[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 5390]
[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. JERRY F. COSTELLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 18, 1999

  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4. This 
legislation would state unequivocally our position as a nation is to 
develop and deploy a missile defense system. In fact, the Pentagon has 
for years already been working on such a defense barrier. I oppose this 
legislation precisely because its passage will impede progress on 
proliferation and nuclear arms control, all for the sake of a feel-good 
but impractical change in our national defense policy.
  In January, the Clinton administration announced it would increase to 
$10 billion the funds necessary to develop a national missile defense, 
through the budget year 2005. I share the concern of administration 
officials who report that ``rogue nations'' like Iraq, North Korea or 
Libya may have technology which would allow them to deliver fatal 
warheads atop long-range missiles. However, that is exactly what the 
Pentagon's increase would address--how to prevent these missiles from 
landing on American soil. Their research program, similar in philosophy 
to the Patriot Missile we saw used during the Gulf War, is one I 
support.
  However, if the Congress passes this legislation, its policy effects 
will be far-reaching. Progress in nuclear non-proliferation and arms 
reduction with Russia will be jeopardized, as their leaders have stated 
this policy change will abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty. It makes no sense to me to send a dangerous signal to both our 
allies and treaty partners when in fact we are already underway in 
exploring the feasibility of a national missile defense system. The 
administration next spring will rule on whether the deployment of such 
a system is in our national interest, and therefore this legislation is 
premature in that regard as well. I intend to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

                          ____________________