S.S.R. no longer exists.
  Not counting Yeltsin's unexpected reminder of Russia's formidable 
nuclear arsenal, Mr. Speaker, Russia is generally considered on the 
lower end of America's threat scale. That's because it's predictable, 
if not rational. United States and other intelligence sources have 
firmly documented the aggressive--and in some cases successful--
attempts by many of the worlds most violent, unstable, and anti-
American entities to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction, 
and the means to deliver them.
  In 1998, the bipartisan Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile 
Threat to the United States, led by former Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld, asserted the United States may have little or no warning 
before the emergence of specific new ballistic missile threats to our 
Nation. The Commission estimated some 20 Third World and outlaw 
nations, including North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya already have, or 
are vigorously developing, such capabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, Communist China already has this capability. In 1998, 
the Central Intelligence Agency confirmed 13 of China's 18 long-range 
nuclear-tipped missiles were targeted at U.S. cities. In 1996, Chinese 
officials threatened to launch those missiles at American targets, 
including Los Angeles, if our Nation intervened

[[Page E123]]

on behalf of Taiwan during China's threatening missile tests over that 
nation. One official remarked that Americans ``care more about Los 
Angeles than they do Tai Pei.'' Adding fuel to the fire, U.S. defense 
intelligence officials just revealed plans by China to build a second 
short-range missile base near Taiwan, thereby allowing it to target the 
island's primary military and civilian areas.
  The communist Chinese have also profited greatly from successful 
espionage missions within the United States. Intelligence officials 
have confirmed China is beginning work on a new strategic submarine 
built specifically to target U.S. nuclear forces. The subs will 
reportedly carry missiles armed with miniaturized warheads modeled 
after American designs developed at Los Alamos then stolen by spies. 
These smaller, advanced warheads will also allow China to place 
multiple warheads on new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). 
Such missiles would have the range to target not only Los Angeles, Mr. 
Speaker, but also more ``target-rich'' cities like Washington, Denver, 
Chicago, and New York.
  It should be all the more alarming then that President Yeltsin's 
perceived threat of nuclear retaliation was delivered from Beijing. 
Yeltsin emerged just minutes before his pronouncement from a meeting 
with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, who stood confidently beside 
Yeltsin, both physically and figuratively. Relations between the two 
nuclear powers have warmed significantly over the last few years, and 
that alone should be cause for concern to an American left undefended 
from missile attack.
  No matter the source and nature of the threat, however, this much is 
clear: America must build a National Missile Defense system as soon as 
technologically possible. Last year, in spite of the general reluctance 
of Bill Clinton and his administration, the House and Senate both 
overwhelmingly passed legislation to do so, albeit substantially 
watered-down in order to appease White House objections.
  But in order to ensure the timely and successful completion of this 
most important of tasks, America must stand united in our efforts. 
Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, if Russia ever follows through with its nuclear 
threats, all we'll be able to do is fire back, and kiss our planet 
goodbye.

                          ____________________