[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19116-19120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            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. Mr. Speaker, first of all in regards to my colleague 
before he leaves the House floor, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird) I want to tell the gentleman he is exactly on point.
  As the gentleman from Washington knows, we probably came within 30 
minutes of a plane hitting this facility or the following day we had an 
evacuation notice of the Capitol. There is an interesting article that 
I just read about an hour ago in regards to executive replacement and 
how every corporation is being derelict in its duty to its shareholders 
if they do not have some type of transition plan for the chief 
executive. It talked about how many chief executives died unexpectedly 
last year and what it did to the corporations, including Atlas 
Corporation whose president died in a plane crash in the State of 
Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think many of us, including myself, were aware 
that there was no provision in place in light of a tragedy like this. 
Now because of this tragedy I think the gentleman has very competently 
brought up the issue that we better fill in that gap. I hope it never 
happens, but the fact is it might and we need to have something so that 
the beat goes on, as our friend, Sonny Bono, used to say. The beat can 
go on and that is what we need.
  I compliment the gentleman for his remarks.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) and I look forward to working with him on this.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am back here again. I know in 
the news recently the horrible, horrible tragedy that our Nation 
suffered and there are a couple of things I want to visit about today.
  First of all, I just returned from NATO meetings in Ottawa, Canada. I 
found those meetings very interesting. I want to go into some depth 
about the NATO meetings, our allies, the commitment from our allies and 
so on and so forth. I then want to talk about missile defense.
  It is time we got serious about missile defense in this country. I 
want to point out, although it has been buried in the news, about a 
week ago there was an accidental launch of a missile. It came somewhere 
from the Ukrainian military. They had no intention of that missile 
shooting down a passenger airliner and that is exactly what happened. 
That missile was not intentionally launched. It was launched by 
accident.
  That points out very clearly that if for nothing else, we should have 
a missile defense system in place in this country in case of an 
accidental launch of a nuclear weapon or a bio-weapon against this 
country if it were launched accidentally. We need a defense. So I 
intend to go into some depth of why missile defense is very applicable 
under today's times, why it is the responsibilities of us in our 
leadership roles for future generations as well as the current 
generations to put missile defense into place for the security of this 
Nation.

                              {time}  1430

  It is absolutely essential.
  Let me begin, however, with my remarks on NATO. I had the privilege, 
I have had the privilege, under the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman 
Bereuter) of serving on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. This week we 
had our meeting in Ottawa, Canada. We were there, in fact, when the 
United States deployed its response in Afghanistan to the terrible acts 
of September 11.
  I can tell the Members that in the past in these types of meetings, I 
appreciate our allies, but I am not sure all of them have been soundly 
behind the United States. Whatever doubts I had were put on the back 
burner as a result of this meeting. As many Members know, for the first 
time in 50 years, the first time in the history of NATO, NATO within a 
few hours activated Article V. Article V simply says that an attack 
against one NATO country is an attack against all NATO countries.
  As soon as NATO was advised of the attack that was occurring, 
simultaneously to the advisement in the United States of America, they 
began immediately to activate Article V. They had a completely 
unanimous approval of activating Article V.
  In Canada, it was very interesting, whether it was the Canadians, who 
have always been good allies to our north, sure, we have some minor 
scraps here and there, but keep in mind that the Canadian border, and 
Canada, by the way, is the second largest country in the world, that 
the Canadian border between Canada and the United States

[[Page 19117]]

is the longest border in the world across which an unfriendly shot has 
never been fired. Think about that. We have such great allies in 
Canada.
  Even our non-NATO ally, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, many of 
the recruiters that I have heard from, some of the recruiters are 
saying that, especially in the southern part of the States, that they 
are getting calls from Mexicans. They are getting calls from Mexicans 
in Mexico who want to enlist in our Armed Forces to fight for the 
United States of America. Think about that. That is a good neighbor. 
That is a good ally.
  When the going gets tough, that is when we count our friends. At this 
NATO conference, we could count our friends. Every member of NATO, 
every member of NATO, excluding none, would have to be counted as 
friends and allies of the United States of America. Those allies who 
could not assist us militarily, although all have offered to do that, 
those who could not assist us militarily are assisting us with 
intelligence information, are assisting us with disclosures of 
financial networks, are assisting us with hospital aid. Whatever we 
want, our allies in NATO have stepped up to the plate. They are willing 
to do it. They are willing to help the United States.
  Whoever envisioned that instead of the United States sending 
resources to Europe to assist a NATO country in Europe, that the 
European countries would be sending resources to the United States, to 
assist the United States in a time of need?
  I want Members to know that we have deployed NATO assets. Today as I 
speak, today as I speak we have NATO AWACS aircraft flying in U.S. 
airspace. What are they doing? They are replacing the United States 
aircraft that have been deployed to the theater of operation. They did 
not even hesitate for the deployment of military resources to come to 
that NATO member, the United States of America.
  And to our good friends to the north, Canada, let me say a word or 
two about Canada. Canada has some problems on its border. I think in 
Canada its immigration laws are not tightly enforced. But lo, the 
United States criticized Canada, and the United States has serious 
problems on our border.
  Take a look at how many student visas there are in this country, 
which means we have given the privilege to a non-American citizen from 
another country, including some countries that we list as terrorist 
countries, we have given them the privilege to study in the United 
States, and they have abused the privilege. They have broken the law. 
They are staying past the time that their student visa has expired. We 
have tens and tens and tens of thousands of those people in this 
country, so we certainly have no room to criticize Canada.
  But what Canada has done is come together with the United States in a 
joint effort to tighten our borders. That is exactly what America has 
to do. That is what every nation in NATO is now looking at doing.
  There is no reason whatsoever that when somebody comes across this 
border, that we do not have a face scan computer or face scan TV that 
tells us whether or not this person is wanted anywhere in the world. 
There is no reason at all that we should not search more of these 
vehicles, that we should not deploy the most technical equipment that 
we have to determine those people who want to provide ill will to the 
United States, to those criminals that want to come into the United 
States.
  To those people of cancer, of which I refer to as terrorists, and a 
terrorist is simply a horrible cancer that has attached itself to our 
body, there is cancer that wants to come across those borders. Canada 
has stepped forward with the United States and we are going to tighten 
these borders.
  Do not let people give us this garbage about privacy: ``We do not 
want them to invade our privacy.'' I can assure the American people 
that we are not about to violate the Constitution, the constitutional 
rights of privacy. Those will be protected. But by gosh, if they are 
going to come in our airports, if they are coming across our border, we 
will look in their luggage; and that may mean, frankly, to look in your 
underwear to see if you have a weapon hidden in there. Get used to it.
  It is not a violation of privacy, it is an inconvenience. That is 
what is happening. We are not going against the constitutional rights 
of privacy. We are not going to touch it. What we are touching is 
inconvenience. A lot of people do not like to be inconvenienced, but 
the fact is, our national security comes first. The national security 
of those allies, including our NATO allies, comes first.
  It is about time the United States of America woke up to the fact 
that not everybody loves us. There are a lot of people that hate us. 
Newsweek has a full-page cover about why they hate us. Do Members know 
why, in large regard, they hate us? It is no legitimate reason, in my 
point of view. Because we have been successful. It is because of the 
fact that in our society, we think women have equal rights; because in 
our society we believe, as best we can, that all people are created 
equal. Is that why they hate us? They hate the whole democratic 
process.
  Does that give legitimacy to their complaints about the United 
States? I cannot cuss here on the floor, but I can tell the Members 
very abruptly, of course it gives no legitimacy to that.
  But gosh, it was refreshing, it was wonderful to be in Ottawa, 
Canada, among our NATO allies to hear whether it was the Germans, 
whether it was Belgians, the French, pat us on the back and say a 
prayer for us.
  We went to the embassy, to our ambassador, who is doing a great job 
in Canada, the U.S. ambassador. We went to the U.S. embassy. They had 
displays of the outpouring of support for the United States in our day 
of tragedy. These are Canadian children, Canadian citizens, Canadian 
elderly, Canadian corporations, Canadian nonprofits; you name it, the 
outpouring was unbelievable: little cards that wished us well, from 
little children that did not understand really what was going on except 
that the United States had been hurt, and that the United States had 
been brought to its knees.
  But almost all of those letters acknowledged and admired and wanted 
to help a mighty country, a country that would be able to get back on 
that horse and ride that horse.
  So I will tell the Members, I think all of us, when we see one of our 
NATO allies, tell them, ``Thanks.'' Because in the time of need, there 
was no hesitation. There was not one member of NATO, not one member of 
NATO that hesitated. Every member jumped up. Every member was willing 
to do whatever was necessary to defeat that cancer that came across our 
borders, and defeat it we will.
  Let me say a special word not only for our Canadians in NATO, but 
also for the British. Many of the Members, and our constituents are 
probably aware, but a lot may be confused or may not understand just 
exactly what the British have done, the United Kingdom. They have stood 
with us from the moment it happened as if they had taken down Big Ben 
in London. I cannot say enough good things about the British and their 
commitment. Their flyers, their military people, they were there, just 
like the other NATO members.
  But what a privilege to be here and listen to our President, who by 
the way, has clearly exercised wonderful leadership capabilities; but 
what a privilege to sit in these chambers and listen to our President 
deliver a joint address, and see right over here to our left Tony Blair 
from the United Kingdom in these chambers as well. These are two very 
powerful leaders in this world, and we recognize our good friends from 
across the ocean, although it seems like they are just across the 
street.
  Let me say one final word again to Canada. I thank Canada for hosting 
the NATO meetings that we had up there. Canada is a wonderful country. 
The first time I heard about it was in Canada, that there was some type 
of push to make Canada a 51st State. The United States of America has 
no desire to make Canada the 51st State. The United States of America 
recognizes Canada as a strong ally, as a strong

[[Page 19118]]

country; a country of many, many wonderful things.
  We want Canada not as a sovereignty of the United States of America, 
we want Canada as a good neighbor, like a brother, like a sister on our 
borders.
  So that NATO meeting was successful. I want all of my colleagues to 
know just how important NATO is and how quickly they responded when the 
call came. When 911 went into NATO headquarters, the garage doors went 
up and the fire trucks came out. So my thanks to NATO, and I urge all 
my colleagues to thank them as well.
  Mr. Speaker, now I want to talk about the plague or the cancer that 
we all know about that has hit the United States. Let me tell the 
Members why I think it is a good analogy to compare this individual and 
his followers to a cancer.
  First of all, cancer does not pick its victims. It does not 
discriminate with its victims. Cancer can happen to you, it can happen 
to me. We all know that. I do not know anybody, or at least I have 
never met anybody, who has had cancer who thought that the cancer was a 
good neighbor, who thought there was some legitimate reason that that 
cancer was going to eat their body alive, who thought that they could 
just pray it off on prayer alone, who thought they could just hope it 
off on hope alone, or who thought they could just love the cancer off 
on love alone.
  Certainly all three of those factors are critical in a victory 
against cancer, but the reality of it is, if we want to get rid of 
cancer, we have to eradicate it. We have to go in and eliminate it.
  There is no difference between cancer and what this picture 
represents. We cannot allow this individual to legitimize his cause. We 
cannot accept the rumor or the falsehoods that this individual is 
trying to put out all over the world that somehow this is a battle 
against the Muslim population. That is ridiculous. It is not against 
the Muslims. He killed Muslims, keep that in mind. The bombing of the 
New York Trade Center had a lot of Muslims in there. It had a lot of 
people in there of the Islam faith.
  Do Members think he is out there for the faith? It is like telling a 
Catholic, look, go in the Catholic Church and shoot everybody, in the 
name of being a Catholic. That is exactly what this gentleman, or this 
horrible cancer, excuse me, that is a misuse of the word, this horrible 
cancer has done. He did not care whether they were Muslims or people of 
the Islam religion, he did not care whether they were Irish or black. 
There were 80 people from 80 separate countries in this world that were 
in there that are now missing or dead; all presumed dead, of course.
  So the fact is, we have to prepare our future for cancers like this. 
Now is the time. Just like cancer, we figured out that one thing we can 
do with cancer is preventative medicine: Start watching what we eat, 
start trying to avoid some things that we can avoid. The fact is, just 
like cancer, where we take a preventative step against it, that is 
exactly what this calls for. We have to anticipate that all future 
generations are going to face this type of cancer. We have to set the 
policy today that eradication of that cancer is the primary answer.
  Let me say, in heavy compliment to the administration, thank goodness 
we have some hands like Dick Cheney, like Colin Powell, like 
Condoleezza Rice, like Rumsfeld, like Ashcroft. We have experienced 
hands down there in the White House administering the emergency 
response, the war response, of this Nation.
  We have a President who has risen to the highest levels of leadership 
on the moment. When the 911 call went to the White House, this 
President responded as a President should. He did not go half-cocked. 
He did not walk out in the corral, pulling his six-shooter, shooting at 
anything that moved. This President took a deliberate course of 
response.
  I find that one of my colleagues this morning criticized the 
President, saying that 4 weeks was not enough time for the President to 
put together any type of response. Give me a break. Here is somebody 
who has not been involved, one of my colleagues not involved in the 
planning process. We are not down in the White House. Do not be 
mistaken. Do not let Congresspeople make us people that we are down in 
the war room helping the Pentagon and helping the administration plot 
which terrorist camp to blow up on which day and with what kind of 
weapons, and what kind of personnel are going to be necessary.

                              {time}  1445

  The Congress can criticize the President and in my opinion had no 
idea of the planning that went into this. Perhaps it was just the way 
to take advantage of the time, get a little media or something, my 
colleague got some media today, but in a time like this, maybe my 
colleague ought to be a little careful with those kind of responses 
because the fact is, I think the American people are confident, I am 
confident and I think the majority of my colleagues are confident that 
this President is doing what he needs to do, a deliberate, strong, 
decisive response.
  It is happening now even as we speak, and it will be happening a year 
from now as we speak; and probably it is going to be happening 5 years 
from now when we speak.
  This battle against cancer is going to take some time. We cannot get 
it all at once, and it is like brain surgery. It is just like taking a 
brain tumor. The brain cannot be blown out of a head. Well, that cures 
the cancer all right; but we all know the result of that, and we have 
to go in with very delicate fine tools and eradicate and eliminate that 
cancer to the extent that we can do it, and this is exactly what this 
operation is going to call for.
  One of the things I think we have got to look out for in the future 
clearly is something that we have heard, as cases in Florida have 
evolved in the last day or so, bioterrorism. Let me tell my colleagues 
that bioterrorism can be delivered in a missile.
  Why do I bring up missiles? Because it is very appropriate for this 
Nation to deploy, as soon as we possibly can, missile defense.
  I say to my colleagues, how many of your constituents out there 
currently think we have got a defense if somebody fired a missile 
against this country? Let me explain what we have. We have what is 
called NORAD. It is located in my good colleague's, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), district down in Colorado Springs. There is a 
mountain down there that is of granite, and they have taken the inside 
of that mountain; they have cored it out and they have put what we call 
NORAD in there. It is our detection system. It has other 
responsibilities, but detection is its primary tool, primary 
assignment.
  When somebody launches a missile, for example, 2 weeks ago or week 
and a half ago when the Ukraine launched a missile, unfortunately which 
hit a passenger airliner, when they launched that missile we were able 
to detect it. The United States detected that missile on its launch. We 
can detect any missile launch in the world. We know within seconds if a 
missile has been launched, and we can tell if a missile is headed to 
the United States or to Canada; and we can determine what kind of 
missile it is. We can determine the speed of the missile. We can 
determine what we think the payload of the missile is going to be.
  Guess what? We cannot stop it. Now, how crazy is that? What kind of 
shortsightedness would let us detect a missile but do nothing to stop 
the missile? That missile could contain a nuclear weapon, and most 
people assume that the missile would contain a nuclear weapon.
  What else? It could contain a weapon of bioterrorism. Think of that, 
a weapon of bioterrorism; and we have no defense against it as we speak 
today.
  We have a President who wants and feels very committed to deploying 
for this generation and future generations a missile defense system in 
this country. I have heard some of my colleagues say, oh my gosh, it is 
going to cost too much. What do they mean cost too much? That cost is 
minuscule compared to the costs if somebody launches a missile against 
the United States.
  Most of my colleagues here, most of us here, when we talk about 
missile defense we think about Russia launching

[[Page 19119]]

a missile against us or China launching a missile against us. Guess 
what, the horizon has expanded. There are a lot of people, as I will 
show on a later chart, there are a lot of people who now have the 
capabilities to launch a missile against the United States. We have a 
lot of countries who have the capability to generate bioterrorism, and 
missile delivery is one way of doing it.
  Just as important as an intentional launch is an accidental launch. 
Look what happened last week. The American people need to know that a 
week ago a missile was launched by mistake, by mistake by the Ukrainian 
military. They are denying it. First of all, they denied that their 
military practice was anywhere in the vicinity of that commercial 
airliner. Then they said, well, maybe they were in the vicinity; but 
certainly they were not firing or exercising at the time. Then they 
changed that and admitted, well, maybe they were in the area, and maybe 
they were exercising at the time; but the missile did not have the 
capability of hitting that commercial airliner, and I would probably 
guess or I would guess the next explanation they will have is, yes, 
they did fire the missile, but what was that airplane doing there in 
the first place.
  The fact is the Ukrainian military 10 days ago, and the American 
people need to know this, accidentally launched a missile against a 
commercial airliner and brought the commercial airliner down, killing 
everybody on board.
  My colleagues are going to say, well, missile defense, we are not 
talking about being able to defend an airliner over the Black Sea. No, 
but the key and the reason I bring this story up is that it happens. 
Missiles are launched by accident.
  What would happen if somebody like Russia by accident launched a 
nuclear missile on the United States? If we had the capability to stop 
that missile, before it hit the United States, we could very easily 
avoid the next war. Obviously, we would avoid a horrible, horrible 
disaster in the United States; but what kind of response would go to 
Russia if that missile, God forbid, hit New York City or some other 
city in this country? Would the response be a retaliation of firing a 
nuclear missile back into Russia?
  All of these conflicts are avoided if we are able to shoot that 
missile down because we have a missile defense system. A missile 
defense system does not need to be restricted just to America. We can 
share it with our allies. We can make missiles an ineffective weapon; 
and it will be a big step towards, in my opinion, the battle of 
bioterrorism.
  Let us look at another couple of charts here. Terrorist attack 
confirms the growing need for missile defense. Homeland defense is 
insufficient without missile defense. How do we guarantee the security 
of this Nation? By the way, we have an inherent obligation, we as 
Congressmen, and I say that generically, we as Congresspeople have an 
inherent obligation to the people that we serve, to the Nation that we 
serve to provide national security for our people. That is our job. 
That is our obligation. If my colleagues do not want to fulfill that or 
stand up to the line to do that, get out of this job because out of 435 
Congressmen we cannot afford to have one Congressman, we cannot afford 
to have one Congressman that does not consider their obligation to 
provide a national security blanket for the United States of America, 
and a key part of it is missile defense.
  Look at this. We have no defense, as I mentioned earlier; and if we 
thought the September 11 attacks were terrible, wait till a missile 
hits. We know that it can happen. Terrorist groups, not States, have 
the means to buy ballistic missiles. One of the things that is 
interesting is that the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have missiles. 
Now, fortunately, they are older missiles; but do my colleagues think 
that if bin Laden or any of his cancerous followers, do they think if 
any of them possessed a nuclear missile that they would not have used 
that weapon as their weapon of choice on September 11?
  Let me tell my colleagues, if those people get their hands on a 
missile, those of my colleagues who oppose the proposal and the 
commitment of this President and most of the Members of this Congress, 
I believe those who oppose missile defense better be ready to explain 
to their constituents why, when they had the opportunity, when the 
technology had become available, they decided that this Nation should 
not protect itself against people, cancerous people like bin Laden, who 
decide to lob a missile into this country. The only reason that bin 
Laden did not use a nuclear missile against the United States of 
America, the only reason is that he did not have it.
  I have got another chart I want to show. This is ballistic missile 
proliferation. Take a look at it. These are countries that now possess 
ballistic missiles. Let us talk for a minute about missile defense in 
the United States and why we have no defense up to this date.
  Years ago, in the seventies, the United States and Russia, some of 
our ivory tower thinkers got together, and I do not understand where 
they came up with this conclusion but they did, and they said the best 
way, since there are only really two nations in the world capable of 
delivering missiles of any kind of destructive capability, and they are 
the United States and Russia, since there are only two of us, the 
Soviet Union, let us go ahead and sign a treaty and we will call it the 
Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. In that treaty, they say, we will not 
attack you; you will not attack us.
  My point is that the treaty is obsolete. That treaty is no longer 
valid, and I want to show my colleagues why. It is valid by its terms, 
although one of the terms allows us to negate the treaty; and I intend 
to explain that tomorrow or next week on my further discussion of 
missile defense, but I want to point out something. Look at what has 
happened since the seventies. Look at everywhere there is purple, there 
is missiles; and in all of this purple area, do my colleagues not think 
there are not people that wish the destruction of the United States, 
that hate democracy, that hate rights for women, that hate capitalism? 
Of course it exists. It exists.
  I want to point out something further. For example, a good friend of 
mine, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is an expert 
in the military, pointed out to me not long ago, he said, Scott, keep 
in mind, that countries like Pakistan, which have possession of nuclear 
weapons, Pakistan, turn on the TV this afternoon and take a look at 
what is going on in Pakistan. There are some limited riots; but let us, 
for the sake of an argument, speculate about what happened if those 
riots became much more vast in their number and what happened if those 
people who support bin Laden got a hold and overthrew the Pakistani 
Government.
  All of the sudden we would have a bin Laden with nuclear 
capabilities, nuclear missiles; and guess what, because some of my 
colleagues might be stubborn about providing the United States with the 
security blanket of missile defense, we will not have a defense, and 
let me tell my colleagues, nuclear missiles are only that far away from 
people like bin Laden.
  My point in this speech today is to lay a foundation for my comments 
next week about the details of the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, about 
the necessity and frankly the responsibility of my fellow colleagues 
sitting here on the floor and representatives in the Senate, that 
obligation to provide the people of this Nation the type of defense 
apparatus that is necessary to give us the security so that we can live 
lives without a life of fear.
  I also wanted in my comments today, and I want to reiterate it, and 
that is my appreciation for countries that will assist us in this kind 
of defense, in putting together a missile defense system. There are 
countries out there like the United Kingdom and others that will help 
us with this defensive system; and at some point in time, they will be 
beneficiaries of it.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by again reiterating 
my deep appreciation and the deep appreciation of the United States of

[[Page 19120]]

America to our NATO allies, to all of our allies including Japan, 
Mexico, any of the allies that are not in NATO; but specifically I want 
to thank our NATO allies who, as I said earlier, when the 911 call came 
into their office, the garage doors opened and the fire trucks came 
out. Every country without exception, every nation in NATO responded 
immediately by putting up article 5 and by coming forward with the 
necessary resources or whatever help the United States requested.
  I want to remind everybody, today as I speak, flying over U.S. air 
space are NATO AWACS aircraft. Why? Because we needed the U.S. AWACS 
aircraft out into the theater of operations so we needed a backfill. 
NATO put the backfill in that fast. It is good to have friends, but it 
is even better to have friends when the going gets tough. By gosh, we 
know the going is tough, and now we can count the friends that really 
are friends.

                          ____________________