[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4625-H4631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MISSILE DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to spending this evening 
talking to my colleagues about an issue that I think is fundamentally 
important to not only this generation in America but to every future 
generation in America, at least as far out as we can see. It is also an 
issue that is absolutely critical for our friends and allies throughout 
the world. It is missile defense.
  Now, I hope this evening to be joined by my colleague, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and the two of us will go through missile 
defense and talk a little about the necessity for it.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric here in the last few weeks about how 
missile defense is going to set off an arms race, about how missile 
defense does not make any sense, about how missile defense is not 
technologically feasible. But tonight I want to go to the facts, to cut 
through the rhetoric, and I want to get right to the meat. Because this 
issue is so critical for us, we cannot afford to let the substance be 
diluted by the rhetoric. Again, do not let the substance of missile 
defense for this country be diluted by rhetoric, because all of us 
lose.
  I was at the World Forum in Vail, Colorado 2 or 3 years ago. Vail is 
in my district out in Colorado. And the World Forum, put on by 
President Gerald Ford, was a fabulous thing. Leaders from all over the 
world came there. Margaret Thatcher spoke. And when Margaret Thatcher 
spoke, you could almost hear a pin drop at this World Forum. She got up 
and said in response to a question on missile defense, she said to the 
leaders of the United States and to the leaders of the United Kingdom, 
you have an inherent responsibility. Now, remember, her whole sentence 
I am about to cite, her whole answer is maybe two or three sentences. 
But her response was that you have an inherent responsibility to the 
people that you represent to protect them, and failure to do so would 
be dereliction of your duty. Now, that is a summary of what she said. 
Failure to do so would be dereliction of your duty.
  We have a known threat out there. We know there are missiles aimed at 
the United States of America. We know that there are other countries, 
and not just what used to be the Soviet Union, which was the big threat 
in my generation.
  When I was a young child I remember my mom and dad telling me, during 
the Cuban missile crisis, that we were probably going to go to war in 
the next few hours. I remember the fallout shelters. And as I grew up, 
everything was Russia; the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union is going to 
launch an attack. And, of course, we in the mountains of Colorado were 
worried because we had Cheyenne Mountain, the headquarters for NORAD 
over in Colorado Springs.
  But has the threat subsided? The threat has not subsided. I do not 
understand the reasoning of some of these people who are trying to 
convince the American people that the threat of a missile attack has 
subsided. In fact, I would venture to say that the threat of a missile 
attack has actually increased, because we now have a multitude of 
nations that have tested nuclear weapons. We know there are a multitude 
of nations out there that have missile technology.
  We know, for example, that when the Soviet Union was the Soviet Union 
they had very strict control over their weapons. Today, we do not know 
what kind of control they have over their weapons. We know that we have 
China that is attempting to build up its military. And, frankly, 
I think China and Russia, as it now is, are more manageable than say a 
North Korea or a Pakistan or an India or over in the Middle East or 
some terrorist group.

  And, God forbid, what if we had an accidental launch against the 
United

[[Page H4626]]

States of America? What if somebody did not want to destroy the United 
States, what if somebody just launched by accident a nuclear missile 
for New York City? How strong do my colleagues think their rhetoric 
would stand up the day after that missile hit, or the minute after that 
missile hit, after standing on this floor and saying that we should not 
have a missile defense; that a missile defense is going to start off an 
arms race; that we should not defend our people; we should stick to an 
old treaty, a treaty that was drafted in 1972, 30 years ago.
  How many of my colleagues are driving a 30-year-old car today? How 
many people do that? How many of my colleagues are using 30-year-old 
technology in their offices? How many people use 30-year-old technology 
in their airplanes? We do not do that, and we should not use that kind 
of technology to defend this country.
  Now, what am I talking about? What treaty am I talking about? It is 
called the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Let us talk about the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty. First of all, let me say to my colleagues 
that the theory of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was about really 
only two countries. There were two nations in the world that were 
capable of any kind of significant missile launch against somebody else 
in the world. One, the United States of America, and, two, the Soviet 
Union. These two superpowers possessed not only the knowledge of 
nuclear weapons, but they also had the capability of delivering these 
weapons, and delivering these weapons in multitudes and with deadly 
accuracy.
  So the theory of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1968, 1969, and 
1970, was, hey, look, Russia and the United States, and by the way I do 
not agree with this theory, but the theory was the best way for the 
United States not to attack Russia and the best way for the Soviet 
Union not to attack the United States was for both of them to agree not 
to build a defense. Because if these two countries have a missile, 
theoretically, and each knows it could be destroyed by that missile 
because it cannot defend against it, then each country will be less 
reluctant to fire their missiles. That is the theory of what happened.
  Now, what does this treaty contain? Let us take a look at a little of 
what the treaty says, because it is important. I will refer to my 
poster here to the left. Article I: Each party undertakes to limit 
anti-ballistic missile systems and to adopt other measures.
  And I will just summarize some of these. There is no need to go 
through each sentence. Each party undertakes not to deploy anti-
ballistic missile systems for defense of the territory.
  Now, remember, as we go through this treaty and as I talk tonight, I 
am not talking about the development of offensive weapons. The United 
States has significant offensive weapons.

                              {time}  2130

  I am talking about defensive weapons. I am not talking about firing a 
missile against another country, I am talking about defending the 
United States of America. So my discussion tonight is not as an 
aggressor. My discussion this evening with you is as a defender. A 
defender of the territory of the United States of America. And by the 
way, we should expand that as a defender of our allies in this world.
  For the purpose of this treaty, an ABM system is a system to counter 
strategic ballistic missiles. Each party undertakes not to develop, 
test or deploy a defensive system which is sea-based, air-based, space-
based or mobile land-based.
  So in this treaty, the United States of America agrees with the 
Soviet Union, which as my colleagues know, the Soviet Union no longer 
exists. It has been broken into a number of different countries. Each 
party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy a defensive weapon 
system. That is what that paragraph says. To ensure assurance of 
effectiveness of the ABM, each party undertakes not to give missiles, 
launches, or radars, other than ABM interceptor missiles, et cetera, or 
their elements in flight trajectory, and not to test them in a mode.
  That says you cannot test. If the United States determines that they 
want to test some type of system to defend our country, we cannot do it 
under this treaty. This treaty is not cloudy. It is black and white. It 
is very clear in its definitions. If you want to build a defensive 
system for your Nation, you are not allowed to under this treaty. There 
is no way around it. This treaty is totally incompatible with our 
Nation or any nation, well, our Nation or the Soviet Union because 
there are only two parties to this agreement, the Soviet Union and the 
United States.
  It is totally incompatible with this treaty for the Soviet Union or 
the United States to build some type of defense to protect their 
country from an accidental launch or an intentional launch of a missile 
against their country as long as this treaty exists.
  They understood that this treaty may not be good forever. In fact, 
they put provisions in the treaty. They had the foresight, they had the 
foresight to put provisions in this treaty which would allow the 
parties to the treaty, again the Soviet Union and the United States, 
which would allow these parties to leave the treaty. To go out of the 
treaty.
  I have heard recently and when I have read some of the press, some of 
you off this floor, frankly, who have made announcements that the 
United States would break a treaty. What would give any Nation the 
desire to make a treaty with the United States if the United States 
broke their word and broke these treaties.
  We are not breaking the treaty. The treaty has contained within its 
four corners, within the four corners of the document, it has contained 
provisions of how to withdraw from that treaty.
  So any representation by anyone that the United States of America 
through the Bush administration, which I commend for their leadership 
on this issue, any representation that withdrawal from this treaty is a 
breaking of the treaty is incorrect. The treaty itself contains 
provisions that allow withdrawal from the conditions of this treaty.
  Again to my left on this poster, this is the article. This treaty 
shall be of unlimited duration. Each party shall, in exercising its 
national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty. It 
is a right. It is a right we retain for ourselves. It is a right the 
Soviet Union retained for themselves, and that is the right to be able 
to withdraw from this treaty. You have the right to withdraw from this 
treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject 
matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interest. It shall 
give notice to the other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal from 
the treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary 
events of the notifying party in regards as having jeopardized its 
supreme interest.

  Do we have circumstances which would justify extraordinary events? 
You know something, that is the easiest question of the night to 
answer. Have events occurred that are extraordinary in their nature 
which would allow us to withdraw from a treaty which prevents the 
United States from defending itself against missile attacks?
  Number one, the Soviet Union is not around any more.
  Number two, it is called Russia, Ukraine and other nations. The 
Soviet Union at that time in 1968, 1970, when these treaties were being 
negotiated, there was only one other country that had the capability to 
deliver missiles to the United States of America, and it was the Soviet 
Union.
  Let me show you today what we have got. It is no longer just Russia. 
Look at my poster to the left. It is no longer just Russia. No longer 
just the Soviet Union. Today North Korea has the capability to hit the 
West Coast with their nuclear missile. Pakistan has nuclear capability 
and missiles.
  India has nuclear capability and missiles. Israel has nuclear 
capability and missiles. China has nuclear capability and missiles. How 
much further do I have to go to justify extraordinary circumstances? 
Just one more nation other than the Soviet Union, in my opinion, 
justifies extraordinary circumstances.
  Let me go on. And other countries have all successfully detonated 
nuclear weapons, in addition, Iraq, Iran. Do those strike some kind of 
familiar sound? Do my colleagues remember a war not too long ago? In 
addition, Iran, Iran and Libya all have ballistic missile technology 
that they could use to

[[Page H4627]]

deliver either a chemical or a biological attack.
  So we are not just talking about a nuclear warhead on top of one of 
these missiles. We are talking about the capability to deliver a 
biological weapon, some type of chemical weapon. These countries can 
destroy large portions of the United States of America; and we on this 
floor and our administration down the street, and the Senate on the 
other side, we have, as Margaret Thatcher has said, we have an inherent 
responsibility to protect the citizens of this country.
  So how can anybody stand on this floor and say we should not have a 
missile defense or the President is wrong because he said this ABM 
treaty, you cannot have the ABM and the missile defense both. The 
treaty does not allow for it.
  What the treaty does allow, it says in the treaty. The treaty says if 
you want to build a missile defense, you can withdraw from the treaty. 
We are not breaking the treaty, we are exercising our rights that we 
negotiated 30 years ago. That is to pull out of the treaty and build a 
defensive system for this country.
  By the way, the President just recently returned from Europe, and I 
have seen a lot of press about how the Europeans are opposing President 
Bush and his missile defense. He is some kind of roving cowboy.
  In Europe in the last few days, people are beginning to say, their 
leaders are saying, that George W. Bush is on to something. Somebody 
could launch a missile against Italy. Somebody could launch a missile 
against Spain, against London. We do not want to offend our other 
European brothers, but maybe we ought to look at it and see what Bush 
has in that bag.
  The United States, by the way, is going to make it technologically 
feasible; and I will address that in a few minutes. The Europeans are 
saying, I know what everybody is saying on the podium, and I know what 
the European press is saying, but frankly as a leader of my country, I 
have an obligation to defend it.
  So guess what happened last weekend? Italy's premier came out and 
said in a very aggressive nature, we support a missile defense system, 
and we encourage the United States of America to rapidly develop the 
technology to protect countries in this world from attack by a missile 
containing either biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
  Italy, the second one to jump on board. Our good friends, the United 
Kingdom, who have been wonderful allies, are on board. Guess who else? 
Spain. Spain is out there saying it is not such a bad idea. Maybe the 
best way, maybe the people that are most opposed to weapons in my 
opinion should be the strongest proponents of this.
  What is the best way to make a missile ineffective? It is the 
capability to defend against it. Whether it is in Europe or the United 
States of America, those people that oppose the development of missiles 
that are opposed to any kind of violence, they ought to be the first 
ones signing on the bottom line. They should say the United States has 
come up with a pretty good idea.
  Let me tell you that iron wall in Europe in opposition to American 
development of a missile defensive system, is showing significant 
cracks. It is my opinion, and the French usually lag behind, but it is 
my opinion that most of the European allies of ours and NATO over time 
will adopt the policy of the United States, and that is to defend their 
country from a missile attack.
  Let us talk just for a moment about what happens if we do not, just 
to give you an idea.
  On a Trident submarine, and the United States has Trident nuclear 
submarines. We have the most powerful military in the world. In fact, 
we have the most powerful military in the history of the world. We 
ought to have.
  I had kind of a fun thing happen the other day. I love high school 
students to stop by. The 4-H students stop by. The Boy Scouts stop by. 
We have some leadership programs back in Washington stop by. Usually we 
have groups, and I open it up for questions. One of the questions was 
from one of the students, and these questions are bright questions. 
This generation coming out, they are a bright generation. I have a lot 
of hope for the future of this country just based on these young people 
I have had the opportunity to meet. But back to the question.
  A high school student asked me, he said, Why do we need the CIA? Why 
do we need spies? My teacher, he implied his teacher thinks our country 
is being bad in essence because we have spies.
  I said, Let us answer that question. How many of you in here play 
high school sports? Almost everyone raised their hands. I asked one of 
the young ladies what sport she played. She said, I play basketball.
  I said, Tell me this. Before you play an opposing team, do you know 
the height of the person you are going to guard? Yes.
  Do you know how many baskets that lady made in the previous games? 
Yes.
  If it is a championship game, does somebody film them playing a prior 
game? Yes.
  I said, That is gathering intelligence. By gathering intelligence, 
you are able to disarm, dispose of the threat before the threat becomes 
destructive. That was one point.
  The second point, somebody asked why do we need such a strong 
military. I said it is very simple. This young man's name was John. I 
said John, if you were a black belt in karate and everybody in your 
class knew that and everybody knew if they tried to take your lunch or 
take something of yours, you would break their neck, how many fights do 
you think you would be in? John answered correctly, probably none. That 
is right.
  By having a strong military, and my theory, by having a strong 
military defense for your country, by defending the citizens of your 
Nation, you will avoid violence. You do not bring on violence, you 
avoid violence because the people who decide they want to undertake a 
violent act against you understand that there are repercussions that 
have a deadly impact. Or if we put up a missile defense system, they 
understand that they may not be able to produce any type of weapon that 
could give that harm to a missile. It makes a lot of sense for the 
United States to have a strong military.

                              {time}  2145

  It makes a lot of sense for us to be able to defend this country. Let 
us take a look at what happens.
  Let me step back just for a moment. The Trident submarine, nuclear 
launching base. We probably have 18 or so of those out there. I am not 
giving you anything that is classified, obviously. We probably have 10 
or 12 of them at sea at any given time. Do you know that one Trident 
submarine, one nuclear submarine of the United States, has more 
firepower than all of the countries combined for all the years of World 
War II? That is how powerful. A nuclear submarine can launch 195 
nuclear warheads. We have a powerful force out there.
  But the other side has got a powerful force, too. And no matter how 
many submarines you have out there, you have got to have the capability 
not to just fire a missile if that, God forbid, ever became necessary, 
you have got to have the capability to stop an incoming weapon. Because 
if you do not, the odds of you having to fire your missiles out of one 
of those deadly submarines becomes much higher. If somebody shoots a 
missile at the United States of America and we are able to intercept it 
on its launching pad through a space intercept method or we can 
intercept it in space, we could prevent a war.
  Let us say, for example, that somebody launches a missile by 
accident, an accidental launch. Let me tell you, it happens. We have 
planes that crash by accident. As we all know the tragedy, we lost a 
spacecraft by accident. Accidents happen. It is logical to say that, at 
some point in the future, there might be an accidental launch of a 
nuclear weapon or an accidental launch of a weapon containing chemical 
or biological elements that would be devastating to this country. If we 
knew we had an inbound missile coming in and we did not have the 
capabilities to stop it, we may very well go to war with that country. 
If that missile hit, for example, New York City or if it hit 
Washington, D.C., or it hit Orlando, Florida, we may very well go to 
war instantaneously. Our retribution would be quick, and it would be 
decisive.
  But what if we found out later that the launch was by accident? What 
the missile defense system allows us is if the missile defense, if we 
have got that

[[Page H4628]]

capability and there is an accidental launch that comes over and we are 
able to successfully stop that missile from hitting the mainland United 
States, we may have an allowance of time to find out that it was not an 
act of war, that it was an accident and because we had a missile 
defense system in place, we stopped the next world war. That alone 
justifies what President Bush is attempting to do and that is build a 
missile defense system for the United States.
  Do we have the technological capability? Of course we do. We do not 
have it all in-house today, but about 2 weeks ago, remember, we did a 
test. We have had four tests. Two of them have failed. Two of them have 
been successful. Remember that when the Wright brothers flew their 
airplane or when we ran the car, any other major invention, the first 
time, how many space missions we had to have before we could finally 
figure out and how much money we went through, how to land on the moon 
or how to fly an airplane or how to make a car.
  We are going to have failures. This technology is advanced. Remember 
that in order to intercept a missile in the air, en route, somebody 
told me one time it is the equivalent of throwing a basketball from San 
Francisco and making it through the hoop in Washington, D.C. This is 
tough technology.
  Two weekends ago, the United States of America fired a missile. That 
missile was traveling 4\1/2\ miles a second. Imagine, a bullet, 4\1/2\ 
miles a second inbound. We fired a missile to intercept it, and it was 
traveling at 4\1/2\ miles a second. 4\1/2\ miles, 4\1/2\ miles, and we 
have got to bring the two together, and they cannot miss by that far. 
They cannot miss by a foot. They have got to hit. Guess what happened? 
We brought the two missiles together. We intercepted.
  We will have the technology. We will have the technology to make a 
missile defense system in this country possible. We have an obligation 
to put on an expedited basis the necessary resources that it is going 
to take to bring us that technology.
  Let me give you an idea of what just a couple of missile heads would 
do if we do not defend, for example, and somebody fired a two-warhead 
attack on Philadelphia. Two warheads, one-megaton devices, detonating 
the results. If they fired one warhead with two heads on it, just one, 
with two on it, we would have 410,000 people killed like that.
  Some of my colleagues and some of the scholars in this country are 
saying and criticizing this country for saying that it should develop a 
system that will stop an inbound missile, that will stop a two-headed 
missile from wiping out 410,000 people in Philadelphia. What do we do 
today? If some foreign country, just so you know where we are today, 
one, we have a treaty that says we cannot defend ourselves with a 
missile defensive system. And, two, we today have a detection unknown 
before in the history of the world. It is called NORAD. It is located 
in Colorado Springs, the district of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley), Colorado Springs, Colorado. NORAD has the capability to detect 
a missile launch anywhere in the world, and they can detect it within a 
few seconds.

  So our country today, within a couple of seconds, can detect a 
missile launch anywhere. We can tell you within a few seconds more 
where that missile is going, at what speed it is going, the likely type 
of missile it is and where its target is.
  But after that today, what can our country do? We can call up 
Philadelphia and say, you have an inbound missile, it has got, we 
think, two warheads, a minimum of two warheads on it. It is going to 
hit in 16\1/2\ minutes. That is all we can tell you. There is not 
anything we can do for you. We will pray for you, and we have alerted 
the White House so that we can prepare to go to war immediately. The 
President is prepared to launch an all-out nuclear retaliatory attack.
  Why should we have to go through that? Why should we have to go 
through what at some point in the future is not going to be a test but 
is going to be a realistic either accidental or an intentional missile 
launch against the United States of America when we do not have to do 
it, when we can stop it? This may very well be the secret to stopping a 
war in the future.
  So why would any of my colleagues oppose the President's position, 
number one, that the treaty, the antiballistic missile treaty is not 
valid. You cannot have that and a missile defense system at the same 
time. Do not think there is a way to tiptoe around the treaty. Do not 
think there is a way to talk fuzzy, warm talk and pat the Russians on 
the back and tell our European friends that, okay, we will do this, 
water it down a little here and there.
  The fact is very clear and simple. You cannot have the treaty and 
have the missile defense system. You have got to do something with the 
treaty. The treaty allows you to do it.
  We are not breaking the treaty. I have said this three times in my 
comments this evening. The President is not advocating the breaking of 
a treaty. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, 
the Secretary of State and Condolezza Rice, they are not saying break 
the treaty. What they are bringing to our attention, and they are 
absolutely correct, what they are bringing to our attention is that the 
treaty contained within its own four corners allows us the rights, we 
have rights within this treaty, the right to withdraw from this treaty 
so that we can properly defend our country if extraordinary 
circumstances occur.
  As I said earlier, what more extraordinary circumstances do you need 
as justification other than the fact that North Korea, India, Pakistan, 
China, Iraq, Iran, and several other countries now have nuclear 
capability and have missile technology?
  Mr. Speaker, the old days of only the United States and the Soviet 
Union having missiles are over. Our generation, my generation, worried 
about the Soviet Union, but that is all we had to worry about was the 
Soviet Union as far as a missile attack with nuclear capability. That 
is what we had to worry about. Unfortunately, for the generation behind 
us, they have a multitude of concerns that they are going to have to 
worry about unless we accept our responsibilities in this generation 
and that is the responsibility of some type of vision to defend this 
country so that, as this new generation comes of age in our country, 
they are going to be able to relax knowing that if somebody launches 
accidentally against the United States or intentionally against the 
United States we will not have to sustain casualties in the hundreds 
and hundreds and hundreds of thousands. We will not have to do it 
because we will have the capability to defend against it.
  Now, some of my colleagues, interestingly, have said, and some of the 
press, ``Well, let's just have a very limited missile ballistic system. 
Let's just have a few defensive missiles in Alaska and nowhere else in 
the country. Let's just have a little bit.''
  Give me a break. Give me a break. You cannot do it halfway. You 
cannot afford to be derelict in your responsibility. You cannot afford 
to say to the United States of America, all right, we will protect this 
portion of the Nation, but the rest of you, because it happens to be 
politically correct today, we are not going to put a missile defensive 
system that will help you.
  By the way, the missile attacks may not necessarily come against the 
cities. A good place for a missile attack may be Hoover Dam, knock out 
70 percent of the water in the West, knock out the power generation. 
Psychologically, think of what you would do to a country. You could hit 
a nuclear generation facility. There are a lot of different targets out 
there. You cannot just say we are going to defend a little tiny part of 
the country. That is what some of my colleagues are saying.
  I think some of my colleagues have picked this issue up not because 
they really believe that the United States should not have a missile 
defense system. I think some of my colleagues have picked this issue up 
simply because it is a big issue for our new President, George W. Bush, 
and so politically they are searching for something to attack the 
President on and this happens to be what they have gotten.
  Let me beg all of you, and I said beg. I do not like begging 
anybody--neither do you--but let me beg each and every one of you, do 
not use this as your political issue. This is the wrong issue. From a 
bipartisan point of view, we all

[[Page H4629]]

have an obligation, as fundamental as protecting our children when they 
were babies. We have a fundamental obligation to the people we 
represent to provide a defense for them, to make sure that nobody, 
friendly in case of an accidental launch or unfriendly in case of an 
intentional launch, we have an obligation to give our people the 
maximum protection, the maximum protection against that type of an 
attack.
  Let us talk about the system the President has proposed.
  Real briefly, before we get into that, let me just show this poster 
because I think this poster accurately reflects and gives you an idea. 
Remember, that in 1972 when the Soviet Union and the United States 
signed the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, this map only had two areas of 
blue color, over here in the Soviet Union and right here in the United 
States of America. Look at where we are today. Look at where we are 
today. These colors reflect right here countries possessing ballistic 
missiles.
  Take a look at the number of countries that we have on this poster to 
my left. Let us start over in the extreme left, the Ukraine, UAE, U.S. 
obviously, Vietnam, Yemen, Taiwan, Syria, South Africa, Slovakia, Saudi 
Arabia, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Libya, Pakistan, Poland, keep 
going, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Hungary, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, 
Egypt, France, Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bulgaria. Take a look 
at that.
  Let me say, look to my left at this poster. How can any one of my 
colleagues say that with this kind of threat, and everywhere there is 
purple there is a threat to the United States of America, with this 
kind of a threat you are saying to the people of the United States of 
America that we should not be able to defend against this? How can you 
look at your constituents when you go back to your district? Or, even 
more importantly, how can you look at yourself in the mirror and say 
that under these kind of circumstances with this kind of current 
existing threat, not even assuming what will be in existence 10 years 
from now, but even under the current conditions of the threat, how can 
you look yourself in the mirror and say, I am not going to allow the 
country that I represent to build a missile defensive system?

                              {time}  2200

  You cannot do it. You cannot do it. We have that obligation. We owe 
it to the people of this Nation, and we have an obligation for vision 
to the people of the next generation and the next generation to make 
sure that no matter how spread over here on my left, no matter how 
spread this purple is, no matter how many countries in the world have 
missiles, we will have a missile defense system that will stop it. We 
will have a missile defense system that, by the way, we are willing to 
share with our friends. We can do it. We can do it, and we have an 
obligation to do it.
  Now, let me shift. Earlier, as I said, I wanted to talk for a few 
moments about the capability of the technology that we have got. What 
do I envision of a missile defensive system?
  Well, what we have got, we are going to have to have several elements 
of it. I do not have my diagram here this evening to show you, so I am 
going to explain it the best I can.
  You do not want a missile defense system which intercepts the enemy 
missile or the accidental launch of a missile over the United States. 
That is the last resort. Why hit a missile over New York City? If it is 
going to hit New York City and you destroy it a mile above New York 
City, you may in fact have more casualties. You do not want to have to 
bring down a nuclear missile over the air space of the United States of 
America. So that is the last choice you want.
  Now, that may be, under some circumstances, the only alternative you 
have got. But under the technology we are trying to develop, and, let 
me tell you, if the United States of America can put a man on the moon, 
if the United States of America can discover penicillin and utilize it 
in this country, if the United States of America can do some of the 
amazing accomplishments that we have done, whether it is the invention 
of the airplane, cars or et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, we can 
develop the technology to do what I envision, what the President 
envisions, the type of defensive system we need.
  What would it include? It would have to have a space laser intercept. 
The advantage of being able to utilize a defensive satellite with laser 
intercept in space is that you can move that satellite to any trouble 
spot. So if, for example, and again referring to my map on the left, 
if, for example, we end up with a problem down in this area, and we 
have got a satellite defense system over here, take a look at this 
poster to my left, we can move the satellite so it is right over the 
country that is our threat.
  Now, obviously if we have an accidental launch, we want to be able to 
pick that accidental launch up. But a lot of our threat in the future 
will begin with or be preceded with tensions between the countries. 
There will be high tensions. We will know that a conflict is 
approaching. So, as a defensive move, as a preemptive move, we will 
move our satellite over that vicinity where we think their missiles are 
located.
  What we want to be able to do, the ideal situation is to destroy a 
missile that is targeted for the United States of America, to destroy 
that missile on its launching pad. Let the country that is going to 
send the missile our way, let them deal with the missile exploding on a 
pad right there in their own country.
  How many countries do you think are going to want to fire a missile 
against the United States, a nuclear missile, or a biological missile, 
if they know that the United States has the capability of destroying 
that missile while it is still in their own country? There is not a lot 
of incentive to do that kind of thing.
  So we have got a system that, upon its launch, or being able to 
destroy on its launching pad the missile. If the missile gets off its 
launching pad and begins to come across, then this is going to really 
be a three tier system, space, sea and land. So out over here, you are 
going to have to have intercept missiles based on ships that are going 
to be able to target and hopefully destroy that missile while it is out 
over the ocean, where it is going to have the minimal amount of impact.
  Now, remember that any time you destroy a missile in air space, you 
still have air currents, so the fact that we destroy this missile out 
here somewhere over the Atlantic does not mean we are not going to have 
an impact over the continental United States. In fact, because of the 
air currents, we may very well.
  But we do know this: We are a lot better off to destroy that missile 
here before it hits here in New York City or Colorado Springs or Los 
Angeles.
  Finally, the third part of our technology, the land-based system 
would be our last resort, which means that our laser beam and our space 
defense system missed it, our ship sea defense system missed it, so we 
have got a final try, and that is our land-based system, as that 
missile comes into the final few miles before it hits its target.
  My interest on discussing technology tonight is to tell you that the 
technology will be available; that the United States of America is 
leading every country in the world in the development of this 
technology; that this test that we had 2 weeks ago, where a missile was 
fired and approaching the target, 4\1/2\ miles a second, 4\1/2\ miles a 
second, our technology that we have right now, we were able to launch 
an intercept missile also going 4\1/2\ miles a second, and we were able 
to, in essence, bring two bullets together out there in the air space, 
and we stopped it. It was a successful test.
  Now, we have a long ways to go, but we can accomplish this. I think 
one way to help us with this technology in this area is for us to give 
it political support.
  My purpose here tonight is not to act like a scientist. I am not a 
scientist. I can no more tell you about nuclear physics, I am not much 
better at frying an egg than that. I can tell you about political 
support.
  The President has stepped forward, I think in a very courageous 
manner, to say, look, somebody has to say what needs to be said, and 
what needs to be said is that the United States of America needs a 
defensive system; a defense not only against an intentional launch, but 
an accidental launch as well. And this President, George W. Bush, has 
had the courage to step forward.
  All the politically correct people, the Europeans, people in our own 
country,

[[Page H4630]]

people on this House floor, jump up as an issue, not because I think 
they really believe in it, but as an issue, and say, how dare you talk 
about the United States having a defensive system, a system that would 
protect them from an intentional or accidental launch? How dare you do 
that. That is not politically correct.
  But our President is determined, and our President has in his heart 
and has as a principle of his entire philosophy that he has inherent 
responsibility to the people of the Nation that he serves to protect 
them from a missile launch. So he said what has to be said.
  We need to give that President political support. Do not take cheap 
shots off this floor. Do not go to your newspaper and talk about 
technologically it is impossible. Our former President, I heard a 
former President say this morning, I heard a quote about it is a 
technological impossibility or something similar to that.
  Wake up. What happened 2 weeks ago? We do have the technology 
available to get us to the point we need to get that will provide a 
defensive system for this Nation, for this generation and for the 
following generations, to protect our own children, not just ourselves, 
but our own children and our grandchildren from a missile attack. So we 
will have the technology.
  But we are not going to get to the technology and we are not going to 
get to the point where we can protect the citizens of this country if 
we do not have enough guts to stand up and do what is necessary, and 
that is give the political support to the President and to the 
administration with a green light to go ahead, and say, Mr. President, 
build a system that will protect your and our country. Mr. President, 
you have an obligation to defend this country. You are on the right 
track.
  Every one of us in these chambers, to the person, ought to be willing 
to stand strong against political correctness and say to the world, 
Look, world: No matter how much you criticize, the United States is not 
going to make itself a target for many multitudes of countries in the 
future to launch a missile attack against us.
  The United States will not allow itself to get into a position where 
some small country, or some large country, or any country, can 
intimidate, threaten, or force the United States to take an action they 
do not want to take, simply because they have the capability to launch 
a missile into a city in the United States of America. We owe this to 
the people. We owe it to them.
  So let me in my remaining moments, these last 12 minutes, kind of 
reiterate the importance of the issue that we are talking about 
tonight.
  Obviously Social Security is critical for us. Health care is an 
important issue for us. Education, I could tell you about that. I would 
love to talk about education. To me in the West, public lands, water 
issues. There are a lot of important issues for us. So I am not meaning 
to discount any other issue. I am not meaning to dilute your own 
personal platform as far as what you think is important.
  But I can tell you this: I sincerely believe that if we lay out all 
the issues, we put them on this table, I cannot believe of an issue 
that is more important nor a threat more impending than missiles, and 
that issue of missile defense is something important for every one of 
us on a bipartisan basis.
  Unfortunately, what I am sensing is that my colleagues, a good 
number, not all of my colleagues, but some on the liberal side of the 
Democratic Party, the liberal aspects of the Democratic Party, have 
decided that a missile defense is not good for this country; that this 
country should not defend itself from a missile attack.

  More than that, I think the real thing that is driving the liberal 
side of some of these thinkers is that it is President Bush really 
pushing it. He might get it done. We certainly cannot allow him to 
accomplish this kind of thing.
  So I am asking all of you, and I asked in my previous comments, set 
the partisanship aside. Set it aside and think about the vision that we 
owe for future generations. Think about what we need to do to assure 
that people even 10 years from now will not be intimidated or have the 
entire future of this country at risk because somebody launches, 
accidentally, not even intentionally, somebody launches accidentally a 
missile against the United States of America.
  We can all stand together. This is an issue that is not Republican, 
not Democrat. It is an issue that we can join with the administration, 
with George W. Bush, to take to the American people, and we can deliver 
to the American people a security net; a security net that is as 
important to the American people as a seat belt is to you in a car. We 
can deliver a security net that will assure the American people, and 
our allies, and our allies, that no other country in the world can 
threaten or launch a missile successfully against the United States of 
America.
  Now, earlier in my comments I mentioned about political courage, and 
it is very interesting to hear all the bashing that has gone on about 
President George W. Bush's position of missile defense in Europe, that 
the Europeans, the way you read the media, you would think the 
Europeans are entirely unified in opposition to this; they are aghast; 
they are astounded that a Nation like the United States would think of 
building a system that would defend themselves from a missile attack.
  But, do you know what? That wall has cracked. Do you know what? There 
are countries over there in Europe saying, wait a minute. You know, I 
think it is nice to bash the United States of America, but, you know, 
they got a point here. This missile defensive system, you know, it 
might work. In fact, after this test 2 weeks ago that they did, this 
thing is going to work, and the United States is going to have a system 
that defends their citizens from attack. Maybe we ought to do the same 
thing.
  Who is saying that? Look at the United Kingdom, the Brits. They are 
saying, hey, we support the United States.
  Take a look at Italy this last weekend. Take a look at the comments 
from Italy. Their leader has said in Italy, we strongly support and 
strongly advocate the United States of America building a defensive 
missile system.
  Take a look at Spain. They are not far behind.
  Do you know what is going to happen? As the rest of the world has in 
the past, as they are amazed by American technology, they are going to 
come on board. My prediction is 15 years from now, almost every Nation 
in the world will have some type of missile defensive system. And what 
happens when that happens? What happens when that happens? You know 
what? It takes that very deadly, lethal weapon, the missile; it 
significantly lowers the risk of impact, negative impact, from that 
missile. Because what good are missiles, especially in any kind of 
volume, if a defensive missile system will stop them from being 
effective, or, even more importantly, if you have a defensive missile 
system that will destroy the missile on its launching pad in the 
country that wants to fire it, so it does devastating damage to that 
country?
  You know, there is not a lot of incentive to fire a missile against 
the United States, if you know the United States can pick it up, fire a 
laser, and stop that missile on its launching pad. It kind of makes 
short history of the people around your launching pad.
  There are so many things that are essentially common sense in missile 
defense. Common sense in missile defense. Think about it. Go out and 
talk to your constituents this weekend. First of all, ask your 
constituents, find out how many of them today think we have some type 
of protection. It is surprising. A lot of our constituents think that 
today we can defend ourselves against a missile defense attack.

                              {time}  2215

  We cannot. Once you get by that with your constituents this week, sit 
down, put your partisanship aside, and for the liberal segment here, 
for the liberal people, put that aside, just for a few moments and ask 
the people, person-to-person, all politics aside, person-to-person, do 
you think it would be a good idea for this Nation to defend itself 
against an intentional or accidental launch against our citizens?
  Guess what? You will get a resounding yes and probably followed by a 
comment, why have we not done it already? What are you guys doing? I 
thought we had a defensive system in place.
  That is what the American people are saying to us. We are their 
leaders. We

[[Page H4631]]

are not kings. We have been elected by these people in a representative 
government to come up here. We have fiduciary duties. That is the 
highest responsibility of duty to our Nation and to its people, to do 
what will protect the public interest and will protect our country and 
allow our country to remain strong into the future.
  Right now, the number one issue at the very front is a missile 
defense system.
  In conclusion, I ask every one of my colleagues, regardless of what 
State you are from, whether you are from Massachusetts or Florida or 
Oregon or Colorado, that you step forward and start giving political 
support so that we can then advance the technological support to 
implement, as President George W. Bush has asked, a missile defensive 
system to protect the citizens and future generations of this country. 
It is our responsibility. It is not our neighbor's responsibility. It 
is our responsibility. I hope each and every one of us carries it out 
to the fullest extent.

                          ____________________