[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H539-H545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   THE PRESIDENT'S AXIS OF EVIL AND THE IMPORTANCE OF 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. Madam Speaker, this evening I would like to cover a 
couple of subjects. The first subject that I would like to spend some 
time on is on the President's axis of evil. I really do not want to 
focus entirely on that particular subject, but I want to talk more 
specifically as kind of a jump from

[[Page H540]]

that subject on to missile defense, the importance of missile defense 
for the United States of America; in fact, the absolute necessity for 
the United States to deploy as soon as possible a missile defense to 
secure our borders against future attempts, either accidental or 
intentional, to cause harm.
  To lay a basis for this, I have just returned from NATO meetings. Our 
NATO delegation here out of the House of Representatives is chaired by 
the very able gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

                              {time}  1930

  We went to our NATO meetings and then after our NATO meetings went 
and joined another group with the British American parliamentary 
assembly which was chaired by our very capable Member, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). And from these meetings, it was very 
interesting to go to these meetings. First of all, let me state that it 
amazes me, it absolutely amazes me that we do not have to get very far 
from September 11 before the old European criticism of the United 
States starts to rear its ugly head.
  Now that said, let me tell you that I think it is somewhat out of 
proportion this criticism. Mind you, it is the criticism that gets 
played up by the world media. It is not the things that are going 
right. And I can state a lot of relationships are probably more solid 
today with some of our European allies, for example, the British, than 
they have ever been in the history of relationships between these two 
countries.
  Let me compliment the United Kingdom. The Brits have been with us 
from the moment those planes hit the Pentagon and targeted New York 
City. And they have not faltered, they have not weakened, they have not 
backed off one inch. My compliments to the British people. 
Unfortunately, that strong commitment to the goodness of what our 
societies represent, not the United States alone, the United States is 
not standing alone. The United States is willing to go it alone, but 
the United States wants help from its allies. That is why you have 
allies. But unfortunately, in my view, not all Europeans, specifically 
the French, the Germans, even Luxembourg, I was a little discouraged by 
some of the comments I heard at some of these meetings about the United 
States, that the United States being the only super-world power is kind 
of pushing unilateralism.
  That is not what is happening out there. The United States of America 
is without question the only superpower in the world. But the United 
States of America is not arrogant about this. The United States of 
America has never ignored its friends. The United States of America 
does everything that it can to have a strong alliance with its natural 
allies. And the United States of America reaches out more than any 
country in the history of the world, more than any country in the 
history of the world. The United States of America reaches out to help 
other countries. It reaches out to give individual freedoms throughout 
the world. It reaches out and, sure, we talk and try and use education 
to tell people how the goodness of individual freedoms and individual 
rights and how it makes a country stronger and not weaker.
  We are not sensitive to criticism, unless the criticism is a little 
unjust. It was interesting over the weekend, there was an editorial in 
one of the London newspapers. And they remembered the quote that Lyndon 
Johnson had back in the de Gaulle days when de Gaulle said to Lyndon 
Johnson that he wanted the American troops, the United States troops 
off European soil. And President Johnson immediately replied, does that 
include the American troops buried beneath your soil?
  Twice in the last century the United States at the expense of many 
thousands of lives went to the defense of Europe. And I feel very 
confident that if Europe were challenged tomorrow, the United States 
would once again find itself in battle on behalf of the Europeans. The 
United States thinks very highly of the European nations. The United 
States of America thinks it is very important that we have friendships 
that are strong into the future. But let me tell you something about a 
friendship. You have got to be willing to help that friend of yours 
that might need some help.
  Now, the United States of America through the leadership of our fine 
President has committed to eliminate, to the extent possible, terrorism 
throughout the world. Not just terrorism focused on the United States 
of America, but terrorism focused wherever it raises its ugly head; and 
it has asked for assistance from other countries, other countries in 
Europe. Now, that is not acting as if you were arrogant. That is not 
going forward on some kind of unilateral message or unilateral path. 
The United States of America does not accept arrogance as its policy of 
moving forward.

  What the United States of America accepts as its policy is strength, 
strength through the ability to negotiate, strength through military 
might, strength through doing whatever you can to assist countries 
rebuilding themselves.
  Take a look at Afghanistan. It is our obligation, we feel in this 
country, we feel an obligation to help build that country, to have text 
books in those schools, to build those schools, to allow women the 
rights they have never seen in that country before, all individuals in 
that country to begin to exercise individual rights. And the United 
States of America is willing to step forward not only with its military 
might, but with its economic might as well, as well as its compassion, 
whether it is the Peace Corps or whether it is the thousands and 
thousands of items that have been contributed throughout this Nation, 
whether it be jackets or school books, or whatever, sent to the country 
of Afghanistan.
  I think it is a mistake, a deep mistake for our European allies, not 
all of them but for some of those European allies, to think that for 
some reason because the United States of America has the guts and, 
frankly, I think the obligation to stand up toe to toe with these 
terrorists, and destroy them where possible, do whatever we can to 
overcome the fear in the hearts of the American people and the people 
of this world that these terrorists have put there. And the United 
States is willing to be the first one out of the foxhole.
  But it is a little interesting when some of the people still back in 
the foxhole have enough malfeasance, in my opinion, of their 
professional responsibilities to criticize the United States because it 
is the first one out of the foxhole, because the United States of 
America is willing to take on this terrorism, not only for our Nation's 
security but for the world's security. And the President has made that 
very clear. The Secretary of State has made that very clear.
  We are not out to rid the world of terrorists that only attack the 
United States of America. We are out to contain and destroy to the 
extent possible the terrorists that rain their terror upon anywhere in 
the world. And we have asked some of our European allies, all of our 
allies to join us. It amazes me, it discourages me, it disappoints me 
that we have some of the countries in Europe who are speaking ill of 
the United States.
  It was surprising to hear how often I heard criticism of President 
Bush's axis of evil, the three countries that President Bush 
highlighted as direct threats, evil countries. It reminded me of the 
days when President Reagan had enough guts to stand up and call Russia 
the Evil Empire. You know what bothered a lot of people? The fact that 
he was right. And here President Bush is right.
  Sure, you can sugar-coat it. You can decorate your language, try and 
hide it, try and kind of through statesman negotiations, I guess, not 
really call these countries what they are. But what would you call 
North Korea? I asked some of my European friends, What is it that you 
would describe North Korea with? You want to get a Webster's dictionary 
and find me another word in the dictionary that would fit North Korea 
more appropriately than axis of evil or a combination of evil? Take a 
look at the suppression that North Korea does with its own citizens. 
How can you justify calling North Korea anything but evil when they 
starve their citizens to feed their military?

  Then you can move on to Iraq. When we talk about biochemical warfare, 
do you know what country in the history of the world has used it on its 
own citizens? Iraq. Do you think somewhere in Webster's dictionary you 
could find a

[[Page H541]]

definition other than the word of evil to fit the nation of Iraq? The 
people, the masses of Iraq deserve more than they are getting from that 
leadership.
  Saddam Hussein is evil and his leadership regime is evil. The 
country, the people of North Korea, the people of Iraq, and to a lesser 
extent the people of Iran, are all begging for some kind of new 
leadership out there. And Iran is no guardian angel. Iran seems to have 
at least some momentum moving towards reform in their country. But the 
fact is right now the three primary threats to the free world are Iraq, 
number one, North Korea, number two, and Iran, number three.
  So we have got a President that has enough gumption to be the first 
one out of the foxhole, to say it as it is, to talk about it in terms 
that are necessary for it to be talked about. And that is that these 
evil empires are doing not only injustices to their own people, but 
they threaten tremendous injustices to other nations in the world. That 
is what this President is standing up for. And that is what I hope our 
European allies understand, that the United States is not trying to 
snub, has made no attempt whatsoever to snub its allies anywhere in the 
world.
  In fact, it is the United States coming out of that foxhole not only 
for itself, not only for our Nation, but for all nations of this world, 
to rid this world of a terrible, terrible cancer. And there is no other 
way to describe the acts of these terrorists, whether it is the 
kidnapping of a Wall Street Journal reporter, whether it is flying a 
plane into the World Trade Center or flying a plane into the Pentagon 
or unleashing any other act of terror. Somebody has got to have enough 
guts to face up to them.
  Let me say, and I want to make it very carefully said that throughout 
my remarks the one sole strong exception standing so solid out there in 
the European continent is the United Kingdom. We have some other allies 
in the European continent that are standing with us, but the strongest 
out there are the British. And I want to commend my colleagues in 
Britain for standing with the United States of America. And I want to 
encourage the other European continent to join us in this battle. Not 
join us just in soft talk. Join us in strong action. That is what it is 
going to take.
  This cancer that we have discovered, this cancer that we discovered 
through the horrible events of September 11 is not just going to 
disappear on its own. In fact, every day that goes by that cancer 
begins to spread.
  Now, we took a pretty good whack out of that cancer with our military 
action in Afghanistan. And thanks to a lot of European allies who have 
helped us with intelligence, who have helped us with the money 
racketeering going on out there, we have been able to crawl somewhat 
into the cellars of some of these terrorist headquarters and begin to 
destroy that cancer. But the fact is cancer still exists. We cannot 
pray it off us, although that may help. We cannot wish it off us. 
Wishing is something for a dream, but it is not going to get rid of 
that cancer. You cannot love it off. You cannot talk it off. You have 
got to get in there, and you have got to take it away.
  Now in my opinion several of our European allies agree that the 
cancer needs to be taken away. But they want it done with the absolute 
opportunity of, I guess you would say, anesthesia for the patient. Get 
the best anesthesia that you can get and deliver and put it into the 
patient before you begin to remove the cancer. Frankly, I agree with 
that. Make the patient as comfortable as you can. But the problem is 
the patient and the cancer are here today. The anesthesia of which 
these people, the European allies, some of them, are referring to, we 
do not have it in the operating room. We need to go after that cancer 
now. We cannot wait for that anesthesia to arrive because if we do, it 
may be too late for the patient.
  So in an idealistic world, while we would like to have all of the 
anesthesia we need right there for that patient, in the realistic 
world, not the idealistic world, but the realistic world, we may have 
to go after that cancer before we have the kind of anesthesia that we 
would like to have. Those are the facts. And it is not because we are 
being egotistical. It is not because we want to act in a unilateral 
method. It is because we are saying that our fellow doctors in that 
operating room, look, we have got to get that cancer. Everybody agrees, 
right? Right. We have got to do it now. Yeah, we need to do it. We need 
to do it now. Somebody in that operating room has to take charge. And 
the United States of America is willing to lead.
  In fact, as Vice President Cheney has said, the United States of 
America today in the world is the only one who has the capabilities 
from all angles in a broad statement to take on this terrorism. We want 
our allies with us. We want to protect our allies. That is a natural. 
Of course you want to protect your friends.
  So I would have expected when I went to Europe to find many of my 
friends from Germany or find many of my friends from France, although 
the French are tough to bring along in most cases, find our friends 
from Luxembourg, find our friends from some of these other countries 
jumping up and saying, hey, we are ready to get out of the foxhole. We 
are firmly committed behind your Nation.
  I happen to believe that most of the people in Europe agree with the 
United States of America in that the number one issue out there is 
security and that we have got to somehow repeal this horrible cancer 
that has stricken the world.

                              {time}  1945

  Granted, on September 11, it hit the United States of America, but I 
am telling my colleagues it is not long before it hits somewhere else 
in the world. That is why it is our obligation, all of us, all of us, 
to get out of that foxhole, under the leadership of the United States 
of America, and take it on.
  I saw an excellent editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. I do not 
like to read into the Record, but this is an important editorial, and 
so I want to read. It is not a long editorial, but I ask my colleagues 
to listen very carefully to the words, because the Wall Street Journal 
editorial I think covers very precisely the type of feeling that I had 
at the NATO meetings that I was in attendance.
  Again, dated February 26, title of the editorial is Axis of Allies.

       To read the papers these days, you'd think Europe and the 
     United States were headed for a giant fall over President 
     Bush's ``axis of evil'' policy. Certainly European critics 
     have earned all of the headlines. But there's another side to 
     this story, which is that much of Europe actually supports 
     Mr. Bush.

  We certainly would not call it a silent majority. But it includes 
some very big names, starting, for example, with the Spanish Prime 
Minister. Since you won't read about it anywhere else, we thought we'd 
tell you what he said.
  `` `I think that the position Bush has taken is of historic 
dimensions,' '' the Prime Minister said last week in an interview with 
European journalists. `` `It is comparable to the choice made by 
Truman, who in the postwar took a strong position against the Russians, 
and to the declaration that Reagan made at the beginning of the 1980s 
which defined the Soviet Union as the evil empire.' ''
  The Spanish Prime Minister added that, `` `I believe that today it is 
more important than ever that Europe strengthen its ties with the 
United States: Alone we Europeans will be able to do nothing, not only 
on the international scene but also even inside our own continent, as 
the crisis in the Balkans demonstrated. There are those who want to 
make an impression by lining up against the U.S., but I do not agree 
with this attitude.'
  ``Also largely unreported was the comment last week of'' the European 
Union ``foreign policy chief, who spoke of `overstatements of 
differences' with Washington.'' The policy chief's ``remarks were 
widely taken as a slap in the face of Chris Patten, the EU external 
affairs commissioner who warned, in widely quoted comments, that Mr. 
Bush was in `unilateralist overdrive.'
  ``Something is clearly getting lost in translation of how Europeans 
view America right now. When a French Foreign Minister calls U.S. 
foreign policy `simplistic' or the German Foreign Minister Fischer 
accuses the United States of treating European nations as `satellites,' 
their remarks make news on both sides of the Atlantic. But when a 
European leader speaks pointedly in support of America, he is shouting 
into the wind.

[[Page H542]]

  ``The real story is the battle in Europe between the new politics and 
the old. It is no accident that those dowagers of the old socialism, 
France and Germany, tend to produce the U.S. critics, while exponents 
of a new centrist or center-right politics, primarily British Prime 
Minister Tony Blair, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Mr. 
Aznar, support Mr. Bush.
  ``The internal debate in Europe is about its role in the world and 
the future shape of the European Union. Specifically, it focuses on the 
politics of European integration in which a French-led bloc wants to 
create a more integrated (and socialist) Europe. The issues will come 
up in elections in France and Germany this year.
  ``Both France and Germany also had business ties with Iraq that they 
are eager to resume; that won't be politically correct as long as Iraq 
is part of the `axis of evil.' A campaign (with tacit or explicit 
government support) to indict Western sanctions as the cause of Iraqi 
misery has also succeeded with the European public, making it that much 
harder for Paris or Berlin to support military action against Iraq.
  ``France and Germany are important countries, but they aren't all of 
Europe any more than America is Washington and New York. And even they 
may ultimately find a way to support American action in Iraq and 
elsewhere. In the meantime, President Bush can count on backing'' of 
Aznar, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of 
Italy, ``though they too will face political hurdles at home.
  ``A part of Europe sees eye to eye with the U.S. on economic 
liberalization and a foreign policy that attempts to rid the world of 
threats to peace and stability. Another part of Europe disagrees. Why 
do only the grumblers make news? ''
  I think it is an important piece, and I would urge my colleagues, if 
they have an opportunity, clip it out of the Wall Street Journal. 
Europe is very important for the future of our country. We need a 
strong relationship with the European countries, and we have a strong 
relationship.

  Twice in the last century, the United States of America took its 
boys, young men and women, overseas to fight for the Europeans, to 
fight on the European continent, and we would be willing to do it again 
tomorrow. But let me tell my colleagues, within the family, the 
criticism, while any good family allows for constructive criticism, it 
should always be somewhat justified criticism, and I think Germany or 
France or some of the leaders of these various countries of the 
European Union, some of those leaders that criticize the United States 
of America as acting in a unilateral fashion, have got it all wrong.
  The United States of America wants to act in a partnership. The 
United States of America wants Germany and France acting as strongly 
with us as Great Britain has. This problem of terrorism is not unique 
to the United States of America. They know that. The people and the 
officials of the European Union know that. The citizens of Europe know 
that.
  Let us form a team, as Powell said, our Secretary of State Colin 
Powell last week, that the Europeans, every time they pound on the 
United States, they ought to do a little pounding on Iraq.
  This is exactly what the terrorists want to occur. They want some 
kind of division to begin to pop up between the Europeans and America. 
Why? Because they know it is a lot tougher to take on two people coming 
out of that foxhole than it is to take on one coming out of that 
foxhole.
  So the United States of America wants our European allies with us as 
we come out of the foxhole. We are not asking our allies in Europe to 
be the first ones out of the foxhole. We are willing to do it. This 
Nation has the capability. It has the commitment. It has got the 
military strength and technology to be the first one out of that 
foxhole, but if you ain't going to fight, do not complain, and if you 
are going to fight, get out of the foxhole.
  This moves me on to the issue that I wanted to focus a little more on 
tonight, and that is the necessity for a missile defense in this 
country. I think the biggest weakness that the entire world faces are 
missiles, not just nuclear missiles. Obviously, we all fear the 
utilization of nuclear missiles, but ballistic missiles carrying 
conventional missile heads.
  Can my colleagues imagine what North Korea, the kinds of havoc that 
North Korea could wreak on South Korea, on Seoul, South Korea? Seoul, 
the Nation's capital of South Korea, is only 38 miles away from North 
Korean missiles. Can my colleagues imagine the protection and the 
leverage that we would be able to take away from North Korea if we 
could provide our ally, South Korea, with the missile defense?
  A missile defense is absolutely essential for the United States, for 
the security of our citizens and for the world, for the security of its 
citizens, any of our allies throughout the world.
  I had the opportunity several years ago, I think to the best of my 
recollection about 3 years ago, to be in Vail at the AEI's world forum 
that was hosted by a former President, Gerald Ford, and Margaret 
Thatcher was there. I cannot quote from memory exactly what the former 
Prime Minister of Britain said, but I can give it pretty darn close.
  I remember very distinctly that there was the current Secretary of 
Defense, Bill Cohen, and Margaret Thatcher stood and addressed Bill 
Cohen. As my colleagues know, the Clinton administration was very 
reluctant to commit, they certainly did not give any kind of commitment 
the likes of which we have seen from the Bush administration, in 
regards to a defensive missile system for this Nation. They kind of 
halfway, lukewarm supported it.
  Margaret Thatcher stood up, took a look at the Secretary of Defense 
in the United States and her words were similar to this. Mr. Secretary, 
she says, you have an inherent responsibility to provide the citizens 
of your Nation with a missile defense. Any failure to do so would be 
nothing short of gross neglect.
  Now, again, those words are very close to what she said. My 
colleagues could have heard a pin drop in that room. Why? Because 
Margaret Thatcher was right. We need a missile defense in this country; 
and, fortunately, we have a President who is absolutely committed and 
moving forward at full speed at providing a missile defense for our 
Nation.
  Remember, there are lots of threats out there, and the threats are 
not necessarily an intentional missile launch against the United 
States. In fact, we could very easily have an accidental missile launch 
against the United States, and do not think accidental missile launches 
are something that just are nightmares of the future. It has already 
happened.

  Not long after September 11, about 6 months ago, a Russian airliner 
was flying I think over the Black Sea, and the Ukrainian military was 
doing military exercises with their navy, and they fired a missile by 
accident at a commercial airliner, a Russian airliner, and they blew 
the Russian airliner out of the sky. They killed 70 or 80 people. They 
blew it to smithereens.
  Accidents can happen. An accidental launch against the United States 
of America could happen, and it could lead to consequences much, much 
more serious than just one missile being launched across the ocean. If 
that missile was launched and, one, we did not know it was accidental; 
two, we did not have the capability to stop it, the United States may 
end up in a response of a retaliatory fashion. So missile defense is 
important not only against an intentional launch against our country 
but the possibility of an accidental launch.
  As my colleagues know, years ago, back in about 1972, the United 
States entered into an agreement with Russia called the anti-ballistic 
missile treaty. To the President's credit, President Bush has abrogated 
that treaty pursuant to the terms of the treaty. The treaty itself, the 
basics of the treaty or the philosophy behind the treaty was that one 
nation would not defend itself against the missile attack, nor would 
the other nation. In other words, the United States of America would 
agree not to defend itself against Russian missiles if Russia agreed 
not to defend itself against United States missiles, the theory being 
that the United States would not dare attack Russia because they could 
not defend themselves against a retaliatory attack and vice versa.

[[Page H543]]

  I think it is crazy, but that was the thinking and the philosophy in 
1972 when this agreement was signed. In 1972, when this agreement was 
signed, keep in mind that only two nations in the world had the 
capability of delivering intercontinental ballistic missiles into the 
territory of the other, Russia and the United States.
  Clearly, since then, many, many other countries throughout the world 
have developed that technology, and that technology is much more 
readily available than it was 30 years ago. We have had dramatic 
changes in the world scene today in regards to missiles, missile 
technology and the capability to launch a missile into the territory of 
another country.
  That 30-year-old treaty was outdated within a few short years after 
it was signed, and today, with all of the countries in the world that 
have the capability of striking the United States, and we discovered 
unfortunately on September 11 that we can be hit within our borders, of 
all of the countries that have that capability, why were we reluctant 
the last 8 years under the Clinton administration, for example, to go 
full speed ahead on building a defensive mechanism? These are not 
offensive missiles. This is a defensive missile system for our Nation 
to protect the people of this Nation.

                              {time}  2000

  As Margaret Thatcher said, anything short of a full missile defense 
system is gross neglect, gross neglect of our fiduciary duties to our 
citizens.
  Take a look at the treaty. Now, by the way, as many of my colleagues 
know, the President has given notice, under the four corners of the 
treaty, that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty and that 
the United States of America intends to proceed full speed ahead to 
provide a missile defense for its citizens.
  Let us look at the agreement that allows us to withdraw from the 
treaty. The treaty is obviously of unlimited duration; but as I 
mentioned earlier, it is now about 30 years old. At the time the treaty 
was signed, again just so we have a little historical basis here, there 
were only two nations in the world, Russia, the U.S.S.R., and the 
United States that were capable of delivering missiles to the other 
country. That changed within a very few short years after this treaty 
was signed.
  In my opinion, the minute a third country entered the picture, they 
should have either been brought into the agreement or this agreement 
should have been abrogated. President Bush is the first one, though it 
took 30 years, but President Bush had the gumption to step up and 
exercise section two. Section two, it has been highlighted for my 
colleagues' benefit, states that each party shall, in exercising its 
national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty. A 
right. It is a right within this treaty, if it decides that 
extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have 
jeopardized the supreme interests.
  It goes on to talk about the 6-month notice in this paragraph. That 
notice has already been given. And it says that the notice shall 
contain within it the extraordinary events, notifying the party 
regarding which jeopardizes our supreme interest.
  Now, have extraordinary events occurred which jeopardize the national 
sovereign interests of the United States of America? Of course they 
have. I cannot understand how anybody in these Chambers, any of my 
colleagues, would do anything but acknowledge the necessity for a 
military missile defense system in this country. And I do not know any 
of my colleagues that could stand up and tell me that extraordinary 
events have not occurred over the last 30 years. Obviously, they have 
occurred.
  Let us start with the first one, and I am just going to go through a 
few ``extraordinary events'' that have occurred that, in my opinion, 
giving us justification to go full speed ahead. The first one, again 
being repetitive, is that we are no longer talking about two countries. 
This treaty was between the U.S.S.R., which technically does not even 
exist any more, and the United States of America. Since then, let us 
take a look at what has happened.
  Number one, we have multiple countries that have missile technology 
and the capability to deliver those missiles into the territory of 
other countries. Number two, take a look in the last 30 years at what 
has happened with nuclear proliferation. These are countries. Now, the 
red countries have nuclear weapons. The green countries are countries 
that we are confident have or are concerned enough that we think they 
have the capability. We believe North Korea could easily have a nuclear 
missile or some nuclear missiles, Iran, Libya and Iraq.
  Now, looking at my pointer here, in 1970, it used to be just the 
United States and Russia. Here is what leads to those extraordinary 
events. Watch my left hand. First, we pick up India, Israel, Pakistan, 
Britain, China, France. Look at that list. That is an extraordinary 
event, not of a positive sense but of a realistic sense. There are 
multiple nations in the world that have nuclear missiles, and they are 
capable of launching those missiles. Our Nation must defend itself and 
its allies against that type of an attack.
  Let us go a little further. In the last 30 years, since the time this 
treaty was signed, look at what has happened with ballistic missile 
proliferation and countries that possess ballistic missiles. Look at 
them. One, two, three, four, five, six. Go across here. One, two, 
three, four, five, six. Roughly 36. Not exactly, but roughly 36 
additional countries since 1972 have developed or now have missile 
technology capable of firing a missile against the United States of 
America or against another country within their territory.
  Now, what can we do with missile defense? Is the threat real? Here is 
the threat that we face today. Look at this chart. Weapons of mass 
destruction among 20 Third World countries that have or are in the 
process of developing weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons. 
Iran, we think has them, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. Chemical 
weapons. Again, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria. Biological 
weapons, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Advanced technology for missiles. All 
of the countries.

  I believe there are serious threats outside the borders of the United 
States of America, and we have an opportunity to lead the world once 
again in a way to neutralize that threat. And the best way to 
neutralize that threat is to obtain the technology, and we are very 
close. The United States is very close to achieving the technological 
breakthroughs that are necessary to destroy a missile on its launching 
pad, to take a missile that has been fired against the United States 
and, somewhere along its route, destroy that missile, to minimize the 
casualties that that missile would create if it successfully landed on 
its target area.
  So the key here is this: the United States and our President, under 
our current leadership, is moving forward, and so is the United States 
Congress with financial commitments and financial backing for our 
President to build for the citizens of this Nation a security blanket, 
a capability to stop somebody from a ruthless attack or even an 
accidental mistake against this country.
  The United States is also going to be the first country to step 
forward with this technology and to hand it over to its friends. We 
will offer protection for South Korea. What is North Korea going to do 
when the leverage of their missiles is taken away? Maybe we will get a 
unified Korea, as we all hope in the future will occur. What will 
happen with some of these terrorist organizations or countries like 
Libya or Iran or Iraq when the missiles they have would not be capable 
of destroying or bestowing horrible destruction upon allies or the 
United States of America itself?
  My colleagues, we have an incumbent fiduciary obligation to our 
citizens to provide a security blanket for the protection of this 
Nation, and that obligation exists not only for the current generation, 
for the current people, but for future generations of this country. 
Today, we must develop that technology. We must put into position a 
missile defensive system.
  In my opinion, and I know sometimes I stand here and preach until I 
am blue in the face about the threat of a missile attack against this 
country, but all of a sudden on September 11 we all became a little 
more awake as to the fact that the United States of America could be a 
target too. We did not think on September 10 that action against this 
Nation was coming as quickly as it did. And who knows what the future

[[Page H544]]

holds? But I think we would be safe in assuming that the future holds 
further attacks against our country. I think we would be safe to assume 
that there are terrorist pockets out there that will do whatever it 
takes. They will destroy our children. Remember, in New York City, when 
they hit those World Trade Center towers, they killed the citizens of 
80 separate countries. What we want to do is give those different 
countries the capability to defend themselves against these terrorists.
  Now, some might say, well, the United States of America should not 
have a missile defensive system. The United States should somehow feel 
guilty because of their military strength. The United States should 
become apologetic because they are so powerful. The United States 
should feel badly about leading the world in military technology. What 
a bunch of rubbish. The United States of America has the capability to 
lead the world in missile defense.
  And I could not more strongly compliment George W. Bush on his 
commitment for the security of this Nation. He understands, in his 
leadership team down there, whether it is the Vice President, whether 
it is Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, whether it is Condoleezza 
Rice, they have a clear understanding of their mission. And I think, 
colleagues, that we have an obligation to have a clear vision of our 
mission, and that is the security and the protection of the people of 
this country.
  I cannot think of anything more important that the leaders of a 
country have as far as their responsibility to its citizens than a 
national defense. I cannot think of anything more important. Obviously, 
there are a lot of important things out there, but what good is 
anything if we cannot protect our citizens? If we as leaders cannot 
protect this Nation, at least to the utmost of our capabilities, what 
good are the benefits of anything else that we could give this Nation?
  And protection, by the way of a nation, is not just necessarily a 
military missile defense, a strong military in regards to its 
capability to attack or in regards to its capability with technological 
advancement. I believe that the strength of a nation is displayed 
through its capabilities of negotiation, through its capabilities of 
helping other countries, through its capabilities of things like the 
Peace Corps and other efforts that we make like this, in foreign aid 
and foreign assistance with other countries. And the United States of 
America has no reason to apologize for any of this. The United States 
of America has led the world. There is no other country in the history 
of the world that has done more for other countries than the United 
States of America in regards to foreign assistance, in regards to 
educational benefits, in regards to open borders, in regards to 
opportunities.

  Now, that is not to say that I think the United States has got it all 
right. Many times we find out that we have made a mistake, but we learn 
from them. And basically, when we take a look at it, no one could 
classify the United States of America as anything but good, in my 
opinion.
  But to bring us back to this defense, we face very challenging times 
in the near future and in the distant future; and it is our 
responsibility as the leaders of this country, number one, to support 
our President and his team in their effort to provide the protection 
and the security that this country needs; and, two, to support our 
President and the President's team to provide the kind of security that 
our allies need.
  We need people to know throughout this world that the United States 
of America will protect itself, it will eliminate to the extent it can 
any threats against this country, and it will reach out to its friends 
to assist its friends and to protect its friends from those kinds of 
attacks.
  So as kind of a conclusion of this set of my remarks this evening, my 
colleagues, let me just summarize a couple of things. Number one, I say 
to our friends in Europe, our friends in France, our friends in 
Germany, our friends in the European Union, that the United States of 
America wants a partnership with you. We have had a partnership that 
has been tested through the loss of lives, hundreds of thousands of 
lives in the last century. Twice in the last century our partnership 
was threatened, and both times the United States of America contributed 
to the partnership and so did you. But this partnership must continue 
into the future.
  Europe is important for the United States, and the United States is 
important for Europe. But this is not the time for our friends in 
Europe to be shy about their support for this President. This is not 
the time for our friends in Europe to somehow give credibility to 
regimes like that of Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq. This is 
the time, instead, for friends and partners and allies to stand in 
unison against the common enemy and to do what is necessary to 
eliminate the threats of that common enemy.

                              {time}  2015

  Madam Speaker, we have got the United States of America willing to be 
the first one out of the foxhole. We can lead. We are willing to put 
the money, the defensive resources. We are willing to do what it takes, 
but we want the European alliance to be right there with us. There is 
no other way that we want it to happen.
  Again, I summarize, the United States is prepared to come out of that 
foxhole by itself. The United States of America is prepared to go it on 
its own, but that is not our preference. This Nation has built its 
greatness through partnerships, partnerships of our citizens. And as we 
reach around the world to our allies and we once again are reaching out 
for this partnership and our friends in Europe, for example, Tony Blair 
in Great Britain, but some of our friends are pounding more on us than 
they are on the evil regimes of North Korea and Iraq.
  Remember, that cancer that we find in North Korea and Iraq cannot be 
denied. No serious assessment of either of those countries, or Iran, 
frankly, could justify what those nations have done to their own 
citizens or could justify in any way whatsoever what those nations 
intend to do to the rest of the world.
  There is no question in my mind or in the mind of anybody who has 
studied this, anybody of any consequence who has studied this at any 
length, that Iraq would utilize whatever weapon it had at its disposal, 
whether it was a chemical weapon, whether it was a nuclear warhead, 
whether it was the arm of terrorism, they will use whatever is 
necessary for an attack upon the free world. We must go against that.
  Let me also say that the United States of America feels very strongly 
about the religion of Islam, very strongly about the Muslims who are 
United States citizens and the Muslims throughout the world who are not 
United States citizens. The evilness of the terrorist acts of September 
11 do not represent that religion. Even in that religion where there is 
an exception for violence in a jihad, the definitions of a jihad do not 
fit the acts of September 11.
  This Nation reaches out to all people of all colors, and we say we 
want individual rights, and we can come together as a team. There is a 
cancer that we have discovered. We must destroy that cancer, and we as 
a team can do it.
  Finally, let me say that again, I cannot stress it strong enough, and 
I am saying this from the center of my heart, our President has made 
absolutely the right decision to go full speed ahead, to provide the 
citizens of this country with a defense against missiles of other 
countries, with a missile defensive system.
  Right now many of our citizens believe that if a missile was fired 
against the United States of America that somehow we could defend 
against it. Our only defense at this point is a retaliatory strike. Is 
a retaliatory strike the best response? In my opinion, most of the time 
a retaliatory strike is not the best response. The best response is to 
neutralize the weapons being utilized against our citizens. We have an 
opportunity to neutralize one of the horrible weapons that could be 
used against the citizens of the United States and our friends.
  Madam Speaker, I commend the President and my colleagues who are 
supportive of the missile defensive system, and I beg those few Members 
who oppose the missile defensive system to reconsider. We need your 
support. We need to give this President the budgetary support that is 
necessary; and,

[[Page H545]]

frankly, I am confident that we will from both sides of the aisle. We 
will give this President the financial tools that are necessary to 
defend the interests of the United States

                          ____________________