[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 31, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4982-H4987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MISSILE DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Keller). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I know it is late in the evening, but this 
evening I wanted to visit with you about an issue that I think is 
inherently important to every citizen of America, and not just the 
citizens of America, but to the world as a whole, to every country in 
this world as we go into the future. Tonight I want to speak to you 
about a subject that I think we have an obligation to use some vision 
about, to think about future generations, and what this generation 
needs to do not just to protect our generation, but to protect future 
generations, to give future generations the type of security that as 
American citizens they deserve, that as American citizens they can 
expect their elected officials, they can obligate their elected 
officials to provide for them. Tonight I want to visit about missile 
defense.
  Now, we have heard a lot of rhetoric in the last few days about 
missile defense. Well, we do not need it. It is going to escalate the 
arms race. Why, building a defense to protect your country and to 
protect your citizens from an incoming missile is not something we 
should undertake. In fact, the recommendation seems to be, leave our 
citizens without a shield of protection.
  I take just exactly the opposite. I think every one of us have an 
obligation to protect our citizens with a shield that will mean 
something, not simple rhetoric.
  I have to my left here a poster, and tonight I am going to go through 
a series of posters. If you will pay close attention, I think you will 
find that these posters advocate a strong case of why this country, 
without hesitation, should move forward immediately to engage in a 
missile defense system, to put into working order with other countries 
some kind of an understanding that the United States of America feels 
it has an inherent obligation to protect its citizens with some kind of 
shield.
  Let me go over a couple of points here. First of all, to my left, I 
call this poster ``probability of events.'' When you look at it, you 
see my first box, my first yellow box is called intentional launch. 
There I am referring to an intentional launch of a missile against the 
United States of America. I call this a probability.
  I have the next box called accidental launch. I call this a 
probability. At some point in the future, against the United States of 
America, some country, unknown to us today as far as which country will 
do it, but the facts are that some country will attempt to launch a 
missile against the United States of America. That is why it is our 
obligation as elected officials representing the people of America, who 
swear under our Constitution to protect the Constitution, which within 
its borders obligates us to provide security for the citizens of the 
United States, that is why it will be our responsibility to begin to 
provide that security blanket for the American people and for our 
allies, that when this intentional missile launch comes, we will be 
prepared/:
  The second thing I speak about is an accidental launch. Do not be 
mistaken. We know the most sophisticated, most well-designed aircraft 
in the world, take a civilian plane, a 747, once in awhile they crash. 
Take the most sophisticated, the finest invention you can think of, 
whether it is a telephone, whether it is a radio, whether it is a 
computer, whether it is an electrical system; there are accidents. In 
fact, I am not so sure that we have had much of any invention that at 
some point or another does not have an accident.
  It is probable that at some point in the future some country, by 
mistake, will launch a missile towards the United States of America. 
And, right now, as you know, an accidental launch against us, number 
one, we would not know whether it was accidental or not, and, two, the 
only defense we have today, the only defense we have today against an 
accidental launch, is retaliation. And what is retaliation going to 
bring? Because of an event, a horrible consequence of a missile 
launched against us by accident, by accident, our retaliation could 
initiate the Third World War, the most devastating disaster to occur in 
the history of the world.
  Yet we can avoid this, because if we have a missile defensive system 
in place and a country launches a missile against the United States by 
accident, or intentionally, but here we are referring to the accidental 
launch, the United States of America can shoot that missile down and 
they can stop that war from occurring.
  There are plenty of other less severe, significantly less severe 
measures, we can take against a country that accidentally launches 
against us. Retaliation is not one of them that we should take, but 
retaliation is the only tool left today. I can assure you that the 
President of the United States, whatever party they belong to, if some 
country by accident launches a nuclear missile into Los Angeles or New 
York City or into the core of this country, into the middle of 
Colorado, where my district is located, the likelihood is that the 
President would retaliate forthwith.
  Now, I had an interesting thing happen to me this evening while I was 
waiting speak, listening to my colleagues. I was outside talking to a 
couple of officers, Officer Conrad Smith and Officer Wendell Summers. 
Good chaps. I was out there visiting with them, and they brought up an 
interesting point.
  They said, ``What are you going to speak about tonight, 
Congressman?''
  I said, ``I am going to speak about missile defense, like an 
intentional launch against our country, or an accidental launch against 
our country.''
  Do you know what Officer Smith said? I did not think about it, but it 
is so obvious. Officer Smith said to me, ``Do you know what else we 
could use a missile defense system for? It is space junk. Like, for 
example, Congressman, if a space station or like the Mir Space Capsule 
is reentering the United States, we could use our missile defense to 
destroy that in the air, so that

[[Page H4983]]

it doesn't land on some country or kill some people when it reenters 
from space.''
  I never thought about that. Now, there is a logical use for a missile 
defense system; dealing with space junk. As we know, space junk falling 
out of space as it begins to lose momentum in its orbit is an issue 
that future generations are going to have to deal with on a fairly 
extensive basis.

                              {time}  2230

  Our generation has gotten away with it because we are launching into 
space, and by the time our generation moves on, there will be lots of 
objects in space that have lost their momentum and begin the reentry. 
Officer Summers and Officer Smith had something to add tonight, and I 
think they are right, and I can assure my colleagues that I am going to 
put that right here. We will see a new yellow box on my next poster in 
regards to missile defense.
  Now, what kind of responses do we have? My poster lists the 
responses. Look, it is real simple. It is not complicated. The 
responses are: one, we have a defense; or two, no defense. That is the 
choice. It is as clear as black and white. That is the choice. We 
either defend against a missile, incoming missile to the United States, 
or we do not defend against it. There is no muddy waters, there is no 
middle ground. We either defend against it or we do not defend against 
it.
  Where are we today? Where is the most sophisticated, the most 
technically advanced country in the history of the world today? We are 
today check-marked the second box. No defense. What do I mean by that?
  We have a military base, we share it with the Canadians, called 
NORAD, located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the district of my good 
friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in Cheyenne Mountain, 
the granite mountain. We went into the mountain, we cored out the 
center of the mountain, and we put in there an airspace system for 
detection.
  What does that system provide for us? Very simple. It can tell us 
anywhere in the world at any time of the day, with any kind of weather 
conditions, under any kind of temperature when a missile has been 
launched. It can tell us the approximate speed of the missile. It can 
tell us the target of the missile. It can tell us the estimated time of 
impact of the missile. It can tell us what type of missile they think 
it is. It can tell us whether or not, based on the information that 
they have gathered, whether the missile has the likelihood of a nuclear 
warhead on top of it. But then, guess what? That is it. That is it.
  They can call up the President of the United States, and they say, 
Mr. President, we have an emergency at NORAD. Mr. President, we have an 
incoming missile. We believe the target of impact is Los Angeles, 
California. Mr. President, we think that the time of impact is 15 
minutes and counting. Mr. President, we think this is a realistic 
threat; our confidence factor is high. We have confirmed an incoming 
missile. The President thinks, what can we do? Of course, the President 
knows what we can do, but just for this example, what can we do, Mr. 
President? The President says, What can we do? to his military 
commanders, to our space command. Mr. President, you can contact the 
mayor of Los Angeles, tell them they have an incoming missile, they now 
have 13 minutes, we will say prayers for them, and that is it.
  Now, you tell me that is not a dereliction of duty of every one of us 
elected in these Chambers. Every one of us in these Chambers, we have 
the technical capability to put in place a missile defensive system in 
this country. We have that technical capability, and we have a 
commitment from this President, who has been very solid on his support 
and on his leadership. Thank goodness he has stepped forward. President 
George W. Bush has stepped forward to lead us into a missile defense.
  We had a test 3 weeks ago. It was a remarkable test. It shows that we 
are well on our way towards coming up with the technology that is 
necessary to deploy a missile defensive system for our country. What 
happened? They put a target, an incoming missile into the sky. It was 
approaching at 4\1/2\ miles per second; 4\1/2\ miles per second. That 
fast, 4\1/2\ miles. We then fired an intercept missile. Now, remember, 
these two missiles cannot miss by a foot; they cannot miss by six 
inches. These missiles have to hit head-on. We cannot afford a missile 
miss with an incoming nuclear warhead.
  What happened? Our intercept missile coming at 4\1/2\ miles per 
second, the incoming missile at 4\1/2\ miles per second, and we brought 
two speeding bullets together. That is a major accomplishment.
  Do we know what is happening around the world? We have heard a lot of 
publicity lately. The Europeans, for example, Europe is aghast that the 
United States would even think of abrogating the ABM Treaty, which I 
will discuss in detail here in a moment. Why would they think about 
building a missile defense system?
  Well, let me, first of all, make it very clear to my colleagues that 
when we hear people make an objection to our missile defense system and 
we hear them say, the Europeans are opposed and it is going to break 
our relationships with the Europeans, let me tell my colleagues 
something: the Europeans are not unified in their opposition to our 
missile defense; they are not unified in their opposition to a missile 
defensive system.

  In fact, the leader of Italy has come out and not only strongly 
supports, but encourages, the United States of America to, as quickly 
as possible, deploy a missile defensive system. Our good friends, the 
United Kingdom, the British, who are always at our side, have come 
forward. They support this President on building a missile defense 
system. Spain. Spain has taken a very careful look at the missile 
defense system.
  Do we know what is going to happen? Count on it. Count on it. Just as 
sure as I am telling my colleagues today, we can count on it. Those 
European countries, one by one, will have to answer to their citizens 
why they do not have some type of protective shield, some kind of 
security blanket like the United States offers for its citizens and, 
one by one, those European countries will come across the line from 
opposing and from being a check mark in this box to my left of ``no 
defense,'' one by one, led by Italy and the United Kingdom and Spain 
right behind them, one by one, they will cross that territorial line 
and they will go into the defensive category. They will build, or will 
be the beneficiary of, a defensive missile system.
  Let us talk for a few moments about the new strategic study. We have 
right now really a three-pronged attack threat against the United 
States of America. The first one is something that has just come of age 
here in the last few years called informational warfare. We have all 
heard about it, I think. In the last few days, we received an alert 
about a Code Red, some kind of virus that has been put into the 
computer systems around the world, specifically targeted at the 
American defense system. It is amazing to hear from the Pentagon how 
many people, how many people try and break into our national defense 
computers 24 hours a day.
  Now, how many of those culprits are foreign countries or agents of 
foreign countries? We do not know. And we are not going to be able to 
figure that out. What we have to do is just the same as we do for our 
computers. On our computers, we do not put our defense computers out 
there and say we are not going to build a shield against people who are 
trying to break into the computer system or put a bug in our system. Do 
we know what we do with our national computer systems, our defense 
computer systems, our military computer systems? We build a defense for 
the bug. We put in shields within our computer programming. We put in 
walls wherever we can. Those are the technical things; we put in walls 
to prevent those people from coming in.
  Why would we not do the same? What is the difference between an 
incoming missile and somebody trying to manipulate one of our 
computers, perhaps manipulate a computer to issue a false order 
regarding a military exercise, for example. So we have to worry about 
information warfare. We are addressing that as we speak right now. 
Obviously it is a priority of the military: How do we protect our 
communication systems? How do we protect our information systems? How 
do we protect our software?
  The second threat is a terrorist threat. This is a tough one. Now, do

[[Page H4984]]

not let people say, well, missiles are not the real threat to this 
country, the real threat is somebody carries a vial of bacteria and 
they come to Washington, D.C. and drop it into the water supply. Well, 
of course it is a threat, but do not discount the third threat, and 
that is a missile-delivered attack right here, weapons of mass 
destruction, WMD. The delivery of a weapon of mass destruction attack, 
a biological weapon, a nuclear weapon, some other type of poisonous 
weapon.
  Some states are developing terrorist and missile capabilities. We 
know that is happening. I know on here: U.S. reserves the right to 
strike terrorist bases. We know this. We have to reserve that right. 
But my point with this poster is we really had that three-pronged 
attack, information attack, attack on our information systems, and we 
are building a defense for that. We have a defense in place. We 
constantly have to change that defense. Because every time we put up a 
wall, somebody tries to figure out how to get around it. It happens 
thousands of times every year. It happens around the clock with the 
Pentagon's computers. We know it is happening.
  The second one, the terrorist threat, we are addressing that. We are 
building defenses against that. We were fortunate enough, for example, 
to catch a couple of years ago at the Canadian border through a lot of 
good luck, but nonetheless through a lot of good police work, we would 
be able to stop what could have been a horrible disaster at one of our 
airports. Of course, the missile delivered weapons of mass destruction. 
But what is happening?
  I have some of my colleagues on this House Floor who, in my opinion, 
with all due respect are in make-believe land when they think that we 
should not build a defensive system for our citizens, to give 
our citizens protection in the future as soon as we can get it in place 
against an incoming missile, whether launched by accident, or whether 
it is intentional.

  Now, let us talk about the big roadblocks that some people have been 
putting up as a reason not to have a missile defense. It is called the 
Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the ABM Treaty. Let us just go over some 
of the basics of it. Let me tell my colleagues the basic thought 
pattern of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. First of all, understand 
that this treaty was made almost 30 years ago. It was a treaty not 
between the United States and a number of other countries; it was a 
treaty made between the only two countries in the entire world, in 
1972, there were only two countries in the entire world that could 
deliver a missile anywhere in the world; only two. It was the Soviet 
Union and the United States of America.
  So in 1972, the Soviet Union, which, by the way, no longer exists, 
and the United States of America entered into a treaty. The thinking 
was that since there are only two countries in the world, the way to 
protect ourselves is we will both agree that we cannot defend 
ourselves. Now, how does that make sense? The theory being, we would be 
reluctant as the United States to fire a missile against the Soviet 
Union if we were prohibited from defending a retaliatory attack against 
us. In other words, we knew that any attack we made on Russia would be 
retaliated on, because we were not allowed to build a defense. That is 
the thinking behind the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.
  Now, I do not agree with it. I do not think the thinking was very 
solid in 1972, but it did have some justification in thought in 1972 
because it was built entirely, and let me say this repeatedly: the 
Antiballistic Missile Treaty was built entirely on the premise that 
only two nations in the world had the capability to deliver a missile 
anywhere in the world. This treaty, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, 
was not built on the premise that a number of countries in the world 
would have the capability to deliver a missile anywhere in the world, 
and that is the situation that we face today.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had extraordinary circumstances which have 
changed in the last 30 years. Take a look at your car. Take a look at a 
car in 1972. There have been a lot of dramatic changes in 1972, and we 
should not be afraid since 1972 to stand up; in fact, I think we have a 
responsibility to stand up to the people that we represent. Today, the 
threat to America, the threat to the citizens of America is a whole lot 
different and a whole lot more serious than the threat to citizens in 
1972. We have an obligation as elected officials to make sure that our 
country stays up to speed; that our citizens do not drive 1972 cars and 
our citizens do not rely on a 1972 defensive system or nonsystem to 
protect them.
  Let us look at the treaty very quickly; again, the Antiballistic 
Missile Treaty. Each party agrees to undertake limited antiballistic 
missile, these are defensive missile systems, and to adopt other 
measures in accordance with the treaty. I am going to skip through here 
at this point.
  The treaty, by the way, is not a complicated treaty. It is very easy 
to get your hands on, 3, 4, 5, 6 pages. It is not a treatise that is a 
big thick book like that, it simply is 4 or 5 or 6 pages. For the 
purposes of this treaty, it is a system, a defensive system, the ABM. 
Each party, and this is crucial language in the Antiballistic Missile 
Treaty: each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM 
defensive missile system, or components which are sea-based, air-based, 
space-based or mobile land-based.

                              {time}  2245

  Each party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM launchers 
for launching more than one ABM interceptor missile at a time from each 
launcher, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  What has happened? What is the rest of the treaty about? Let me bring 
up another part of the treaty.
  Remember, this treaty was put together by scholars. This treaty 
contains within its four corners, within the four corners of the 
document, this treaty contains certain rights, certain rights bestowed 
upon the United States of America, certain rights bestowed upon the 
Soviet Union.
  One of those rights which is being wholesalely ignored by the 
rhetoric of the people who are trying to convince the American people 
that they should not defend themselves in the case of a missile attack, 
one of the arguments they put forward is ridiculous, to say the least.
  What is that argument? Their argument is, oh, my gosh, if you want to 
abrogate or pull out of, if you want to pull out of the antiballistic 
missile treaty, that means the United States would start violating 
treaties all over the place. That means the United States walked away 
from treaty obligations. That means the United States broke their word 
on a treaty that they are a signatory to.
  That is so inaccurate it borders right on the edge of inaccuracy and 
an outright lie. The treaty contains within its four corners the right 
for the United States of America or the right for the Soviet Union to 
pull out of the treaty. That is a right. It is not a breach of the 
treaty. It is not described as a breach of the treaty. It is a right 
that is bestowed by the language, specifically bestowed by the 
language.
  Let us take a look at the specific language that I am speaking of. It 
is important that we go through this. Please, look at my poster here, 
Article 15 of the antiballistic missile treaty: ``This treaty shall be 
of unlimited duration.''
  Now, obviously I highlight this next section. This is the right of 
which I speak, which we can use. Any time we hear someone say we are 
breaking a treaty, we are not breaking any treaty. Someone who says we 
are walking away from a promise we made, that is baloney. This is the 
treaty right here. These are rights contained within it.
  Let us go on.
  Number two: ``Each party shall,'' ``shall, in exercising its national 
sovereignty have the right,'' the right, that is what I have been 
speaking about, ``to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that 
extraordinary events,'' and ``extraordinary events,'' that is a key 
buzz word, ``extraordinary events,'' and I am going to show some 
extraordinary events very shortly.
  Let us go on: ``If it decides that extraordinary events related to 
the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme 
interests.'' That is another buzz word, ``jeopardized.''
  Do we have in place, number one, extraordinary events, right here, 
extraordinary events; and do we have a jeopardizing of our national 
sovereignty? Then, ``It shall give notice of its decision to the other 
party 6 months prior

[[Page H4985]]

to the withdrawal of the treaty. Such notice shall include a statement 
of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as having 
jeopardized its supreme interests.''
  Thank goodness, the President of the United States today, George W. 
Bush, understands that we cannot have this treaty and a missile defense 
at the same time. Thank goodness that the President of the United 
States, George W. Bush, understands that it is not a violation of the 
treaty to withdraw from the treaty; it is not a violation of the treaty 
to notify the other side that we will no longer, after a 6-month period 
of time, be held to the obligations of the treaty. Why? Because within 
the treaty it is a right for us to withdraw.
  Fortunately, the people who drafted this treaty understood and had 
the foresight that future generations may have extraordinary events 
that jeopardize the sovereign nationality of their country, that 
threaten that sovereignty, and that it may be necessary as a basic 
right of this treaty to withdraw from the treaty.
  Let us talk about what could jeopardize the United States of America 
and our sovereignty, and let us talk about what could be extraordinary 
events. Do Members know what, I have a poster that I think explains it. 
A picture, as they say, is much better than words. Take a look at this 
poster.
  Let us talk about an extraordinary event. Remember back in history in 
1972, there were two nations in the world, the Soviet Union and the 
United States of America, that had the capability to deliver a missile 
anywhere in the world. No other country, no exception, no other country 
had the capability to deliver a missile anywhere else in the world.
  Frankly, no one envisioned that for any reasonable period of time in 
the future that any other country in the world, that any other country 
in the world would obtain that capability. Can Members imagine anyone 
in 1972 imagining that in the scope of 30 years this would happen, this 
poster to my left?
  This is an extraordinary event. Clearly, what this poster depicts 
jeopardizes the national sovereignty of the United States of America. 
Let us take a look, extraordinary events: no longer just Russia, no 
longer what used to be the Soviet Union. Every one of these points, 
every one of these arrows, see the arrows here on the map, and they are 
small, Mr. Speaker, but all of these arrows point to one thing. They 
point to North Korea, they point to Pakistan, they point to India, they 
point to Israel, they point to China.
  All of those countries I just named, every one of those countries has 
the capability to deliver a nuclear missile, to fire a nuclear missile. 
That is nuclear.
  Let us continue. In addition, Iraq, Iran, Libya, all have ballistic 
missile technology that can deliver a chemical or a biological weapon. 
In other words, it is extraordinary that now there are not two 
countries but there are any number of countries in the world that can 
launch a nuclear missile.
  I am going to show a poster a little later on to show just exactly 
what North Korea could do to Alaska, for example. Members do not think, 
with this kind of threat facing the United States of America, we do not 
think that as Congressmen of the United States, that we do not have 
some type of inherent commitment or obligation or duty to provide our 
citizens with a protective shield. Of course we do. Failure to do that 
would be the grossest negligence in recent history of this country, in 
my opinion.
  Let us move on.
  Do Members want to talk about extraordinary events, a threat or 
something that jeopardizes the future of the United States of America? 
Do Members want to see it? It is right here. If Members can take a look 
at this poster, and after looking at it, walk away and with a straight 
face say to any one of our constituents that the United States of 
America should not deploy a missile defense system, then that Member 
has just performed great disfavor and has brought discredit, discredit 
to the vision that one is obligated to provide for future generations 
in this country.
  Ballistic missile proliferation, countries that we know today are 
possessing ballistic missiles. Remember, in 1972, 30 years ago, there 
were two nations, the United States and the Soviet Union. The treaty 
that those two nations signed between each other said that we are the 
two, and the way to defend that this does not get out of hand between 
us, let us put this treaty into effect.
  But when we put this treaty into effect, if we think that if 
extraordinary events occur, as a right of this treaty, a basic right of 
this treaty, that jeopardize the national sovereignty of either the 
Soviet Union or the United States of America, we could walk out of the 
treaty and withdraw from the treaty. It is not a breach of the treaty; 
it is a right of the treaty. Here we are. Take a look at it.
  Ballistic missiles: Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, China, 
Croatia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, France, North Korea, South Korea, 
Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, 
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Argentina, Bulgaria. I think I mentioned Croatia. 
How much more proof do we need?
  Where is the proof? Right here is the proof. We do not call this an 
extraordinary event? We do not think that this kind of map here, look 
at the blue. That is where there are ballistic missiles. Are Members 
telling me that this little area right here, the United States of 
America, that its elected officials, that its President, should not 
build a defensive system that protects it from an incoming missile from 
any one of these countries, either accidental or intentional?
  How can Members even step forward with that kind of an argument? 
There is only one choice we have. The extraordinary events that have 
occurred in the last 30 years offer us only one choice. That choice is, 
we have no option other than to build a defensive security system for 
the citizens of the United States of America. Failure to do so would be 
dereliction of our duty and our oath, sitting here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives.
  Let me just reemphasize another startling poster. Let me show 
something else, in case some of my colleagues so far have not been 
convinced that extraordinary events have occurred since 1972. If some 
of my colleagues are not convinced that we face the jeopardizing of our 
national security, of our national interests, take a look at this 
poster, just in case they need convincing.
  Nuclear proliferation, here we are. Every red spot on this map has 
the capability of delivering a nuclear missile into the United States 
of America. Those are the ones we can confirm. We have high suspicion, 
I think probably verifiable, that we have countries who have that 
capability today.

  They are Iran, maybe not the capability, but right on the edge; Iraq, 
right on the edge; North Korea, I think they possess the capability to 
hit the United States of America, first of all Alaska, and soon the 
coast of California; Libya.
  Now add onto that back here Britain, nuclear missile capability; 
China; France; India; Israel; Pakistan; Russia; and the United States. 
There has been a proliferation, a proliferation of offensive nuclear 
weapons in this world. We as leaders have an obligation to step forward 
and provide for our citizens some type of defensive system.
  I mentioned earlier about North Korea and the capability of North 
Korea. Let us look specifically at North Korea as an example. North 
Korea can currently reach Alaska with ballistic missiles. It will only 
be a matter of time before they can reach the continental United 
States.
  What do we mean by ``a matter of time''? I mean a matter of months to 
maybe a few short years, if they do not already have the capability to 
launch a missile, a ballistic missile, against the continental United 
States. And remember, maybe not necessarily intentionally. For a little 
country like North Korea to intentionally launch a nuclear missile 
against the United States of America, talk about a suicidal thought, 
the United States would retaliate with a minimum amount of retaliation 
and wipe North Korea out.
  So maybe North Korea would not fire intentionally a missile against 
the United States, but do Members think that North Korea has the type 
of fail-safe systems on their nuclear systems that we would feel 
comfortable with? I do not think they do.
  So what if North Korea by accident, by accident hit the button and 
launched a missile against the United States of America? Do Members 
think we should be prepared for that kind of

[[Page H4986]]

consequence? Do Members think that it is responsibility that demands 
that we have that kind of preparedness? Of course it is. Look what 
happens.
  Look at this right here. Look at the range. First they were here, 
then they got out to 1,500 kilometers, then out to 4,000 kilometers; 
and now look where they are, 6,000 kilometers.
  Let me ask the Members, how much more clear can a threat be? Again, 
for those who are not convinced that any country would ever launch 
intentionally against the United States, first of all, with due 
respect, I think they are being naive. But if in fact they truly 
believe that, how many can assure their constituents, can assure the 
American public or our allies or our friends that an accidental launch 
will never occur against the United States of America? They cannot do 
it, and they know they cannot do it.
  Let us for a moment assume the unassumable, the worst kind of 
scenario we can imagine next to an intentional launch. Let us assume 
that a nation that has the capability of hitting the core, hitting the 
middle of the United States or even the eastern border; let us take 
Philadelphia, for example. It fires a nuclear missile by accident 
against the United States, and the incoming missile will impact in 
Philadelphia. Let us say it is not a particularly big missile. It has 
two warheads on it.
  As many know, nuclear missiles have multiple warheads on them. One of 
our submarines, a Trident submarine in the United States naval force, 
can deliver, what, 195 missiles because of the multiple missile 
warheads that we have?
  Let us just say that just two of those, a small missile with two 
warheads on it, was fired accidentally against the city of 
Philadelphia.

                              {time}  2300

  What do we have? Take a look at this poster right to my left. I will 
tell my colleagues exactly what we have. We will have 410,000 people 
dead, 410,000 people dead in an accident that was preventable. Dead in 
an accident because we on the House floor, we in the Senate have 
neglected to give our President, in my opinion, the necessary support 
that he is demanding to protect the United States of America with a 
missile shield, a shield of protection. We have that obligation.
  President Bush and the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, are practically 
begging us to give them support; not fight them. This is not a partisan 
issue. Now, some people are trying, as usual, to say that anybody that 
wants a missile defense system are war mongers. But the fact is this is 
about as strong a nonpartisan issue as exists in the United States 
House of Representatives today. This is not an issue of the Republicans 
protecting the United States of America with some kind of protection 
shield and the Democrats refusing to protect the United States of 
America. This is an issue that crosses party lines. This is a 
responsibility placed squarely on the shoulders of every one us sitting 
in this room.
  For those of my colleagues who are refusing to carry the weight that 
has been placed on their shoulders, defending this country, I just want 
to say, shame on you. Now, why do I say shame on you? Because someday, 
someday that is going to happen. Those fortunate to be a survivor had 
darn well better be able to look in the mirror and say, I did what I 
could for the citizens of America to protect them from exactly what is 
depicted on this poster to my left.
  Now, how does a missile defense system work? I want to show how we 
can do it. Technologically, this is going to be done. Technologically, 
future generations are going to have the capability to do exactly what 
I am saying needs to be done, and that is to provide a system in this 
country for defense. How does it work? Let us take a look.
  Space-based. We know we are going to have a space-based unit. Why? 
Because a space-based unit, or that staging of our missile defensive 
system, allows us to do a couple of things. One, satellites we can 
move. Satellites are not stationary. For example, if we see a threat 
arising in Pakistan or we see a threat arising in North Korea, we can 
move our satellite so that satellite is over that country, so that the 
laser beam that would come out of that satellite, and we have that 
technology, the laser beam that can come out of that satellite can be 
shifted around. It is a mobile defense.
  What is the other big advantage of having a mobile defense? The other 
big advantage is we can stop that missile on its launching pad. How 
many of these countries would want to have a missile preparing to fire 
against the United States only to face the threat that the United 
States could fire an instantaneous laser beam and destroy the missile 
on its pad, meaning that that missile would go off in their country 
instead of its intended target, the United States of America. That is 
why we have to have a space-based ingredient in this missile defense 
system.
  The second point. Sea-based. We have to have the capability to hit 
that missile, if the missile is successfully launched either 
intentionally or by accident off its launching pad, and we are not able 
to stop it on the launching pad as it heads over the ocean, we need to 
have the capability from a ship-based defensive system to take that 
missile down while it is over the ocean.
  Now, we will have wind currents and things like that, but the minimal 
amount of casualties will occur if we can somehow bring that missile 
down even without exploding it or detonating it. If we could hit it 
with some type of laser or some type of device to bring it down without 
detonation. And if we can do that, we need to do it somewhere over the 
ocean where, obviously, we do not have a heavy population.
  But let us say it goes beyond that. Air-based. Here is a good 
demonstration. Here is our laser-based satellite. Here is the incoming 
missile. Now, remember, this entire period of time may take, at a 
maximum, probably 30 minutes to go from a far point to the United 
States. We also need an airborne laser so that if we miss it on our 
satellite laser, if we miss it on our sea-based laser, we still have 
the capability from aircraft to fire a laser rendering that incoming 
missile incapable.
  And then finally, over here on the end, we have our command and 
control. We have an interceptor missile. That is the type of missile I 
was talking about earlier where we had a successful test 3 weeks ago. 
Now, some people, and I do not understand their argument, but some 
people are saying, look, if we have a failure, if the test does not 
work, we should abandon a missile defense system.
  Give me a break. Give me a break. How many times did we have to try 
surgery or try the new invention of a machine, how many times did the 
Wright brothers and others have to get in those airplanes and figure 
out accident after accident after accident, test after test after test 
how to improve it, how to make it work? That is exactly what we have 
here. Not all our tests are going to be successful. We know that. And 
we need to admit it up front. Last week we had a successful test. We 
are going to have more success in the future. And eventually, and I 
mean in short order, I think in a matter of years with the leadership 
of our President and the support of this Congress, and the support of 
future Congresses, through testing and through dedication and through 
resources and research, we will have fulfilled our duty by developing, 
from a technological point of view, a missile defense system.

  So let me review what I think are a few very, very important points. 
Let us start out with a premise. We have an anti-ballistic missile 
treaty that is called the ABM Treaty. That treaty was executed in 1972. 
It was negotiated in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, and, again, 
executed in 1972. Now, at that point in time two countries in the 
world, two countries in the world, the Soviet Union and the United 
States of America, were the only countries that had the capability to 
deliver a missile anywhere they wanted in the world.
  At that point in time, not China, not North Korea, not South Korea, 
not India, not Pakistan, not Argentina, not Israel, none of these 
countries were thought to have at any time in the near future the 
capability to fire a missile, a nuclear missile, anywhere in the world.
  But let me step back just for a moment. The vision of the people who 
negotiated this treaty on both sides of the treaty was that there could 
be extraordinary circumstances, for example, other countries having the 
capability to deliver missiles; for example, many other countries 
developing nuclear capability; for example, the acts

[[Page H4987]]

of terrorism that we have seen in these last few years. Those are 
extraordinary events. And the drafters of this treaty understood, and 
though I do not agree with the premise under which they drafted this 
treaty, they understood there might be extraordinary events that 
threatened the national sovereignty of a country. And if that occurred, 
it should be a fundamental right, a basic right contained within the 
four corners of that treaty, that allowed a country, a United States or 
a Soviet Union, to withdraw from the treaty.
  And that is exactly where we are today. We have no choice, in my 
opinion, but to withdraw from this treaty, and we have no choice but to 
offer protection to the American people.
  What has happened in these 30 years? We know, from my earlier graph 
that I showed, that nuclear proliferation now exists throughout the 
world. We know that the probability of a missile attack against the 
United States, either intentionally or accidentally, is going to occur 
at some point. In fact, every day that goes by gives us 1 more day to 
make sure that when that missile attack occurs or when that accidental 
launch occurs, we are prepared to defend against it.
  Now, if we fail, for example, and the worst failure or the worst 
scenario I can imagine is some country, because they do not have the 
fail-safe mechanism that our country has, accidentally launches against 
the United States. Under those circumstances, right now our only 
response really is to do nothing, which no President is going to do 
when you lose hundreds of thousands of people, or to retaliate.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. Speaker, no President is going to go without retaliation. So if 
anything, you want to have a missile defense system in place so that an 
accidental launch does not start World War III. So if someone launches 
against the United States, or if somebody launches against an ally of 
the United States of America, or let us take it further, let us say 
some country accidentally launches against an enemy country, let us say 
someone launches against North Korea, the United States of America, our 
vision will allow our country to have the capability. We find out from 
our command center that India has by accident just launched a missile 
against North Korea; we should have the capability to stop that missile 
so it does not even hit a country like North Korea throughout the world 
which can prevent a horrible disaster from occurring, only if, however, 
my colleagues on this House floor support the President of the United 
States in demanding that this country forthwith deploy a missile 
defense system on behalf of the citizens of the United States of 
America.
  That is an accidental launch. Let us talk about an intentional 
launch. Do you think you will continue to see in the future a 
proliferation of missiles if the people building the missiles know 
there is a system in the country that will stop their missiles on the 
launching pad? That there is a system that the United States of America 
possesses that will not only stop an incoming missile from hitting the 
United States or an ally, but is so technically advanced that they can 
destroy their missile on their launching pad? How many more missiles do 
you think they will build?
  The vision that I have for the future, for my children's generation, 
for my grandchildren's generation is that they will look back at us and 
say, missiles were those useless things back then. Nobody has any use 
for a missile today because anytime a missile goes off, it is stopped 
instantaneously. That is the goal.
  We should not stand by some treaty that says the way to stop 
proliferation of missiles in the future is not to defend against them. 
Give me a break. That is like saying the way to stop the spread of 
cancer is not to take any chemotherapy. Do not offer chemotherapy as a 
threat, and maybe then people will stop smoking. That does not make any 
sense. It is the same thing here. It does not make any sense at all to 
the way, the theory to stop missile proliferation is not to defend 
against it.
  By the way, there are only two countries in the world subject to the 
anti-ballistic missile treaty. India is not subject to it. North Korea 
is not subject to. China is not, Pakistan is not, Israel is not subject 
to it. Only two countries: the United States of America and the old 
Soviet Union. The day has arrived, colleagues. The responsibility has 
arrived. The duty has arrived. We owe it to the people of America. We 
owe it to the people of the world to build a missile defense system. We 
have the technology, or we will secure the technology within the no-
too-distant future.
  I cannot look at any of you more seriously than I look at you this 
evening to say that your failure to help this Nation build a missile 
defense system for its citizens and for the people of the world is a 
gross dereliction of duty and responsibility bestowed upon you when you 
took the oath to serve in the United States Congress.

                          ____________________