[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5141-5142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DECLARATION OF POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING NATIONAL MISSILE 
                           DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 18, 1999

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4. 
This bill declares it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a 
national missile defense.
  This bill continues this body's tradition and mission to provide for 
the safety and security of our democracy and its citizens. If we can 
develop a system that can prove itself, in rigorous testing, capable of 
protecting this country from a limited missile attack, then I think we 
should support this project. I support this bill because of the 
importance of America's national security.
  In recent years, ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction 
technologies have proliferated at an alarming rate. The threat 
presented by these technologies, particularly from rogue states such as 
North Korea, Iraq, Libya and Iran, is growing more serious by the day. 
During the 105th Congress a bipartisan commission of national security 
experts was established to examine the threat to U.S. security. The 
commission's conclusions released in July 1998, indicate the threat 
posed to the United States by nations seeking to acquire ballistic 
missiles and weapons of mass destruction ``is broader, more mature and 
evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports 
by the intelligence community.'' In its conclusion the commission 
highlighted that the United States might have little or no warning 
before a ballistic missile threat is known.
  While the growing threat is sobering, we should be realistic in our 
pursuit of a national missile defense. At present Mr. Speaker, we do 
not have a system ready for deployment. In five tests of the anti-
missile interceptor known as THAAD, anti-missile interceptors have 
failed to hit a single target. We are a long way from being able to 
defend against a deliberate attack by a well-armed adversary let alone 
an accidental launch.
  I support this bill not because of the near term reality of a missile 
defense system but because of the growing threat to our national 
security. I further support this bill because of its limited scope. The 
bill does not say what will be deployed, when it will be deployed, or 
where it will be deployed. It would be imprudent for Congress to rush 
the technological development of a system, which remains unproven. If 
we deploy a system just for the sake of deploying a system we would be 
doing a grave disservice to the American people.
  In addition to deploying a system, which is cost effective and 
reliable, we also must consider the effect of a national missile 
defense on current treaties. We cannot push a national missile defense 
system so as to undermine the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 
II) or the potential to further reduce weapons of mass destruction in 
future treaties.
  In adopting today's bipartisan bill, this body is signaling its 
commitment to the future defense of our Republic. Missile defense is 
but one prong of a successful strategy against weapons of mass 
destruction that has been followed by the Clinton Administration and 
this Congress. The first prong of this strategy is the prevention of 
threats through arms control and nonproliferation treaties. Included in 
the first prong is disarmament assistance to the former Soviet Union 
and multilateral export controls. The second prong of our defense has 
been deterrence by maintaining the strength of the U.S. armed forces.
  I would have preferred to have the opportunity to vote for the Allen 
amendment. This amendment would have ensured that the deployment of a 
national missile defense was based on technology, threat and 
affordability.
  While I support this resolution, I will be monitoring the progress of 
the development of the

[[Page 5142]]

national missile defense system to ensure that it does not become a 
reckless waste of the American taxpayer's money. I would prefer to see 
a cost-effective system, which is ground based. Mr. Speaker, all 
Americans are concerned about the security of our nation and the 
protection of its citizens.
  As we proceed with the development of the national missile defense we 
should not lose sight of the successes which the first two prongs of 
our strategy have had in the defense against weapons of mass 
destruction. We would also be unwise not to heed the warnings of our 
intelligence community; this is why I will support the development of a 
national missile defense.

                          ____________________