[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15247-15248]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 17, 2000

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
July 12, 2000, Omaha World Herald editorial entitled ``Another Reason 
to Hold Off.'' As the editorial correctly notes, this President should 
not make a decision on deployment of a missile defense system and 
should leave the decision to the next President. This Member has long 
supported the concept of a limited missile defense, however, a decision 
on deployment is premature. Ultimately a limited missile defense system 
is likely to prove feasible, especially in a sea-based deployment mode. 
A sea-based capacity can be readily deployed to an area of increased 
tension and directed more effectively at the missiles of a threat 
country, thus making it more feasible to destroy these missiles in the 
launch phase. This Member urges his colleagues to heed the admonition 
in this insightful editorial.

                       Another Reason to Hold Off

       If the proposed U.S. missile defense system were a demo 
     model on a car dealer's lot, the average American wouldn't 
     buy it--at least in its present condition. You step on the 
     accelerator and it doesn't go. Or you try to make a sharp 
     turn and the steering wheel comes off in your hands.
       That isn't to say it can't be made right. We hope it can. 
     But it certainly calls into question whether President 
     Clinton ought to put in motion the process that would 
     ultimately lead to its deployment. Our view is that the final 
     decision can wait.
       A choice not to decide is, after all, a decision in itself. 
     And at present, given the killer missile's sputtery test 
     record--last Saturday, the booster rocket somehow failed to 
     turn loose of the interceptor--it's the right one to make.
       It's a decision made easier by the fact that North Korea, 
     frequently mentioned as a ``rogue'' state that might try to 
     fling a nuclear missile or two at the United States:
       (1) Is generally judged not to be able to deploy one for at 
     least five years (probably

[[Page 15248]]

     quite a bit longer, in reality); and (2) is currently making 
     enough friendly noises about cooperation and even 
     reconciliation with the West and with its sister state to the 
     south that America may well come to view it with far less 
     concern.
       That still leaves other countries--Libya, Iran, Iraq, maybe 
     even Pakistan--that might someday pose such a threat. But 
     seasoned observers put their chances for fielding such 
     missiles in a much longer time frame than was ever projected 
     for North Korea.
       This system, if built, is estimated to cost $60 billion. 
     That may well be low; when did we last hear of a weapons 
     system coming in either on or under budget? Of its three 
     currently scheduled tests, it has now failed two.
       Mr. President, this important and costly device plainly 
     needs more work. Either Governor Bush or Vice President Gore, 
     as the next president, is more than capable of making the 
     decision. Let George or Al do it.

     

                          ____________________