[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[House]
[Page 22430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              STRATEGY FOR GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for the creation of a 
new organization very much like the NATO organization to help us in the 
global fight against terrorism. NATO was the most successful 
organization in the modern history of the world for creating a 
cooperative defense structure. In fewer than 50 years, its principal 
enemy imploded without NATO ever having to declare war or engage in 
serious hostilities against that enemy, the former Soviet Union. Why 
did NATO succeed? I believe it succeeded for three reasons. First, 
there was a clear and obvious threat and enemy, the former Soviet 
Union.
  Second, defense against that threat was larger than any one country 
could handle. It required cooperation among Nations.
  Third, it was much more intelligent and efficient to have that 
cooperation so that costs, both economic and military, could be shared.
  The synergy that was created by the integration of the NATO countries 
permitted those NATO countries to forcefully make the argument to the 
rest of the world that the way of life that is based upon the rule of 
law, tolerance and freedom and the free enterprise system was far 
superior to the world view that NATO was opposed to.
  Today we are faced with a very different threat. It is the threat of 
an international network of terrorists who seek to destroy anyone who 
does not share their view of life and the world. That threat is not 
manageable by any one country. Even this one, as mighty and as powerful 
as it is, cannot defeat the threat of terrorism by itself.
  President Bush and the members of his administration have done an 
exemplary job since September 11, 2001, in knitting together an 
alliance of civilized nations and peoples everywhere in revulsion 
against the acts of September 11. That same kind of integration is 
necessary on a permanent basis to win the war against terrorism.
  Finally, the resources that are needed, the money, the intelligence, 
the arms, are much more powerful if they are multiplied and shared 
among nations.
  I believe that the first place to start with the creation of this new 
NATO is on the question of the development and deployment of national 
missile defense. As our President this week meets with President Putin 
of Russia, they have made great progress toward agreement between our 
two countries on the necessity of developing and deploying a weapon 
shield that would prevent innocent people from being attacked by an 
accidental or rogue strike of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
  I believe that shield must be constructed by far more than just two 
nations. I believe that to succeed against the new common enemy of the 
terrorist network, against the likelihood or certainty that that 
network will achieve the ability to deploy and use strategic weapons, 
that we need the creation of a new type of structure that follows and 
tracks NATO. We need a NATO for the 21st century. It should not be 
bound by geography the way the NATO that followed World War II was.
  I believe it should not even be bound by ideology as the first NATO 
was. It needs to be bound together by the common interest in preparing 
for the likelihood, some would say the certainty, of attack by 
terrorists with strategic weapons. Our President is taking an important 
first step in that regard in his meetings with the Russian president 
this week. I and the members of the other body wish him well. We need 
to build on the success that I believe will come this week.
  In the defense authorization bill which passed this Chamber and is 
now in conference with the other body, there is report language that 
was inserted at my request that encourages the administration to build 
on an existing regional missile defense system called the MEADS system. 
Presently, Italy and Spain have joined with the United States in 
pursuing this system. I believe that this instruction to the Department 
of Defense and our administration can lay the foundation for the 
development of a new NATO for the 21st century that will reach across 
nations, across oceans, across ideological divides to build and deploy 
a common defense shield against the use of the worst weapons of 
destruction by the worst destroyers that we have seen in the modern 
history of the world.
  On September 11, 2000, people would have said it was alarmist to 
worry about the construction of such a shield. On August 11, 2001, 
others still would have said that. But no one can say after the events 
of September 11, 2001, that any hideous evil is beyond the reach and 
imagination of people who are sworn to destroy us in these terrorist 
networks.
  We can hope that they do not get access to the weapons of mass 
destruction, or assume that they will. I believe we must prevent them 
from getting them with every fiber of our strength, but we also must 
assume that there will be failures and they will get access to these 
weapons. The only way to sustain a defense against this likelihood or 
probability is the creation of a defensive shield. I believe the only 
way to successfully create that shield is to follow the lessons of our 
predecessors when they built NATO: recognize the common threat of 
terrorism, recognize the futility of any one nation dealing with that 
common threat by itself, recognize the advantages of knitting together 
the resources of many nations to build that shield.
  When we do, the prosperity that will result, the humanity that will 
result, the respect among nations that will result, will provide the 
best evidence for those who are not under the shield that they should 
change their own governments, change their own countries and come 
within the protective shield of that umbrella.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not a partisan issue. It is not an issue between 
the legislative and executive branch. It is a matter of necessity. It 
is our time to learn the lessons which followed World War II, to build 
on the successes of World War II and build a permanent structure for 
peace, not only on the land but in the skies and in the heavens.
  I believe that the proper way to do that is by the construction and 
maintenance of a NATO-type structure that will defend us in space and 
in the air against the threat of errant or rogue or terrorist 
intercontinental ballistic missiles. I would urge Congress to follow 
that course.

                          ____________________