[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6588]
[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 Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, it is no secret that missile defense is 
perhaps one of the most significant national security issues facing the 
House this year. How our country decides to pursue reducing that 
specific threat affects how much we will be able to spend on other 
aspects of defense, how we will deal with our friends and allies, and 
how America participates in shaping the world.
  I do not oppose missile defense. Neither do many Democrats. But I 
believe, as with any aspect of national security, that our expenditure 
should be proportional to the threat posed.
  My friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), has laid out 
some very sound principles by which I believe we should proceed in 
considering our system, and that is a significant one.
  Reducing the missile threat should be a cooperative undertaking 
involving the United States, nations that wish us well, and nations 
that do not. Every missile not built is one we do not have to defend 
against.
  Developing our policy should also be a cooperative process, Madam 
Speaker. I hope the President will work with Congress in that effort. 
This is an area where I can assure the President that a bipartisanship 
is possible.
  I look forward to hearing from the expert, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I also compliment the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie) on his seminal work in this area. I thank him for 
that.
  Let me speak first about the threat as it involves military 
intelligence. Missile defense, if nothing else, is at the terminal end 
of military operations. Its use represents a failure to deter, and 
perhaps, more to the point, a missed opportunity to have assessed 
accurately intentions and activity of a potential enemy.
  There is no substitute, and I will repeat it, there is no substitute 
for comprehensive intelligence-gathering and analysis if the 
preventative value of missile defense is to be maximized.
  Now, there are several points that should be brought out that can be 
termed as principles on missile defense. The deployment of missile 
defense systems to protect our country and its interests is a decision 
that should be considered in the following context.
  First, missile defense investment must be measured in relation to 
other military requirements.
  Missile defense must counter a credible threat.
  Missile defense will require an integrated, fully-funded military and 
intelligence effort, and I will repeat, that reliability and timely 
intelligence is critical to the success of any missile defense system.
  Missile defense must be proven to work through rigorous, realistic 
testing prior to any final deployment decisions. In other words, it has 
to work.
  Missile defense must improve overall United States national security. 
This is fundamentally a question as to whether deploying defenses will 
encourage opponents to deploy counter-offenses, encouraging in the 
process a global missile proliferation race.
  Missile defense must be deployed with an understanding that those 
benefiting from its protection will share in its costs. That is, if the 
benefits of a missile defense system are extended to share with 
American allies in Europe or elsewhere, equitable burden-sharing 
arrangements need to be made.
  Finally, deployment of missile defense will be debated in relation to 
the provisions of the antiballistic missile defense system.
  Madam Speaker, the whole issue of missile defense will be a serious 
issue this year. The President is making a statement regarding that 
later today. It is an area where bipartisanship is needed. It is an 
area that I feel very certain that bipartisanship will happen, but we 
need to be thorough and not rush to judgment and do something that is 
wrong or inaccurate, or something that does not work or meets the 
threats that are obviously apparent.
  Again, let me commend our friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie), on his efforts. I look forward to hearing our friend, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who has done a great deal 
of work in this area.

                          ____________________