[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 137 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H9982-H9989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    IRAN: A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to scrap a long-
range, European-based missile defense shield was not only met with 
concern among our European allies, but more importantly has sounded 
alarms here at home where the President's action will leave the Nation 
vulnerable to Iranian long-range missile attack.
  Three years ago, in response to growing threats from Iran, the U.S. 
developed plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe 
to protect Europe and the United States from potential long-range 
missile attack. Under the program, 10 interceptor missiles would be 
located in Poland and a radar station would be built in the Czech 
Republic by 2013. The European-based missile defense system would add 
an additional layer of defense to the continental United States, which 
already has a small network of interceptors on the west coast.
  The European-based missile defense shield was endorsed by our NATO 
allies, who called it a ``substantial contribution to their collective 
security.'' Now, the Obama administration has taken the unusual and 
highly questionable position of canceling the planned European-based 
missile defense system in favor of a scaled-back program that will not 
be ready until 2020.
  The threat represented by Iran is real and growing. Last February, 
Iran launched a satellite, demonstrating substantial progress toward 
achieving a reliable long-range missile program. A month later, the 
head of the U.S. European Command testified before the House Armed 
Services Committee that Iran would be able to deploy an 
intercontinental ballistic missile, an ICBM, capable of reaching all of 
Europe and parts of the United States by the year 2015.
  The President stated his decision was based upon reduced threats from 
Iran and greater cost efficiency of his alternative defense system--and 
anyone watching the news knows that there is no diminished threat from 
Iran. However, a July 2008 classified report produced by the Institute 
for Defense Analyses concluded that the European-based missile defense 
system that the administration now wants to cancel would, in fact, be 
the most cost effective. I have called on the administration to 
declassify this report so that all of the facts can be known and we can 
have a robust debate.
  Moscow has made no secret of its opposition to the European-based 
missile defense system and has repeatedly called for its elimination. 
Furthermore, European leaders have heard from Russian leaders. The 
Russians have continually shown that they have no intention of pressing 
Iran to drop its nuclear and missile programs. For its part, Iran also 
shows no willingness to be deterred by Russia. Yet, the administration, 
in courting Moscow assistance in halting Iran's nuclear missile 
ambitions, has effectively chosen to surrender America's bargaining 
position with its shelving of the proposed missile defense system.
  While the Obama administration's decision to reverse course on 
European missile defense is being met with smiles in Moscow, Americans 
have real reason to be concerned. By the administration's own 
admission, its alternative missile defense system will not be able to 
be fully capable until 2020, with intelligence indicating Iran will 
have ICBM capability by 2015. This means the United States could be 
vulnerable to Iranian missile attack 5 years before the administration 
gets its new missile defense system ready.
  Not only is Iran near its goal of launching ICBMs, reportedly, it has 
already the ability to construct a nuclear bomb. Last Thursday, a group 
of experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency stated, in a 
report obtained by the Associated Press, that Iran is already capable 
of building a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile 
system capable of carrying an atomic warhead.
  Remarkably, in the face of Iran's blatant actions to develop a 
nuclear weapons program, the administration continues to pursue a 
course of unilateral disarmament. Earlier this year, the President cut 
funding for missile interceptors to be based in Alaska as part of the 
ongoing construction of a homeland missile defense system, reducing the 
number of interceptors by one-third. I opposed that move and offered an 
amendment in the House to restore the funding. Unfortunately, the 
President's cuts were sustained by a Democrat majority of the House.
  The administration's record on missile defense at a time when both 
North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons capable of reaching 
the United States is troubling. This year, the administration has cut 
missile defense by $1.2 billion, reducing by one-third our intended 
west coast shield which would protect us from North Korea's 
advancements and has stopped a European-based system intended to 
protect the U.S. from Iranian missile threats. In the face of known 
threats, this administration needs to rededicate itself to defense of 
the United States' mainland.
  It is now my honor to recognize our ranking member of the House Armed 
Services Committee, Buck McKeon, who represents California's 25th 
District, was elected in 1991, has been a leader in ensuring the United 
States has adequate defense, both that our troops have adequate 
equipment in their conflicts but also in ensuring that the United 
States has adequate defense systems.
  With that, I would like to recognize Representative McKeon.
  Mr. McKEON. Thank you, Mike. And thank you for holding this Special 
Order.
  I think you have done an outstanding job of getting out to the 
American people the problem with cutting our missile defense system at 
a time of war. I have been here a little bit longer than you. I came in 
1992. In 1992, we had 18 Army divisions. We are down to 12 now. 
Actually, in 1998, we were down to 10. We've built it back up in the 
last 10 years. We had 24 fighter wings; we now have 12. We had 546 Navy 
ships; we now have 283. Do you detect a trend?
  Historically, we have cut our defenses after a war. We did that after 
World War I, so that when World War II came along, we were training 
with wooden dummy rifles and it took us a

[[Page H9983]]

while to get built up into that fight. By the end of the war, we were 
building hundreds of planes a day, but it took a long time to get 
there.
  But the world has changed. We're not in a situation now where we can 
build up defenses after the fact. We have to be prepared ahead of time. 
We had a golden opportunity to do that. The President, earlier this 
year in the Democratic Congress, passed an $800 billion supplemental 
that was supposed to help us get out of the financial system that we're 
in. The President called for shovel-ready projects, things that could 
be done immediately to help the economy. Well, just a couple of things.
  I also serve on the Education Committee, and we had about $14 billion 
in that supplemental for education, education programs, the Pell 
Grants, which are very important. But to put $12 or $14 billion into 
IDEA and the same amount into Pell Grants--those are long-range things 
that will help in the long run--it showed where his priorities are, 
which it's good to find out where his priorities are. But at the same 
time, out of $800 billion, $300 million went into defense; $300 million 
out of $800 billion. Now, that $300 went to MILCON, which are important 
projects, and we need to build on military bases. Nothing went into 
weapon systems.

  When I came to Congress, we were building the B-2 bomber, and it was 
supposed to be 132 planes. That was what was needed for defense of our 
Nation. That was planned out. Everybody bought into it. Everybody 
agreed on it. They ended up building 21. At the same time, we were 
planning a new fighter because we needed it to compete worldwide with 
things that Russia and China were doing, and we were going to build 750 
F-22s. In this last budget that was just passed in the House--hasn't 
finally become law yet. We're still in conference, but they have made a 
decision that now we don't need 750; we can get by with 187.
  I don't know what's changed in the world to make it all of a sudden 
much safer to give us 187, that that will now satisfy the need. It's a 
trend that's very disturbing, cutting $1.2 billion out of our ballistic 
missile defense. Historically, as I said, we have cut our defense after 
a war. I don't know that we have ever in our history cut our defense 
during not one, but two wars which we have going right now in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and as you've mentioned, the problems that we see with 
Iran.
  Today's announcement that Iran has a covert uranium enrichment 
facility should really come as no surprise. Why develop a covert 
enrichment facility if Tehran claims its program is solely for civilian 
purposes? Why don't they tell the world? Why don't they brag about it 
if that's what they're doing? I think people understand there's a 
reason why they're doing it covertly. This deception shows a clear 
intent by Tehran to hide a growing nuclear weapons capability.
  In the unclassified judgments from December 2007 National 
Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities, it 
was assessed that ``Iran probably would use covert facilities, rather 
than its declared nuclear sites, for the production of highly enriched 
uranium for a weapon.'' However, the NIE went further to say that ``we 
judge that these efforts were probably halted in response to the fall 
2003 halt, and that these efforts had not been restarted through at 
least mid-2008.''
  Well, what I heard this morning in the President's speech is that 
they had been building this plant secretly, covertly, to enrich uranium 
for years. These efforts have been restarted. Today's announcement 
means that previous estimates on when Iran could achieve a nuclear 
weapons breakout are now inaccurate.
  This disclosure also highlights just how uncertain our intelligence 
can be. Just a week ago, the administration explained that its primary 
reason, as you said, for scrapping the European missile defense system 
to be located in Poland and the Czech Republic was because the threat 
was now downgraded. In December 2007, our intelligence community judged 
that Iran didn't have a covert uranium enrichment facility. Now, less 
than 2 years later, it does. How, then, could the administration be so 
confident in its assessment that Iran can't develop a long-range 
ballistic missile by 2015, or maybe buy one from somebody?

                              {time}  1230

  We need to be skeptical of policy decisions based solely on 
intelligence. Intelligence can be wrong as much as it can be right. We 
have to take into account that it cannot be, even with the best efforts 
of our Intelligence Committee, the sole basis for a decision. I mean, 
you can also look at human nature. You can look at past history. You 
can look at how they reacted in the past. Based on that, how can we 
expect them to react in the future?
  We've witnessed Iran successfully use a long-range rocket to launch a 
satellite into space, work closely with the North Koreans, who 
themselves appear to be pursuing ICBMs and continuing to expand their 
nuclear capabilities. What other covert facility programs does Iran 
have under its sleeve?
  Apparently, they came up with this information because they found out 
that we had already known about it, so now they're telling the world. 
What else do they have going on that we don't know about or that 
they're not telling us or that we're not finding out about?
  It's time for the Obama administration to do something concrete about 
it beyond pinning their hopes on upcoming talks and relying on Russia 
to protect our security interests. This starts with: stronger sanctions 
against Iran right now; robustly funding missile defense so that now we 
have defenses in place before 2018 or 2020, unlike the administration's 
plan; and an Iran containment strategy, working with our allies, which 
will deter Iran and will dissuade allies and friends from 
proliferating.
  I want to commend you, Mike, for the job you're doing as ranking 
member on the subcommittee. It's a very important job. I appreciate 
your holding this Special Order and getting this information out to the 
people. The American people have to understand this important issue.
  Our defense is our main responsibility. We do a lot of other things 
around here, but the defense of this Nation is our number one 
responsibility. We do a lot of things that we're not obliged to do by 
the Constitution, but this is our responsibility.
  I commend you for the job you're doing. Thank you for holding this 
Special Order.
  Mr. TURNER. Well, I want to thank you, Representative McKeon, our 
ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. I want to thank 
you for your leadership on the committee, certainly for your leadership 
of ensuring that we have a quality defense for the United States and 
also for your highlighting this important issue.
  The issues that you've raised concerning Iran are very important. It 
should not be lost on anybody that, the very day the administration 
released its decision to drop the European site--to walk away from the 
Czech Republic and the Poles--the International Atomic Energy Agency 
released its statement that Iran was nuclear-capable, that they were 
capable of making a nuclear weapon.
  This was on the very same day, as you were saying, that the President 
said that there was a downgraded threat when, in fact, there is no 
evidence that the threat has been downgraded. I keep asking the 
administration to provide us any evidence that the threat is 
diminishing from long-range ICBM threats from Iran, and we have no 
information which would indicate that.
  Mr. AKIN. Will the gentleman yield? You're getting me upset.
  Mr. TURNER. Representative Akin, I appreciate your work on this.
  Mr. AKIN. This is kind of hard to figure out.
  I really am thankful. The ranking Republican member, Congressman 
McKeon, does a great job on Armed Services, and he is so gentlemanly 
and scholarly, and he lays the facts out.
  I want to just kind of put these things together and ask anybody if 
this makes any sense at all. What we're going to do is drop missile 
defense in Europe. Now, this is something for which quite a number of 
Europeans had to stick their necks out politically. It is the Czechs 
and the Polish who are agreeing to put this missile defense in. Now, if 
you draw a line between Iran and New York City, guess what's in line 
with that? Well, Poland is.

[[Page H9984]]

  So now we're going to drop this missile defense program to protect 
our country and Western Europe from rogue states, particularly Iran, 
which we now know is putting together three things. They're putting 
together long-range missiles, nuclear warheads and radical Islam. 
That's not a great combination. So now we're saying the threat 
assessment has been dropped. How do you figure that? The threat 
assessment has been dropped when you're putting long-range missiles and 
nuclear warheads with radical Islam. I don't feel like the threat 
assessment should have been dropped. I don't know anybody with common 
sense who would assert that.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Akin, you raised a very good point. I'd like you to 
speak for a moment on this issue:
  The European missile defense shield that was intended for 
interceptors in Poland and for the radar in the Czech Republic was not 
just intended to protect the United States. Although, it would have 
provided protection to the United States by 2013, with the President's 
plan not providing protection to the United States, by their own Web 
site admission, until 2020.
  You make an important point that it wasn't just to protect us; it was 
also to protect our European allies. In addition to that, the Czechs 
and the Poles had gone out on a limb.
  Mr. AKIN. We cut the limb off.
  Mr. TURNER. There had been tremendous pressure on them not to agree 
to work with the United States.
  For a moment, talk about what the unilateralism of the Obama 
administration does to those allies.
  Mr. AKIN. Well, we just basically cut the limb off from underneath 
them. I mean who else is going to want to partner with us in some sort 
of a decent effort to defend the Western World from either nuclear 
destruction or at least blackmail? These guys have gone out on a limb, 
and we just cut the limb off from underneath them.
  What's even worse is the fig leaf of an excuse from a technical point 
of view--for those of us on the committee, we know this is just a bunch 
of baloney--of the idea that we're going to use the standard block 3 
missile on a ship to stop intercontinental ballistic missiles.
  Look, this missile defense stuff is not as rocket science as people 
think. It's pretty simple. You've got small ones, medium ones and big 
ones. The big ones are called intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 
you can't shoot an intercontinental ballistic missile with one of our 
two-stage missiles off of a ship. You can't do that and make it work 
very well.
  Not only that, think about the logic of what we're saying. The Navy 
is complaining that they've got a lot of demands in places where 
they're going to put their ships. Now, if you're going to try and cover 
this with ships, you're going to have to have probably three ships on 
station all the time. That's really expensive. It's a lot simpler to 
put the radar on the Czech Republic and some ground-based interceptors 
in Poland.
  So we're talking about, first of all, a technical solution which is 
not going to give us the protection we need. It doesn't even make any 
sense. Then to say the threat assessments have dropped, the President 
is just not making sense in the kinds of things that he's talking 
about.

  Mr. TURNER. Representative Akin, to piggyback on what you're saying 
here, you're making the point that the system that was intended to be 
in Europe was the system that would provide the greatest capability at 
the lowest cost.
  Mr. AKIN. Right.
  Mr. TURNER. You have a great reputation with your leadership in the 
House and for being the ranking member of the Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces for the Armed Services Committee. You were elected 
in 2001, and you've got a great record of service.
  One thing that, I think, is important is that we don't just have to 
take your word for it. There is the Institute for Defense Analyses' 
unclassified excerpt of the executive summary for the independent 
assessment of the proposed deployment of the ballistic missile defense 
system in Europe. This was presented to our subcommittee at the 
beginning of this year. This was asked for by the Democrat leadership 
to do an assessment of exactly what you just said--to compare the 
system that's being proposed by the administration and the system that 
was intended to go into Europe. This report, which is an independent 
assessment, reads that the most cost-effective way to protect the 
United States was the system that this President just scrapped.
  Mr. AKIN. I'm the ranking member on Seapower, and you know, there's 
something that just doesn't make sense.
  I've been aboard our ships that have these standard block 3-type 
missiles on them, okay? I've talked to the people who run those 
systems, and they tell me, if North Korea launches an ICBM, their 
chance of stopping it is about 1 percent. The reason is that the 
missile on the ship is a two-stage missile. It doesn't have the 
velocity and the ability to get on track with a much faster, higher-
moving missile.
  So that's why I say you've got small ones, medium ones and big ones. 
You fight the big ones with big ones, and the big ones are ground-based 
interceptors. It's a three-stage. That's why we have them in Grayling, 
Alaska, that's why we have some in California, and that's why there 
should be some in Poland.
  This decision, I believe, was made all based on politics and not 
based on logic. I'll tell you what makes me secure. It's secure when we 
have American troops defending American homelands instead of vague 
promises from some Russian or some Iranian leader that everything is 
going to be okay.
  Mr. TURNER. Representative Akin, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
your comments.
  I would like to yield to Representative Bishop, who is from Utah's 
First District. He was elected in 2003. He is the former speaker of the 
House of Utah, and is a great champion for national defense on the 
Armed Services Committee.
  I know you have thoughts about this, and I would like to yield to 
Representative Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio for 
giving me this opportunity.
  I am pleased to be with the gentleman from Ohio and with the 
gentleman from Arizona, who will be speaking, I believe, in just a 
moment. They have really turned out to be experts on our missile 
defense system, as well as the gentleman from Missouri, who clearly 
understands the technical nature of what we can do both on the sea as 
well as on the land.
  I am deeply concerned about what we have been talking about in this 
area. It is very clear that this decision, based on what will happen in 
Europe, has significant long-term implications to our relationship with 
those European allies. The gentleman from Ohio and I have been, on 
several occasions, meeting with German officials as part of the study 
group on Germany. Is there really an opportunity, once this country has 
reversed course this way, to expect them to trust us in long-term 
decisions and in long-term commitments?
  I hate to say this, but the idea of our developing a stronger bond 
with Europe based on this decision, the idea that the current Iranian 
regime will become nice in its relationships with the rest of the 
world--I mean I'm sorry. My beloved Cubs, Mr. Speaker, Mr. 
Parliamentarian, my Cubs have a better chance of making it to the World 
Series than the Iranians have of becoming nice all of a sudden 
unilaterally, or the fact that our European ties will be built stronger 
because of this particular decision.
  If I could, I'll expand this slightly and take us a little bit afield 
because this does deal with the impact to our European defense; it does 
deal with the impact of the defense of the eastern coast, and it also 
deals with the impact of the defense of this entire country. We right 
now have 30 ground-based missiles to defend the entire country, and 
they're all situated in Alaska--in one spot.
  We talked earlier with other administrations about extending that to 
other areas, which makes sense, about growing that number, which makes 
sense, about taking not just a ground-based system but also a kinetic 
energy interceptor system to try to spread out our defense, which, to 
me, makes sense.

  This administration, much of these decisions being made under a 
unique gag order by the Secretary of Defense, simply took the process 
of halting our growth so that, once our 30 missiles are

[[Page H9985]]

gone, there is no replacement. Halting the kinetic intercept system, 
even though we were ready for the first test-fire and everything had 
run smoothly up to that time, simply putting a stop-work order and 
halting it. Halting the increase in production of our ICBM defense 
system. All at the same time.
  I want to put out one other element that has an impact, because I see 
these people every day. Look, I grew up watching ``Bewitched.'' If 
there's one thing I noticed from that TV show it's that Samantha wasn't 
real. Nobody can wiggle his nose and create a new solution.
  Once we decide to unilaterally stop the production of these missiles, 
if at some point in the future we decide maybe we made a mistake, you 
don't easily and quickly fix that mistake because, once the industrial 
base is gone on these elements, you don't bring it back. You cannot 
simply turn the spigot on and off and, all of a sudden, have the 
engineers who know the problems and who have worked through them, come 
back to work for the government.
  As one of the generals who was talking to me off the record simply 
said, Look, first of all, when the work base is gone, it is gone, and 
we don't bring it back. Most significantly, the first people who leave 
are the ones we really want. It's not the worst employees who leave 
first; it's the best employees who leave our industrial base first. 
Those are the ones we want.
  If at some time we decide we were wrong and we have got to fix this 
problem, that there maybe is a greater threat than we're anticipating. 
It will cost this government significantly more to restart that work 
base. It's not just a matter of we're throwing people out of a job. 
It's not just a matter of boom-and-bust economies. It's the fact that 
we will have to spend more to recreate what we already have if, indeed, 
the threat is more significant. Some people in the military currently 
see that.
  Mr. AKIN. Does the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I always yield. Every time I take a breath, I'm 
ready to yield. I just breathed.
  Mr. AKIN. To me, it seems like you've understated how bad things are, 
because not only is the industrial base closed up, the buildings 
shuttered, the engineers working on some other project at some other 
place, but it takes time to get it back on track. If somebody is 
shooting missiles at you and they're going to arrive in half an hour, 
that's not very much time to start up a business and to rebuild your 
missile defense. You just can't do it in that amount of time. This 
requires planning.
  The gentleman's numbers and statistics are right. The only thing is, 
they do have ground-based not just in Alaska. I think there are a few 
in California, but it's not spread out. Am I wrong on that? I thought 
there were a couple of them in California. Anyway, the point is right, 
which is that they're not spread out. The other point is we're using 
something to kill something that isn't designed to work from the 
beginning. It just doesn't make any sense.
  As the gentleman has expanded the topic a little bit, let's talk 
about the different things that have been cut.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. TURNER. Before we move on, I would like to go to Representative 
Trent Franks who is the Chair of the Missile Defense Caucus of 
Arizona's Second District, elected in 2003. We were elected at the same 
time.
  Representative Franks was talking just today about the covert issue 
of Iran and what they have announced with their secondary site. You 
have been a leader on this, both in highlighting the issue, making sure 
that the technical discussion goes forward so people know what's at 
risk and what we have the capability of.
  But on the threat side, this administration has stepped forward and 
said that we have a threat that is not the same as we thought. They say 
it's lessened. Everybody else that I talked to believes that it's 
either increasing--but no one will say that it is actually diminishing.
  Representative Franks, I would love for you to talk about the threat 
issue to our families.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I appreciate the gentleman very much. I have 
to say, Mr. Speaker, I think all of the previous speakers have covered 
critically important points.
  Before I give a statement related to the European site primarily, I 
just want to say I was struck by the chairman or chairman-to-be, we 
hope, of the Strategic Forces Committee, your comments saying that the 
statement that was made by the IAEA related to Iran's nuclear 
capability came on the same day that the President decided to abandon 
the European site, I thought were profound. Because, in reality, this 
ostensible alternative that the President suggests that we can put in 
place of the ground-based system, we were going to build anyway.
  That's nothing new. All we have done is to take out the equation of 
the ground-based system that, as Mr. Akin says, would have had the 
actual capability of interdicting ICBMs. That's all we have really 
done.
  Of course, the system we were building in Europe could have protected 
the American homeland. Any ability to do that in this so-called 
alternative that we were going to build anyway will be out around 2020.
  I just appreciate the gentleman being able to point out that 
critically important point, because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the 
Obama administration's decision last week to abandon the European site 
will go down in history as a crossroads in European and American 
relations.
  I am afraid that this and future American generations may be greatly 
affected. When the administration decided to abandon U.S. plans for a 
ground-based missile defense site in Europe, I believe the President 
fundamentally disgraced and weakened this Nation by breaking his word 
to our loyal and courageous allies in the Czech Republic and Poland.
  Mr. Speaker, America has become the greatest Nation in history 
because our word has always meant something. The announcement to 
abandon the protective missile defense shield in Europe has 
fundamentally altered that paradigm. After the decision was announced, 
the newspaper headlines in Poland and the Czech Republic stated the 
situation in the very starkest of terms.
  One Czech newspaper had the quote: ``Betrayed, the U.S.A. has sold us 
to the Russians and stabbed us in the back.'' That's an incredible 
statement. In the Czech Republic, the daily Lidowe Noviny commented, 
that's one of their major newspapers, Obama gave in to the Kremlin. 
This has weakened America's place in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to abandon our faithful 
allies and instead placate Russian belligerence came on the 70th 
anniversary to the exact day of the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland 
after two of humanity's notorious monsters named Stalin and Hitler 
insidiously agreed to divide the nation of Poland between themselves.
  Our allies deserve better than that, Mr. Speaker, after they stood 
bravely in the face of Russian aggression and paid a tremendous price 
politically and otherwise to stand by us. They had a right to expect 
America to keep her word and to stand by them. But, ironically, Mr. 
Speaker, Mr. Obama's terribly flawed reasoning for the abandonment of 
the European missile defense site really has everything to do with 
Russia, because Russia has always hated the missile defense plan 
because they don't want American presence in their quote former 
``empire.'' Knowing that this would diminish Russia's influence in the 
region, even though the Russian military would not be threatened in any 
way by the European site, it would not be any real defense of any kind 
against the Russian federation strike.
  Russia's leaders know that if an American radar is placed in the 
Czech Republic and the American missile interceptors are placed in 
Poland, those two sovereign countries would be stepping further away 
from the shackles of Russian oppression in the East and joining with 
the Americans in the West for the cause of democratic independence and 
human freedom.
  Mr. AKIN. I think you just covered something that is absolutely 
amazing. You know, we don't put enough emphasis, maybe, on history. You 
are saying to the very day 70 years from the time Russia invaded Poland 
is when we just drove the knife in the back of Poland and cut the 
ground out for them as they were trying to defend their own country and 
the European countries. Is

[[Page H9986]]

that what I just heard, 70 years exactly to the day we just sold them 
down the river?
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Yes, sir. Of course, as Mr. Turner said, on 
the exact day that the IAEA said that Iran was gaining nuclear 
capability.
  Mr. AKIN. On the same day that the IAEA is saying that Iran is 
gaining nuclear capabilities; and 70 years before when Poland was 
invaded, we make the brilliant decision to abandon Poland, to abandon 
the one tool we have to stop intercontinental ballistic missiles and 
hold this fig leaf of an excuse that we could use a medium-range 
missile to try to stop things. This is a horrible decision.
  Mr. TURNER. The important point, I think, for the IAEA's, 
International Atomic Energy Agency, statement is that they are saying 
it's no longer theoretical. I mean, we are not standing on the House 
floor, the four of us, saying that we are ringing a bell of the threat 
to the United States. This independent International Atomic Energy 
Agency says that Iran has the capability now, today. It's not as if 
someone is saying in projecting the future, this independent agency, 
which is charged for overseeing this, being the agency that is supposed 
to know what capability that countries have, has made this announcement 
saying that they are today capable of making a bomb.
  When you couple that with what Iran has accomplished with their 
missiles, having already put a satellite into orbit, again, we are not 
talking theoretical again. This is not as if we are projecting that 
some day Iran is going to have a missile. Iran used a missile to place 
a satellite in orbit, the same technology that you would be utilizing 
in order to reach the continental United States.
  Those two technologies, the nuclear capability and the missile 
technology capability, are coming together to be a real threat to the 
United States. Now, here is the thing that just confuses me most about 
the administration's statements.
  We know that the plan that they just scrapped would have placed 
interceptors and radar in Europe that would have been available to 
protect the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles 
projected by 2013, could be 2014; 2013 is when it was projected to be 
completed.

  The President comes forward with his plan and says Iran is going 
slower--no indication that anyone has or that we have that Iran is 
going slower--but all intelligence says that Iran could have this 
capability to reach the United States with their nuclear weapon by 
2015. The President comes forward with a plan that says we are going to 
be ready and able to protect the continental United States by 2020?
  This is a gap of 5 years there, even if you use the President's 
numbers. You use their numbers, you go to their Web site and you see 
2020. You see Iran's capability from all intelligence agencies is 2015, 
and they could be sooner. As Ranking Member McKeon said, they could buy 
it, or they could have advances.
  But this President, sitting here in 2009 says, I don't have to be 
prepared. The next generation isn't going to be prepared for the next 
11 years; 2020 is 11 years away; and he says, I am not going to have 
the capability, I don't need the capability. I don't need the 
capability to protect ourselves from a country that the International 
Atomic Energy Agency says has the capability to produce a nuclear 
weapon and where our intelligence agencies say will have the capability 
of a missile.
  Representative Franks, I know you have some thoughts on that.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. You are exactly right. Here is the thing that 
is most profound to me. Since the timeframe that you mentioned is 
correct, that means that any alternative system could come far too late 
to have any influence on Iran's calculus to go forward with its missile 
program or its nuclear program.
  The idea if we had the ability to knock down anything they threw up, 
anything that they should launch, if they knew that America could 
interdict those missiles, all of a sudden they might say we are taking 
a tremendous chance, maybe on a military intervention here. You never 
know, and if the Americans can knock this down anyway, maybe we should 
reconsider. That was the hope.
  Mr. TURNER. You are right, the deterrence, the deterrence effect it 
would be.
  Speak for a minute, Representative Franks, on Russia because this 
also amazes me. This President has had Russia say to him abandon your 
missile defense of the country. He has done so without a concession 
from Russia. At the same time he is on the eve of going into the START 
negotiations where Russia is going to be asking for additional 
concessions from the United States. But there are those in the press, 
because I was on a couple of talks shows, and they said, well, this 
really isn't about Russia because this missile defense system was no 
threat to Russia.
  Why is it, if it's no threat to Russia, that Russia would be asking 
or that we should be conceding? Do you really think the administration 
is going to be able to advance our security by putting our missile 
defense system down for Russia?
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, I absolutely do not. You know, we have 
had a lot of Russian belligerence lately, as you know. They have spoken 
against this for a long time. But the report surfaced in March of this 
year that the President was going to offer Russia a promise that the 
United States would not build the missile defense site if Moscow would 
commit to helping us to discourage Iran's nuclear program. That was the 
so-called equation.
  But you have to recall that Russia was actually the one who has 
already delivered nuclear fuel to Iran. They were the one who was paid 
$800 million to help build the Bushehr power plant in Iran that could 
have implications for building fissile material in the future. Of 
course, they have been complicit in helping them with their missile 
program.
  Moreover, it is just this week--I think this is an important thing to 
know--Venezuela's Hugo Chavez announced the purchase of more than $2 
billion in arms from Russia, including rocket technology, and has 
declared that Venezuela will get started on a nuclear program with 
Iran's help. This is some sort of unholy alliance here. To somehow 
suggest that Russia is going to be a help here, I think, is naive 
beyond degree.
  Mr. TURNER. Representative Bishop, you were talking about the issue 
of our industrial base. It has a huge impact when we defund programs 
because then we lose capabilities that we currently have. If we are not 
making these interceptors anymore, or if we are lessening the number of 
interceptors, then we are diminishing our capabilities to defend 
ourselves.
  But we pay a really great cost in the issue of innovation. When you 
defund a program, not only do you lose the intellectual capital that's 
there, but what we want to do next suffers. I know you have been a big 
advocate for ensuring that we invest in our industrial base and for 
ingenuity in the future.

  What are your thoughts on what actions that the administration has 
taken, its impact now?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, we were talking about cutting back on all 
of these missile defense programs, not in Europe, but also with our 
ground-based kinetic energy to save $1.8 billion. If we look at what we 
have been throwing around for stimulus money, for other types of 
programs, even Cash for Clunkers, it kind of is very small in 
relationship to the impact it is having on research and development. 
What does it actually cost to try to defend this country?
  I appreciate the historical context some of you have been putting 
into it. The fact that the decision in Europe was announced 70 years to 
the day, let's face it, if you want to go to some other irony, the time 
that Secretary Gates was saying that he was going to stop the 
production of more than 30 ground-based missiles in the KEI was the 
exact same day the North Koreans were shooting a missile that was 
threatening Japan going over it.
  He was holding a press conference, reassuring the State of Hawaii 
that we had enough missile defense system to protect everybody on the 
date of their second shot. I think one of the things we need to do in 
America is quit holding press conferences about our missile defense and 
making decisions, because something bad always happens on those 
particular days.

[[Page H9987]]

  But it is undisputable, the fact that every program that is started 
has glitches in them that have to be worked out. That's why you want an 
experienced work base to try to be there who have gone through that 
program, who have worked through it, who know what works and know what 
doesn't work so you don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. As you 
said, even if we were going to save $1.8 billion by not doing this, if 
at some point we realize along the line that 30 missiles is not enough 
to defend this entire country, it is going to cost significantly more 
than that to rebuild it.
  We, for example, on the ICBM rocket motor program wanted to keep a 
warm line in the industrial base so that we could churn out a minimum 
number of missile motors so that we could refurbish those ICBMs that we 
are going to keep. Well, we didn't put enough money in the budget to do 
that.
  What it meant was that there were people who were laid off because 
the private sector could not keep that warm line functioning. Even 
though the military knew they insisted they were going to have to have 
a warm line, what it meant in the long term was instead of putting 
about $10 million or $20 million in the line, they are going to have to 
put four times that much money to start the warm line project again.
  What I am trying to say is here--and we are throwing around a lot of 
numbers, let me try to make this easier--it is cheaper for us in the 
long run to keep an industrial base of experts so that we can maintain 
what we have and try to find the research and development to improve 
what we have.
  If we start and stop, it is expensive to restart, to reboot that 
program. It does not save us money in the long run.

                              {time}  1300

  It does not give us better defense in the long run. It does not help 
with research, and it doesn't help people who lose their jobs, gain 
their jobs and lose their jobs and uproot their families when we don't 
benefit from it in the long run.
  I appreciate you bringing that particular issue up.
  Mr. TURNER. One of the things I find fascinating about this 
administration's funding requests is that they've cut ground-based 
missiles in Alaska. They've cut the ground-based missiles that were 
planned to go into Europe. They have done so by trying to sell that 
they're committed to Aegis and THAAD as defensive systems. And in their 
plan that they put out upon canceling the system in Europe, they said 
we're going to invest more heavily in those systems.
  Well, let's look at what they really did. Because, obviously, if they 
say they're going to do it, we'd all think here that in this body, the 
legislation that's coming through this body would reflect the 
administration's commitment to that.
  However, although this administration has talked about increasing 
theater missile defense inventories, Aegis and THAAD, and have added 
$900 million in the budget, we're not seeing the sizable inventory 
increases reflected in the budget. For example, in FY 2010, the budget 
acquires less Aegis SM-3 interceptors than the initially projected FY 
2009.
  So what does that mean? It means that in FY 2009, when the budget 
came through this House, there was a certain level of purchases that 
had been indicated for the SM-3 interceptors. And what did the 
administration do? They came in asking for less. The FY 2009 budget 
projected that 24 additional SM-3s would be required in FY 2010; yet 
the FY 2010 budget requests only 18.
  Budget documents indicate that the SM-3 inventory will grow from 133 
interceptors to 329 within 5 years. Let's do that again. The budget 
documents indicate that the SM-3 inventory is supposed to grow from 133 
interceptors, what we currently have, to 329 within 5 years.
  Where will the additional SM-3s come from in the out years? If so, 
what other programs are going to be squeezed? How are they going to go 
from 133 to 329 when they're buying less than what was proposed? 
Where's the big request for the additional ones?
  The FY 2009 budget indicates three additional THAAD batteries will be 
acquired; yet the budget requests no funds for additional THAAD radars. 
According to the contractor, major suppliers could go cold in FY 2010. 
So for the administration to say, We're not against missile defense. 
We're not eliminating missile defense. We're just shifting focus. 
They're not shifting focus. They're not even buying what was planned.
  Representative Franks, I know you have been a big advocate for all of 
these systems.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I agree. I guess I just repeat that we were 
trying to build out these systems anyway. This was something that was 
already on the drawing board. We want to have a robust system that is 
able to interdict short-range, medium-range, and long-range. And THAAD 
and Aegis, none of us on the Republican side would argue one moment 
that those aren't important, but the challenge is that we're taking 
away our ground-based system, which these other things are still on the 
drawing board, in many cases.
  I thought that Mr. Bishop made a point that was so critical. It might 
be my last point here, Mr. Chairman, if you would let me make it, 
because it's really a quote to Mark Helperin in the Wall Street Journal 
after the President's decision last week to abandon the plans for the 
European missile defense site. He stated it this way, kind of that 
historic, 50,000-foot view thing that we're talking about. He said, 
``Stalin tested Truman with the Berlin Blockade, and Truman held fast. 
Khrushchev tested Kennedy, and in the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy 
refused to blink. In 1983, Andropov took the measure of Ronald Reagan, 
and, defying millions in the street, Reagan did not blink. Last week, 
the Iranian President and the Russian Prime Minister put Mr. Obama to 
the test, and he blinked not once, but twice. The price of such 
infirmity has always proven immensely high,'' Mr. Speaker, ``even if, 
as is the custom these days, the bill has yet to come.''
  Mr. Turner, I would just say this in closing here. If the Obama 
administration continues down this road of appeasement and denial, the 
Nation of Iran will gain nuclear weapons capability and pass that 
technology on to terrorists, as well as perhaps even the weapons, and 
this generation and so many to come will face the horrifying reality of 
nuclear jihad.
  Those of us who have been blessed to walk in the sunlight of freedom 
in this generation will relegate our children to walk in the minefield 
of nuclear terrorism in the next generation.
  I just hope that somehow reason can somehow be injected back into 
this system and we can understand, from a historical point of view, 
that when we stood up to despotism in the past, it was always a good 
thing. When we counted on appeasement, it always hurt us. I just pray 
that we can catch it soon enough here.
  I thank you for the opportunity.
  Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Representative Franks. I appreciate your 
comments on that. It's very important we look at this through the lens 
of the administration's policies with respect to Russia.
  There is no historical perspective where conceding to Russia early 
has ever gained anything at the bargaining table. When you concede to 
Russia prior to entering into negotiations, they say, What else am I 
going to get when I get to the negotiating table? They never say, Well, 
that was very great of you, and I appreciate what you have done. I'm 
now going to do something, too.
  In this instance, the President had already signaled in a letter that 
allegedly went out in the beginning of the year that he was willing to 
look at conceding on missile defense for Russia's help on Iran without 
any indication whatsoever that Russia is willing to help. In fact, as 
you have pointed out, Representative Franks, they have done the 
opposite. They have been active in selling technology and providing 
technical assistance to Iran.
  But also, Iran has shown no indication of their interest in being 
dissuaded, and, in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency said, 
Time for persuasion and time for dissuading is over; that Iran is now 
declared by the International Atomic Energy Agency to have the 
capability to create a nuclear weapon. That was announced the very same 
day the President decides to

[[Page H9988]]

abandon the nuclear shield that we should have had with our missile 
defense shield, with the President moving from what would have been a 
2013 deployment for a missile defense shield in Europe to a 2020 
protection.
  So I appreciate your points with respect to Russia. As we enter the 
START negotiations, obviously we have a significant amount of concern 
as to what this administration is going to be doing with respect to our 
strategic assets, having already compromised on our missile defense.
  Representative Franks, thank you for being with us and participating 
in this.
  Just to recap for a moment as to where we are timewise, the President 
has put forth an alternative plan for missile defense that he says is 
going to be available for protection for the United States for 
intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2020. He scrapped the plan that 
was intended to provide protection for the United States from ICBMs by 
2013.

  All the intelligence that we have to date shows that Iran could have 
ICBM capability by 2015. The International Atomic Energy Agency says 
that Iran already has nuclear capability. Let's put that into a 
calendar.
  We would have had a system that would have protected us by 2013. The 
President has taken that off the table. The intelligence agencies say 
that Iran could have nuclear capability, coupled with missile 
technology, that could reach the United States by 2015. The President 
says, That's all right. We'll wait for another 5 years and have 
capability to protect the United States by 2020.
  That's an unreasonable time period to put the United States at threat 
with this threat, and it's one that we should all be concerned about.
  I have asked the President and the Secretary of Defense to declassify 
this report from the Institute for Defense Analyses. It's an 
unclassified excerpt, executive summary, which I'm holding here, of an 
independent assessment of the proposed deployment of ballistic missile 
defense systems in Europe that said that, actually, the system that he 
scrapped would have been the most cost effective. It would have been a 
system that would have provided 24-hour coverage at the least amount of 
cost and, by the calendar that we just have discussed, would have been 
available as early as 7 years earlier than the President's plan for 
protecting the United States.
  While the administration has dismantled our capabilities in Europe, 
at the same time they have cut missile defense overall by $1.2 billion, 
lessening our capabilities in some very important systems, including 
diminishing, by a third, our capabilities in Alaska.
  The administration has indicated that they can use our Alaska ground-
based missile systems to protect the United States if Iran should get 
capability earlier than their system is available in 2020, but to show 
their commitment to that system, they've cut it by a third. So we're 
actually going to have less capability there.
  Now, in addition to the lessening capability in Alaska, we are losing 
the opportunity for what would have been an integrated system. With 
THAAD and Aegis and the European system and Alaska, we would have had 
opportunities for multiple shots if the United States should have a 
threat that is posed to us. And, as Representative Franks indicated, 
this system, once in place, would have acted as deterrent to stop the 
advancement of missile technology and hopefully say to countries that 
the United States is advancing the type of technology that would 
provide us the important protection that we need.
  The impact of the President's decision on our European allies is one 
of which many people have grave concern. Both Poland and the Czech 
Republic are very concerned that this administration unilaterally made 
the decision to abandon the missile defense shield and to leave them 
having taken the step of agreeing with the United States, in the face 
of Russian opposition, without a United States partner there, without a 
system moving forward; both of those countries having made statements 
indicating their concern of a continuing strong relationship with the 
United States.
  I know that we all remain concerned about showing to our NATO allies 
that we remain committed to a strong missile defense for this country, 
strong deterrence in the area of nuclear proliferation, and this 
administration, by taking this step backward, weakens, overall, our 
capabilities and certainly those relationships.
  Representative Bishop, I know one of the areas that you spoke on at 
the House Armed Services Committee as we were moving forward with the 
National Defense Authorization Act was this overall cut to missile 
defense of $1.2 billion. When we look at what it's doing to Alaska, it 
is lessening our capability. The missile shield that was there was 
intended to have 40 interceptors. The administration has cut it to 30.
  They've significantly diminished the airborne laser. They have 
reduced the other programs that they've indicated that they're going to 
rely on with Aegis and THAAD, actually lessening the amount of 
investment that was projected in FY 2009.
  I know you're concerned about what that cut represents, and so am I. 
Perhaps you could speak for a moment on that $1.2 billion cut that this 
House and Senate and this administration is advancing at a time that we 
know that North Korea and Iran are getting increased technology.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, if sometimes you put a spin on it to try 
and allow talking not just necessarily about the numbers that we're 
throwing out there but the human face of what this means, about the 
individuals who actually are working in these programs to try and make 
this country more secure, they're the ones who are losing their jobs, 
which is okay if there's a long-term purpose. But I think you actually 
put it very well, brilliantly well, in saying so simply that the 
decision in Europe, instead of being prepared 2 years before the threat 
is viable, we're now going to change that to be prepared 5 years after 
the threat is viable. That makes no sense.
  In that term, saving a billion dollars is not necessarily in the best 
interest of this country. Not only do you hurt individuals who are 
working in that area, but you hurt the entire Nation, who is depending 
upon their results to provide us with some modicum of protection.
  Not only does it not make much sense to say, okay, we already have 
the holes dug, we're ready to put the missiles in there, and now we 
stop, even though all the parts are there; not only does it not make 
sense to say even though the missile is already at Vandenberg Air Base 
in California, we won't go ahead and finish the test to see if it would 
have worked or not or how effective it would be; those are not 
productive approaches. And it illustrates that we, as a country, are 
now in the position where we seem to be vacillating with not a clear 
and precise idea of where we want to be in the future and what we will 
use to defend ourselves in the future.
  As the gentleman from Ohio correctly said, even if your assumption is 
we'll take money and we'll shift it to some other place, to announce 
shortly after that you're going to flatline military spending and still 
want to find $60 billion in some kind of savings within the system 
doesn't mean we're actually going to move forward in any particular 
area. It puts us into a world that is very, very dangerous.
  In the 1930s, we decided to cut our fighter plane program because we 
wanted to save some money, and when World War II broke out, we found 
that our bombing runs were having over a 20 percent casualty rate, 
which was unconscionable. We stopped our bombing runs until we could 
build up the fighter program to accompany them.
  We no longer have that luxury of time. We live in a world where we no 
longer have the luxury of time, which Abraham Lincoln understood was 
part of the strategy you have in warfare. We don't have that anymore.
  We must be prepared now, not to find out we made structural and 
strategic mistakes sometime down in the future when we don't have the 
ability to repair that situation.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Representative Bishop. I appreciate your 
tenacity on this and your advocacy for national defense.
  To give a recap of the time frame that we're dealing with, this 
administration scrapped a plan that would

[[Page H9989]]

have provided a missile defense capability to the United States 
mainland from Europe that would have been available as early as 2013. 
All of our intelligence agencies are indicating that by 2015, Iran 
could have missile technology to reach the United States. That's why we 
needed that missile defense technology in 2013. They were going to have 
ICBM capability by 2015.
  The International Atomic Energy Agency said just last week that Iran 
already has the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. So when we're 
talking about 2015, and they are going to have the ICBM capability to 
reach the United States, we are talking about a missile perhaps with a 
nuclear warhead. This administration scraps that plan and, instead, 
proposes a plan that will not be available until 2020.
  So by all the information we have right now, this administration's 
action has a 5-year gap that has developed in the time period where the 
administration is accepting the capability by Iran without having the 
missile defense technology to protect the United States.
  What else are we hearing from Iran? Today there was an announcement 
that Iran has a covert uranium enrichment facility. This should come as 
no surprise. This is a country that has continued to seek missile 
technology, nuclear technology and nuclear capability. We understand 
that Tehran is not just trying to do this for civilian purposes, that 
it actually represents a threat to the United States, and that's why 
people have been such advocates to ensure that this country has the 
appropriate missile defense technology to protect the country.
  So the administration responds and says, It's not just 2020. We have 
capability in Alaska. That will be our backup plan. We can use our 
missiles in Alaska to protect the United States from Iran.
  The problem with that is that this administration, through this House 
just this year, cut Alaska's missile defense capabilities by a third. 
So we would have had our AEGIS and THAAD capability, we would have had 
our European capability, and we would have had our Alaska capability, 
perhaps for multiple shots that could have occurred in order to protect 
this country from Iran's quest for an ICBM with it, as is now said by 
the IAEA, to have a nuclear capability. Instead, this administration 
says, We're taking Europe off the table. We are going to rely on what 
we have, and we're going to take our Alaska capability and cut it by a 
third.
  It puts our country at risk. It puts our families at risk. The 
President should reverse this decision and should proceed with 
supporting our allies in NATO, supporting the Czech Republic and 
Poland, who have been there for us, and put the system in place, 
protecting the United States.
  The President said that the system that he is doing is more cost 
effective. There is a classified report--I have an unclassified version 
of it--an independent assessment of the proposed deployment of 
ballistic missile defense system in Europe. This report says that the 
most cost-effective plan was the one that he just scrapped. I will end 
with reading a letter that I sent to Secretary Gates, requesting that 
he make this independent assessment and study available. We hope that 
he releases it so we can have a robust debate on that.

                          ____________________