[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1668-H1669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     UNITED STATES MISSILE DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) 
is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, with the President making his remarks 
today on missile defense, I think we need to recognize unprecedented 
political challenges loom on the strategic horizon. Current U.S. 
defense force planning is set within an atmosphere of great 
uncertainty. Historic rivals of the United States, such as the Soviet 
Union and Eastern Bloc nations, have either disintegrated altogether or 
lost much of their competitive influence.
  Regional state actors, particularly on the Asian continent, show 
signs of future ascendancy on the world political stage. Other nation 
states, some exhibiting anti-U.S. bent, continue to challenge American 
allies and interests around the world, even as U.S. peacekeeping and 
peacemaking commitments evolve.
  The very definition of American interests is in transition as varied 
threats emerge in the post-Cold War world.
  International corruption, organized crime, and the production, trade, 
and trafficking of illicit narcotics is on the rise. These 
transnational threats contribute to the instability of political 
systems abroad, the violation of U.S. borders, and often represent a 
threat to social conditions in the United States.
  The threat of terrorism, both state and non-state sponsored, has 
grown in significance and Americans have increasingly become targets 
for attackers abroad. According to a December 2000 unclassified Central 
Intelligence Agency (CIA) report, terrorist attacks against the United 
States, its forces, facilities, and interests overseas are expected to 
increase over the next decade. Additionally the report states, 
``Between now and 2015 terrorist tactics will become increasingly 
sophisticated and designed to achieve mass casualities.'' This 
potential threat is of particular concern for the United States with 
its open borders, emphasis on local--and perhaps uncoordinated--
emergency responders, and a prevalent cultural respect for civil 
liberties, and, thus, freedom of movement and action. Antiterrorist 
measures must address all plausible attack scenarios, including the 
delivery of an explosive device by more traditional means, such as by 
ship, rail, foot, or automotive vehicle.
  The availability of advanced technologies has also reached a 
significant level of concern as Russia, China, and North Korea, 
continue to exhibit ambivalent attitudes towards nonproliferation 
agreements.
  The 2001 Report of the Secretary of Defense to the President and the 
Congress notes the spread of materials with potential applications to 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and highlights the 
proliferation of advanced long-range delivery systems.
  Another study, the Quadrennial Defense Review 2001 Working Group by 
the National Defense University laments, and I quote, ``Given the 
diffusion of advanced military technologies and the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, one could envision an adversary armed with 
longer-range missiles and cruise missiles, weapons of mass destruction, 
advanced integrated air defense systems, and/or sophisticated anti-ship 
mines and missiles by 2010, if not sooner.''
  U.S. military forces, then--forward deployed to temper adversarial 
behavior and required to provide both a credible deterrence and an 
overwhelming response to aggression if needed--face new and multiple 
challenges, not the least of which is to consider anew its role in 
assisting with defense of national territory.
  Set within this context, U.S. strategists are challenged with 
questions about nuclear strategy and force posture, arms control 
regimes, and missile

[[Page H1669]]

defense modernization options. Missile proliferation has introduced an 
immediate threat to American uniformed personnel stationed abroad, and 
brought to the fore the prospect of ballistic missile attack on the 
United States as a real possibility within the next 5 to 7 years.
  China, Russia, and North Korea each have well-armed missiles capable 
of striking parts or all of the United States, and other nations, such 
as Iran, may possess similar technology in the not too distant future.
  This new setting has led some to call for a new strategic synthesis 
and a doctrinal requirement to, in the words of Michael Krepon, and I 
quote, ``reduce the dangers from missiles and weapons of mass 
destruction in the uncertain period ahead.''
  Still, the view of the threat from abroad should not create a threat 
from within. An effort must be made to avoid strategic decisions that 
might antagonize our international competitors and/or partners, leading 
them to adopt a posture even more belligerent in nature. Krepon 
suggests, and I quote, ``The net effect of missile deployments should 
be to reinforce reductions in nuclear forces, reassure allies, support 
nonproliferation partners, and reduce the salience of missiles and 
weapons of mass destruction.''
  Thus, the threat to America should be viewed holistically. It should 
be viewed with an eye receptive to the benefits of negotiation, 
diplomacy, and arms reduction possibilities, mindful of adversarial 
intent. The possibility of a threat does not necessarily deem it 
likely. Whereas missile threats to the United States and allies indeed 
exist and are likely to increase, other threats also remain. America, 
therefore, should invest in a force structure commensurate with likely 
threats. Above all, consideration of missile defense systems must not 
acquire a 21st century Maginot Line mentality.
  Calls for nonpartisanship respecting an issue are generally 
rhetorical and strategic in nature as regards their political origin. 
Missile doctrine made manifest in congressional policy, however, cries 
out for just that approach. No other defense posture is as pregnant 
with controversy and potential for bitter political conflict. The costs 
of commitment alone set off warning bells throughout the budget 
spectrum. Discussion can rapidly descend into confrontation and 
accusation if we do not pledge to bring serious, sober consideration 
and resolution to the table. What is needed presently is the equivalent 
of a congressional deep breath.
  We need to remember the various missile launch scenarios are abstract 
evaluations and the solutions promulgated in response are visions, for 
the most part, still on paper and in the mind's eye.
  Missiles, offensive or defensive, are at best a technological answer 
to a military question, not a diplomatic answer to a question of 
negotiation. International diplomacy and national policy remain an art, 
not a science. Science is fixed and immutable in its consequence, while 
art, as Andy Warhol said, is what one can get away with.
  Congress must guard against allowing missile defense systems becoming 
the policy, allowing the technology, in effect, to develop its own 
psychology. There is gradually being created in the United States a 
burgeoning military and corporate apparatus dependent in large measure 
on missile defense to rationalize its existence.
  It is imperative, therefore, that the Congress assess the role of 
missile defense policy in the overall context of national security and 
economic stability. The issues are real. The responsibility is ours.

                          ____________________