[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21852-21857]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     PROFILING AND 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, I wanted to take a little time this 
afternoon and have an in-depth discussion on a couple of different 
issues that I think are very important with the current matters that we 
have facing us. The first matter I would like to discuss at some length 
would be profiling and the need for profiling for the national security 
of this country. I have some experience in security. I used to be a 
police officer. I have a pretty good idea of what we need to do to look 
out for suspects and how we can help and assist all citizens of this 
country, regardless of their background, in being sure that they are 
secure and safe as they walk the streets of this country, or as they go 
up into a building.
  The second thing I want to discuss at length this afternoon is 
missile defense. It is absolutely critical at this juncture in our 
Nation's history that we prepare, that we prepare a missile defense 
system for this Nation. Anything that falls short of a complete missile 
defense system for this Nation, in my opinion, would demonstrate 
dereliction of the duties that we have, the responsibilities that we 
accepted when we were sworn in to represent the people of this Nation.
  Let me start with profiling. I have seen, and I have been very 
disappointed and discouraged recently, about some people playing what I 
would call the race card against profiling. We have to talk in a very 
serious tone and with thoughts of the consequences of doing things and 
not doing things, about tools of enforcement that we can utilize within 
the borders of our country and outside the borders of our country and 
for the people that want to cross the borders of our country and for 
the people that want to leave the borders of our country, tools that we 
can use to help secure the national security. One of those tools is 
profiling.
  Now, let me distinguish at the very beginning the difference between 
what I describe and what I define as racial profiling, which most 
people in this country, including myself, are justified in opposing, 
and utilizing race as one of the components of a threat profile. We 
will see on this chart to my left, again, how do I define racial 
profiling. My colleagues will see I have obviously a red circle through 
racial profiling.
  Racial profiling is where that is the only determinant factor that 
one utilizes in one's profile construction. Now, obviously, if race is 
one's only determinant factor, the only factor considered, it raises a 
balloon for a very legitimate argument that one is creating or causing 
discrimination.
  Now, there are some cases where one may not have any other factors 
other than the person's ethnic background; and in that case, for 
example, one puts out a description only using the ethnic background 
because that is all the information one has. Let me give an example. 
One is called to the scene of a bank robbery and the witnesses at the

[[Page 21853]]

bank robbery, within moments after the bank robbery is committed, when 
you arrive at the bank, all they can tell you is I do not know what 
size they were, I did not see their face, but it was a white man. It 
was a white male. Then, one is justified in saying, in immediately 
putting out an alert, look, we know that the suspect was a white male. 
That is all we have at this point in time. All units be advised, there 
is a white male that just committed a bank robbery.
  I do not know anybody that says that is not a legitimate purpose or a 
legitimate means. But where one would run into problems and where one 
sees discrimination is if, for example, an Irish person is getting 
ready to get on a plane or an Arab is getting on a plane and simply 
because of the fact that their ethnic background is Muslim or Arab you 
pull them aside and question them, simply because, and the only 
determining factor in making that decision is their nationality or 
their ethnic background. That is not enough to justify it under our 
Constitution, in my opinion. I think it is discrimination, but we have 
to weigh out these situations.
  Now, I can tell my colleagues that my stand in utilizing ethnic, or 
not excluding, that is perhaps a better way to put it, my position is 
that we should not exclude ethnic background any more than we should 
exclude age or religion when we build a profile with a number of 
components.
  Now, some of the people who have opposed this frankly are taking 
examples, extreme examples of abuse by law enforcement where, in fact, 
they may be right, the people, the critics may be right, that in those 
particular cases, ethnic or what we would call racial profiling took 
place and there was a clear demonstration of discrimination. But let me 
tell my colleagues, for example, the other day in my debate I said, 
look, we have bad arrests in this country. We have a cop who makes a 
bad arrest, poor judgment. We have a lot of good police officers out 
there; but every once in a while, a bad police officer or a good police 
officer even makes a bad judgment call. If we have a bad arrest, should 
you immediately jump from the conclusion that you have had one bad 
arrest and therefore, logically, you should have no more arrests so 
that we avoid all future bad arrests? Of course we would not draw that 
kind of conclusion. That is exactly the type of conclusion that my 
critics are attempting to draw when I speak of national security and a 
profiling system that will help us protect our national security.
  What my critics try to do is they try to come out and say, look, here 
is a case. This person was detained as they wanted to board an 
airplane, only because of the fact that they were Arabic background. 
They are Arabs. That is the only reason they were detained. It is a 
clear case of discrimination. They go through all of these facts that 
of course make the case seem horrible. And maybe it was a bad, bad 
case. But that is not the situation that is occurring out there. I have 
said to people before, look, I realize that with the millions and 
millions of travelers that we have in this country every day, that 
there are going to be some select, some very select situations of 
discrimination. But it is very easy to overstate that number. It is 
very easy to criticize law enforcement. It is very easy to criticize 
airport security on this profile.
  What I have said to my critics is, produce the numbers. Show us case 
by case, and if we have a case where we have bad performance by law 
enforcement or bad performance by airport personnel or whatever 
personnel were involved in this, there ought to be discipline. Because 
we should have zero tolerance; zero tolerance for discrimination in 
this country.
  But let us not confuse who are the victims here. Who are the victims 
in this situation? Think about September 11. We have to quit being 
politically correct. What has happened is we have moved from being 
constitutionally correct to politically correct. I am telling my 
colleagues, there are law enforcement personnel, there are airport 
security personnel who are afraid to question certain individuals 
because they are afraid those particular individuals will complain that 
they are being discriminated against.

                              {time}  1645

  That seems the easiest get-out-of-jail-free card one could use. If 
they are detaining a person in the airport and one has any kind of 
ethnic leverage, they could just complain they are being discriminated 
against: Why are you searching me? You are discriminating against me.
  I have yet to meet one traveler, and I fly a lot, as my colleagues 
do, I have yet to meet one of our constituents or one traveler out 
there that is not willing to go through what is necessary, to search 
their baggage and their fellow passengers' baggage, so they know when 
they get on that aircraft that that aircraft has been secured and is 
safe to fly.
  Part of doing those kinds of checks, until we are able to put into 
place our computerized system which, through technology, will check 
every passenger that gets on that aircraft, their background, et 
cetera, through either eye scanning or other devices, will check every 
piece of cargo that goes underneath that aircraft, will check every bag 
that goes on that aircraft, whether it is a carry-on bag, whether it is 
a purse that somebody has over their shoulder, or whether it is 
checked-in baggage, until we get to that point, there is a certain 
amount of random selection that needs to take place.
  That, at this point, until we get that in there, is the best 
alternative we have. We have no other alternative. We have to maximize 
immediately the safety of travel within this Nation and the safety of 
the citizens of this Nation, our national security.
  So how do we build a profile? What kind of profile am I talking 
about? I think, for example, ethnic background is a legitimate 
component of it. Take a look. Here is typical of what I call ``threat 
profiling.'' That is what I am advocating here, threat profiling. Who 
is it we are up against?
  We have some people out there that want to do very terrible things. 
We have obviously seen firsthand what they have wanted to do, as a 
result of what happened at the Pentagon and in New York City.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Members, do not let people try and back us down by 
saying that the politically correct thing is to not question anybody 
who might be offended by questioning; do not dare approach anybody who 
could claim discrimination; do not infringe on anybody's right to board 
an aircraft simply because we are interested in a number of components 
for a profile.
  I actually have some constituents out there, Mr. Speaker, that think 
profiling, period, regardless of how we construct the profile, is not 
legitimate. I find that pretty interesting, because think about it, 
think about this: we find profiling in every avenue of our life. Think 
about it.
  Our schools, for example, our schools profile. Our schools profile 
which students are getting poor scores. Our schools profile 
neighborhoods: gosh, people from this side of the city are getting 
poorer scores than people from this side of the city. They profile by 
race; they profile by, okay, the white students in this age bracket at 
this grade are at this reading level, the black students are at this 
reading level, the Hispanic students are at this reading level, the 
Vietnamese are at this reading level.
  The colleges do it; they profile their top engineering students. We 
use it in education every day.
  We use it in marketing. We use it to assess risks. That is another 
area, in insurance and in marketing.
  The media, take a look at any newspaper or any television station 
that criticizes through editorials, or any radio station, and take a 
look at what they do. They profile every day of the week. They profile 
who their listeners are, who their viewers are, who is most likely to 
buy the products that they are trying to sell over their medium of 
communication. Of course they profile.
  Hospitals profile. Traffic is profiled. In fact, I challenge my 
colleagues to name one aspect, one aspect of our life that is not 
profiling. We profile. Our

[[Page 21854]]

political parties profile. Frankly, the political parties also profile 
based solely on race, in some cases, based solely on ethnic background.
  For example, they might say, hey, this is a black district. Let us go 
in, because the blacks tend to vote Democrat, so let us not profile 
anything other than how many blacks in there are registered. They 
profile strictly on one factor, and the Republicans do the same thing 
with contingencies of, let us say in a particular community it may be 
that the Irish in that community support the Republicans in bloc form. 
They go and they profile, too.
  What I am saying here is, for God's sakes, if we allow profiling for 
marketing purposes, if we allow profiling out there in our schools, if 
we allow profiling in every step of our lives, why do we not or why are 
we resistant at all to profiling to protect the national security of 
the United States of America?
  This is not a game. The nice guy finishes last here. In this kind of 
matter, the nice guy finishes last.
  Take a look at what we do when we buy insurance, for example. 
Insurance companies profile for risk. That is what I am asking that we 
continue to do. We need to profile for risk. What is our threat 
profile? What is the threat? What is the risk?
  Think about it with an insurance company. Nobody says this is an 
illegitimate or somehow not politically correct matter. It is a fact of 
insurance. If they are going to insure somebody, they had better assess 
their risk.
  It is the same as if anybody wants to invest in business. If one 
wants to invest, they had better assess their risk. That is exactly 
what profiling does.
  Back to insurance. Let us talk about insurance. We know, for example, 
that males between the ages of 16 years old and, say, 21 years old, and 
then an additional profile between 21 and 25, we know that males in 
that age bracket tend to speed more. We know they tend to drink and 
drive more. We know that they tend not to use their seatbelts.
  Members see what I am saying: we can begin to build a profile of why, 
when somebody is a 16-year-old driver, why we charge a higher insurance 
premium to a 16-year-old driver than we do to a 36-year-old female, 
mother of children, et cetera, et cetera.
  Members can see the comparisons. We know that the risk of a 36-year-
old female, say a mother, and there are some other classifications that 
can be put in, other components that can be put into the profile, is at 
much less risk of drinking and driving, for example. Probably uses her 
seatbelt every time she gets in the car; probably straps her children 
every time they get in the car.
  We can compare it to a 16-year-old white male who probably is not 
using that seatbelt, who speeds around, who is not, frankly, as mature 
as the 36-year-old is.
  It sounds like a lot of common sense. Nobody in these Chambers would 
disagree with this type of profiling. All I am saying is it is a huge 
mistake, a huge mistake for us to allow political pressure by a very 
select number of people to give any kind of commitment that we will not 
allow ethnic background to be considered as a component of a threat 
profile.
  We are correct, however, to accept pressure and to make commitments 
not to use as a profile the sole, the sole component of race, because, 
as we know, when the sole component is race only, that does tend to 
lead to the difficulty of discrimination which most people in this 
country, if not the overwhelming majority of people in this country, 
believe that discrimination should have no less than zero tolerance, 
zero tolerance for discrimination.
  So I am not a proponent of, nor are my colleagues proponents of, what 
I would call that type of racial profiling, where the only factor we 
have, looking to the left to my poster, the only factor that we have to 
consider is race or ethnic background.
  But I am strongly advocating that we continue to encourage, in fact 
that we mandate, until we come up with a better alternative, that we 
mandate threat profiling. It is common sense. It is not rocket science; 
it is common sense.
  For example, we can pretty well take a look at a person's behavior, 
what we may know about their behavior. We may know their age, we may 
know their gender, we know their nationality, we know the ethnic 
background. They may have certain flight information; for example, did 
they buy a one-way ticket, a round-trip ticket, et cetera, et cetera. 
We might know their religious background, educational background, 
criminal background.
  As we begin to get more and more information on these elements, the 
more information we get, the more accurate the threat profile becomes. 
Threat profiling is an essential law enforcement tool in this country. 
Threat profiling is no different than the type of profiling that many 
other walks of life utilize in our everyday life.
  As I said earlier, newspapers use it, TV stations use it; even the 
people who blast me in an editorial, for example, for what I call 
threat profiling, ask them what they know about their readership and 
how they got that information about their readership.
  The bottom line is simple. The bottom line is that I agree that 
ethnic background, and in fact, I advocate that ethnic background alone 
should not be used as the sole component of a profile. At that point, I 
think it is fair for us to call it racial profiling.
  But once we begin to use ethnic profiling as a component, one of 
several components to build a profile, I think it is very legitimate. I 
think it is smart. Obviously, it is constitutionally protected. It may 
not be politically correct, with a small number of people. It may be 
abused by a small number of law enforcement personnel.
  But overall, if it just saves one terrorist attack, and it will save 
a lot of terrorist attacks, we have proven evidence of that and we know 
it does, so if it can just assist our Nation and the citizens that we 
have a responsibility to protect in this Nation by giving them some 
assurance of protection and actual protection, then we ought to be 
using it.
  So I would ask my colleagues, as this continues, number one, very 
quickly ask for the facts of the abuses that are alleged. Ask them to 
lay out each particular case where this so-called abuse took place. We 
will find in some of those cases that abuse did in fact take place, but 
I believe Members will also find that most of these allegations are 
limited in number, maybe legitimate but limited in number.
  Then take a look at what a good threat profile, which allows as one 
of its components ethnic background, take a look at how much good that 
can do, how powerful that weapon is for protection of not just 
ourselves but protection of our fellow citizens.
  So I urge that my colleagues take into consideration and run away 
from the politically correct theory out there, and to take into 
consideration just how much we depend on threat profiling for the 
protection of our society.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to change subjects real quick and talk about one 
of my favorite topics, that is, missile defense.
  A little history on missile defense. We have a treaty called the 
Antiballistic Missile Treaty. My colleagues know what that is about. 
Back in the 1970s, there were only two nations, only two nations in the 
world, only two nations in the world that were capable of delivering a 
missile into the borders of the other nation: the United States and the 
Soviet Union.
  There was a theory back then that there was an arms race that was 
going to get out of control, and as one of the ways to slow down the 
arms race in the seventies, somebody came up with a theory: let us 
create what we call the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; in other words, 
antimissile. That is exactly what the treaty is called.
  What they said in that treaty, or the way they put kind of the 
structure of the treaty together, was to say, all right, if Russia is 
not allowed by treaty to build a defensive mechanism against U.S. 
missiles, Russia then would not initiate an attack against the United 
States because they would have no protection when the United States 
retaliated against Russia.
  It also works vice versa: Why would the United States initiate an 
attack

[[Page 21855]]

against the Soviet Union if the United States had no way to defend 
itself from the multiple missile warhead that the Soviet Union could 
deliver into the borders of the United States?
  So they put together this treaty. In this treaty, they said Russia 
will not build a defense system and the United States of America will 
not build a missile defense system.
  For many years the treaty really has gone unnoticed. A lot of people 
did not pay much attention to the treaty. In fact, we could ask the 
average citizen, and at one time one probably could have asked me, 
before I became a little more knowledgeable on the subject: Okay, if a 
foreign country launches a missile against the United States, what 
happens?
  If that person was somewhat up to speed they would say, well, we have 
the NORAD space command, the detection service in Colorado Springs and 
Cheyenne Mountain. It is a granite mountain. They hollowed out the 
inside of that mountain, and we have within that NORAD, the alliance 
between Canada and the United States of America, to detect missile 
launches, or to detect foreign objects, or to kind of put a radar in 
the sky; kind of our eye in the sky. That is NORAD.
  Then if somebody fires a missile against us, NORAD would be able to 
detect a missile launch, which yes, they can do anywhere in the world; 
they would be able to do it within a few seconds, and that is accurate. 
And they would be able to tell us where that missile is going to hit, 
and that is accurate. They would be able to tell us the speed of the 
missile, and that is accurate. They would be able probably tell us what 
type of missile it is, and that is accurate.
  But now we begin to leave the accuracy and what most people thought 
was the truth.

                              {time}  1700

  That was, once they figured all that out, we would somehow fire a 
missile and stop that missile from striking the United States, and that 
is a falsehood. The United States of America today does not have the 
capability to defend against an incoming missile.
  Let me tell my colleagues that just a month ago people were mocking, 
saying, the United States, nobody is ever going to fire a missile 
against the United States. I have advocated for some period of time 
that not only do we have to worry about an intentional launch of a 
missile against the United States of America, we have to worry about an 
accidental launch of a missile. We all know that the old Soviet Union 
had, what, 6- or 7,000 nuclear warheads. We cannot be assured today, 
even by the capable leadership of Russia, we cannot be assured by the 
leadership today that they have all of those weapons; that they know 
where all of these missiles are; that those missiles have all been kept 
up on their maintenance, et cetera; and some people would not take me 
seriously.
  Some people said, how can anybody accidentally launch a missile? 
About a month ago it happened. It happened in the Black Sea. The 
Ukrainian military launched a missile by accident, and what was the 
result? They shot down a passenger airline. They shot it right out of 
the sky by an accidental launch. If the Ukrainian military can launch, 
by accident, a missile against a passenger airplane, I can assure my 
colleagues that at some point in the future the United States of 
America, we, will be the victim, in my opinion, of an accidental 
launch.
  Let us shift real quickly from an accidental launch to an intentional 
launch. Remember, when the treaty was drafted in the 1970s, there were 
two countries capable of delivering a missile against each other. That 
was the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Let me tell my 
colleagues what has happened in the 25 years since the signing of that 
treaty.
  Take a look at this poster to my left. Again, let me reiterate, in 
the 1970s, when the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was negotiated and 
when it was signed, there were two countries capable of delivering 
missiles against each other, the Soviet Union and the United States of 
America.
  Look what has happened in the last 25 years or so. Countries that now 
possess ballistic missiles: Afghanistan, that is something we have 
heard about; Algeria; Argentina, look at it; Belarus; China; Czech 
Republic; Egypt; France; Jordan; Hungary; Russia; obviously Saudi 
Arabia; Slovakia; South Africa; Syria; Taiwan. The blue on this map 
indicates countries that now have ballistic missile capability.
  That is a big change. Twenty-five years ago the only blue on that 
would have been the Soviet Union and the United States. We would not 
have had any blue down here. We would not have any blue over here. We 
would not have had this blue over here, would not have blue around 
these areas, out there in Taiwan. That did not exist.
  We would say, well, did not people back in the 1970s, when they were 
talking about putting this Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty together, did 
they not think about that? Did they not ever think that maybe somebody 
in the future would also deliver or develop the capability for 
ballistic missiles? The answer to that is yes.
  In fact, the people that executed that treaty, the people who helped 
draft that treaty knew that the circumstances could change. They also 
knew when they put that treaty together that the circumstances could 
change so dramatically that the treaty would be of no use to either 
party, that the treaty would actually work to the detriment of the 
Soviet Union and to the detriment of the United States of America.
  I can tell my colleagues that today, actually several years ago, but 
today the point is here. This treaty is now a detriment to the national 
security interests of the United States of America. This treaty is now 
a detriment to the Soviet Union. Why should the United States of 
America not build a missile defense system? Why should the Soviet Union 
not build a missile defense system to protect their citizens and their 
allies, frankly?
  Look at what we have got going on today. We have a war going on in 
Afghanistan. What if we lost control? What if the Pakistani Government 
lost control of its nuclear missiles and nuclear capability? What if 
bin Laden got ahold of one of those missiles? Do my colleagues think he 
would hesitate for 1 second to fire that missile against the United 
States and destroy hundreds of thousands of people instantaneously? Of 
course he would not.
  We have an inherent obligation, it is our job, it is our 
responsibility, number one, to pull out of that treaty; and number two, 
to build a missile defense system that will protect the interests of 
the United States of America. And we can share that information; we can 
share that information with our allies like the Brits, for example, or 
the Italians, who support this, to go out and build their own missile 
defense system so they are not under a threat by some rogue country or 
under a threat by a very legitimate country that, by accident, launches 
a missile.
  What about that treaty? What did the treaty say? They did have the 
foresight, the people that drafted this treaty, they had the foresight 
to put provisions within the treaty that would allow us to abrogate the 
terms of the treaty. Within the four corners of that treaty, they 
foresaw that at some point in the future the circumstances of 1970 
might not match the circumstances of 2000 or 2001, and that is where we 
are today.
  Let me show my colleagues exactly what the treaty says. We are just 
going to look at an article on this treaty, but it is the pertinent 
clause of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that allows us, as a right, 
as a right, to withdraw from the treaty. We are not breaching the 
treaty. We are not breaking the treaty. And the Soviet Union, if they 
decided to withdraw from the treaty, would not be breaching the treaty, 
and they are not breaking the treaty.
  Some columnists in the journalistic world out there like to parlay to 
their viewers or their readers out there that if the United States or 
the Soviet Union were to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty that they would be breaching or breaking, like breaking a 
contract. These people obviously have not read the treaty because

[[Page 21856]]

the treaty, within its own four corners, within the document has 
specific, specific language about allowing a country, either the United 
States or the Soviet Union, to pull out of this treaty.
  Remember that no other nation in the world, no other nation in the 
world that has ballistic missile capability, no other nation in the 
world other than the United States and the Soviet Union is subject to 
this treaty. They can do anything they want. They are not subject to 
this treaty.
  Let us take a look at the specific language contained within the 
treaty that allows us to withdraw from the treaty. Article 15 of the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the poster to my left. ``This treaty 
shall be of unlimited duration.''
  Number two, key paragraph. ``Each party shall in exercising its 
national sovereignty,'' the word ``shall,'' ``have the right to 
withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary events 
related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its 
supreme interests.'' Let me go through it again. ``Each party shall in 
exercising its national sovereignty have the right,'' it is a right, it 
is not a breach of contract, it is not a breach of the treaty, it is a 
right contained within the contract, within the treaty, ``the right to 
withdraw from this treaty, if it decides that extraordinary events 
related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its 
supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other 
party 6 months prior to the withdrawal from the treaty. Such notice 
shall contain a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying 
party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.''
  Let us look at the key part of this paragraph. Number one, each party 
has the right. The Soviet Union has the right to pull out and the 
United States of America has the right to pull out from the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty. They have that right only if they decide that 
extraordinary events, extraordinary events, now, remember, that 
extraordinary events are not defined within the confines of that 
treaty. They are not defined. But I think we can define it within a 
couple of paragraphs, and I will show that in a few moments.
  ``If it decides that those events are related to the subject 
matter.'' Obviously, there are lots of events that are related to the 
subject matter of missile defense. Extraordinary things have happened 
in technology, in those people, that contain ballistic missiles in the 
last 25 years.
  ``Have jeopardized the supreme interest.'' I will state, 
jeopardization of our supreme interests must include within that 
category an accidental or intentional launch against the United States 
of America, not only by the Soviet Union, but by any other country or 
any other regime in the world that has the capability to do it.
  So what would be those extraordinary events that would justify this? 
Let us pull up the previous chart. This is an extraordinary event. 
Compare, look at what has happened in the last 25 years.
  Twenty-five years ago the United States of America and the Soviet 
Union had ballistic missile capability. They were the only two 
countries in the world that could deliver those missiles. And then some 
extraordinary things happened. All of a sudden other little countries 
all over the world begin to get not only nuclear capability but the 
ballistic missile capacity to deliver that nuclear capability, or a 
traditional warhead, conventional warhead, through the utilization of 
that missile. That is extraordinary, unfortunately, extraordinary in 
kind of a fearful way. But it is an extraordinary event that has taken 
place.
  If for one moment we do not think that the proliferation of these 
missiles throughout the world is not a threat to the national interests 
of the United States of America, of course it is a threat, and it is a 
direct threat. And mark my words, just the same as the Ukraine military 
by accident fired a surface-to-air missile and by accident brought down 
a passenger airline, at some point in the future of this country 
someone will either intentionally launch or accidentally launch a 
missile against the United States of America.
  Now, we can completely neutralize that treaty if we allow our 
administration, which has been very aggressive on their commitment to 
build a missile defense system for this country, we, every one of us in 
these Chambers, in my opinion, have an inherent obligation to help our 
administration build, first of all, we have the technology so it is to 
a point now where it is almost time to build missile defense for this 
country. This is an extraordinary event.
  Let me show some other extraordinary events, as if proliferation of 
ballistic missile capabilities throughout the world is not enough, 
standing alone, to fill out the definition of an extraordinary event. 
Let me show some others.
  The threat is real, as posted on my left. Rogue states and weapons of 
mass destruction. Among the 20 Third World countries that have or are 
in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. Take a look 
at this. These are extraordinary events as was intended by the people 
that drafted the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. These are the kind of 
extraordinary events that the drafters of this treaty must have thought 
of as a legitimate reason for the United States or for Russia to 
withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and to build a missile 
defense system that would protect the national security interests of 
their respective countries against a threat.
  Who would have ever imagined 25 years ago that the country of Iran 
would have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons and 
advanced technology for ballistic missiles? Who would have imagined 
that Iraq would have had nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological 
weapons and advanced ballistic missile technology? Libya, same thing. 
North Korea, same thing. Syria, same thing.
  These reflect, in my opinion, extraordinary events. These reflect the 
necessity as recognized by our administration, as recognized by George 
W. Bush, our President, and our Vice President, Dick Cheney, and their 
Cabinet, their very capable Cabinet. This indicates, it demands, it 
insists that the United States, that the leaders of this country back 
this administration and allow this country to go forward with a missile 
defense system. We owe it to our citizens.
  Now, until September 11, many people never thought it would happen 
and we could delay it to another day. Well, let the next generation 
worry about it. I am saying today, today, colleagues, we cannot afford 
to let the next generation worry about it.

                              {time}  1715

  We have to protect the next generation as well as this generation, 
and we have to do it as soon as we possibly can.
  The day is coming. The day of reckoning is coming when the question 
will be asked, or the question could be asked, why did we not stop that 
missile? Did we have the capability to stop that missile? Why did we 
not build a missile defense system? Or the day is coming when the 
comment could be made, thank goodness that our government saw fit and 
understood their responsibility to the national security interests of 
this Nation, and they put in place a missile defense system that 
stopped that accidental launch.
  And by the way, let me make a comment about all those people who are 
legitimately, well, I disagree with some of their points of view, but 
certainly have a protected right to be pacifists, who say, oh, my gosh, 
war is terrible. And, of course, all of us agree war is terrible. But 
just keep in mind what Winston Churchill said. He said, ``The only 
thing worse than war is losing one.'' Think about that. The only thing 
worse than war is losing one. And we can lose the war against missile 
defense if we do not provide missile defense for this country. But back 
to the pacifists. I think every pacifist in the United States, 
everybody opposed to the war in the United States of America should be 
urging and supporting President George W. Bush in his determination to 
build a defensive missile system for this country.
  Now, one might ask why. I will tell you why. Think about it. You 
could

[[Page 21857]]

avoid the next war if you had the capability of stopping a missile. Let 
us say, for example, that by accident some country, say North Korea or 
Russia, by accident, launched a couple of missiles against the United 
States; that the missiles were in such a silo arrangement and the 
electronics were such that there was a multiple launch, by accident. So 
the United States not only gets hit by one nuclear missile; it may get 
hit by one, two, or three nuclear missiles.
  If we had the capability to stop it, there would be no retribution, 
or the retribution would not at least come in the way of a nuclear 
missile fired back towards Russia. But if we did not have the 
capability to stop it, because we simply neglected to build a missile 
defense system for the protection of this country, because of that 
neglect we were not able to stop an accidental launch, we could very 
well find the United States with no choice but to retaliate for the 
horrible, horrible results of a nuclear missile strike against the 
United States.
  That is why I think that people who oppose missiles, who oppose war 
as an answer, that is why those people should be saying, look, the best 
way to disable missiles is to be able to defend against them. And we 
can actually make missiles obsolete in the future if in fact it is a 
weapon that can be defended against.
  If we were able to develop a bulletproof vest which covered the whole 
body, we could make the shooting of a bullet against a police officer 
an obsolete weapon. We have only been able to protect a part of the 
body, and we cannot protect it against all shots. But we are very, very 
close to having the complete technology to provide this country the 
kind of missile defense that it needs.
  Unfortunately, some of my colleagues are very stubborn. I cannot 
imagine or fathom why anyone in their right mind would object not to an 
offensive system but to a system that will bring down any type of 
missile attack against the United States of America. And I hope my 
colleagues never ever use in front of me the excuse, well, it is not 
going to happen, or the odds of this happening are so small. And by the 
way, keep in mind, colleagues, that a missile does not have to have a 
nuclear warhead on it. As we know, it could have a warhead of a high 
concentration of anthrax in it. The possibilities, the horrible 
possibilities of what can be delivered by a missile is unimaginable, 
just as unimaginable as 3 months ago somebody would have told us that 
the World Trade Center Towers would have collapsed and the Pentagon, 
hit all in a simultaneous act of terrorism. It was unimaginable 3 
months ago.
  It was unimaginable that the Ukraine Navy, or their military, on a 
military exercise, would accidentally launch a missile and bring down a 
passenger airline. These things take on a much more realistic view for 
us since September 11 of 2001.
  We are charged, my colleagues, with the responsibility of the 
security of this Nation, of the security of this Nation's people. And 
one of the tools that we must deploy immediately is missile defense. 
And as I said earlier, I do not understand how anyone could object to 
it. I guess we can complain about the cost. These things are expensive. 
Our defensive mechanisms in this country, our military operations, are 
expensive. We have no choice. But thank goodness a few years ago we 
spent money to make our military number one in the world; that when 
some SOB attacks our country, like these terrorists did, that we have 
the capability to defend ourselves.
  So please do not make money the issue, and do not make the issue that 
the technology is not there. I mean we did not have technology when the 
Wright brothers first flew an airplane. We did not have the technology 
to take that airplane across a State or fly it across the country or 
take it to high altitudes or to pressurize it. All of that technology 
came in steps. We had to start somewhere. Same thing with a car or 
anything else. We start somewhere.
  Our technology is advanced enough today for missile defense that the 
President is right; that the President's commitment to providing a 
missile defense for this country should be supported by each and every 
Member of the United States Congress. Any Member of the United States 
Congress who chooses not to provide a missile defense for this country 
ought to be questioned by their constituents in a public forum. And I 
would be very interested to see how they explain to their constituents 
that the United States does not need missile defense.
  And by the way, before my colleagues go out to their constituents, 
they better make sure not to get themselves in a corner by saying that 
we would be breaching a treaty; that the treaty prohibits us from doing 
that. Understand from my lesson today, from my comments today, that the 
treaty, in fact, allows us because of extraordinary events, which are 
very easy to justify, allows us, under extraordinary events, to 
withdraw from the treaty and build a missile defense system.
  So save yourself the embarrassment. Do not go out there and say the 
treaty does not allow it, because the treaty clearly does. Its language 
is as clear as can be that we are allowed to withdraw from the treaty, 
legitimately withdraw from the treaty and then build a missile defense 
system. And keep in mind, if you object to a missile defense system, 
not to get yourself in a corner on money. Obviously, we have to make 
sure the money is spent efficiently. We do not want pork. We do not 
want waste. But the technology is out there.
  Keep in mind that just 3 or 4 months ago we had the successful test. 
We had two missiles connect in space. Two missiles, an intercept 
missile and an offensive missile, coming into the United States. 
Obviously, it was a test. Both missiles were test missiles. It is 
working. Our technology has made giant steps towards being perfected so 
that it can provide an effective shield for the United States.
  That is what we are asking for. We are not asking with missile 
defense to enhance our capability to attack another nation, but there 
are lots of nations around the world that can do it. And as we now 
know, there are people in the world who wish great harm on this 
country. So all we are asking for is the capability to protect, to put 
a shield over the United States and give us the protection that our 
citizens deserve.
  Now, time is wasting. Ever since September 11 our realization of what 
can occur received kind of an aggressive jerk. We hit a pretty hard 
speed bump in the road. We now realize there are dangers out there that 
may be much closer to the United States than we ever imagined.
  So, colleagues, in conclusion with my two subjects today, let me say 
that I speak from the bottom of my heart when I say to my colleagues 
how critically important it is that all of us support President George 
W. Bush in his commitment to build a missile defense system for this 
Nation. We ought to give him a resounding ``yes'' vote. We ought to 
give this President what he needs to put that security blanket over the 
United States to prevent a missile attack against our country.
  And, finally, on my first subject of discussion this evening, do not 
run away from threat profiling. What we ought to prohibit is profiling 
that is based strictly on race alone. I am not asking for that. I think 
that does lead to discrimination, and I think we should have zero 
tolerance for discrimination. But I am saying that in the game, in the 
matter we are involved in right now, the nice guy finishes last. The 
politically correct guy finishes last.
  It is very important for us to allow our law enforcement agencies and 
our protection agencies to engage in what we call threat profiles. And 
threat profiles do not exclude ethnic background as an element or as a 
component, nor do they make that the exclusive element of the profile. 
It puts together a series of components so that we can then construct 
some type of risk profile, the same as we do in insurance, the same as 
we do in marketing, and the same as we do in our schools. It is exactly 
what we are asking to do for the national security of the United States 
of America.




                          ____________________