[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7436-7437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       ``A NEW DEFENSE POSTURE''

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 8, 2001

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to commend to his 
colleagues an editorial in the May 3, 2001, edition of the Omaha World-
Herald. Of particular note is the editorial's assessment of 
international reaction to President George W. Bush's May 1, 2001, 
speech on a national missile defense (NMD) system.
  In the weeks approaching the speech, many newspaper and magazines ran 
articles and editorials which criticized President Bush for his strong 
and vocal support for the development of NMD and for reassessment of 
the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Domestic opponents 
claimed that such views strain relations with key U.S. allies in Europe 
and Asia. And yet, after a major speech outlining the Administration's 
proposed approach to national security, U.S. allies appear to have 
reacted fairly positively by agreeing to talk about the approach, if 
not entirely support it.
  The cold war is over, and therefore it is entirely appropriate for 
the U.S. to re-evaluate the institutions and treaties from that era. It 
is this Member's hope that our allies will strongly

[[Page 7437]]

agree and will find upon review that President Bush's initiative to 
begin the development of a NMD system and to revamp arsenal cuts 
reflects careful reflection upon the long-term interests of the United 
States.

               [From the Omaha World Herald, May 3, 2001]

                         A New Defense Posture

       Call it Missile Defense III. It's not the largely 
     discredited Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative. It's not 
     the Clinton-nurtured limited shield. In fact, it's not clear 
     at this juncture what it is. But President Bush wants it and 
     is determined to get it if possible. And that may not be bad.
       The most salient aspect of Bush's freshly stated commitment 
     to a missile defense system is what didn't happen. The 
     international community didn't, for the most part, start 
     screaming to the heavens that the United States has become 
     frighteningly arrogant and is going to get everybody fried. 
     And that was largely because Bush had the good sense to get 
     in front of his Tuesday announcement with pre-emptive and 
     assuring phone calls to the world leaders who might be most 
     concerned. He and Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly 
     made two points:
       Although Bush finds the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 
     outmoded and only marginally effective, the United States is 
     not going to simply abrogate it without something to take its 
     place.
       There will be no change in Washington's international 
     nuclear-weapons understandings until such time as a missile 
     defense can reasonably be called workable.
       The biggest surprise of all may be that Moscow pronounced 
     itself, though not exactly happy, entirely willing to sit 
     down and discuss the matter rationally. That gets past what 
     could have been a substantial hurdle, because Russia has long 
     seen any sort of missile defense as a direct threat aimed at 
     neutralizing its nuclear strike capability. It has been 
     adamant on the point. But on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Igor 
     Ivanov said his nation ``is ready for consultations, and we 
     have something to say.''
       The biggest question about a missile defense is whether 
     such a bogglingly complex system can, in fact, ever work. 
     Results to date have not been encouraging. Efforts from the 
     Reagan era forward have cost more than $60 billion. Tests in 
     the '80s were spotty, and the few seeming successes were 
     later shown to have been either unrealistically simplistic or 
     just plain fudged. Three tests of a scaled-down system in the 
     '90s yielded two failures.
       The concept, nonetheless, remains appealing, particularly 
     to those old enough to remember the duck-and-cover classroom 
     drills of the 1950s. The less-stable post-Cold War world, 
     with the addition of such nations as Northern Korea, Iraq and 
     Iran to the list of potential nuclear threats, adds to that. 
     (In fairness, though,
       The ABM treaty is a sticking point, of sorts, but that 
     doesn't mean a new document can't be crafted to take its 
     place. Contrary, perhaps, to common perception, there is a 
     provision for withdrawing from it. Either Russia or the 
     United States can get out on six months' notice by explaining 
     that its ``supreme interests'' have been jeopardized by 
     events relating to the treaty.
       Bush, in his remarks on Tuesday, seemed to have been laying 
     the groundwork for such an assertion. In any case, this much 
     is certain: A functioning missile defense is incompatible 
     with the treaty, which forbids it. At least the president 
     chose not to figuratively rip the document up, which some of 
     his campaign rhetoric last fall seemed to suggest. He wants 
     to--at some undetermined point--take the legitimate exit 
     route.
       The president also wants to give back with one hand at 
     least part of what he proposes to take away with the other. 
     He's convinced (and he's probably right) that the United 
     States doesn't need nearly the nuclear arsenal it now 
     maintains. America has about 7,200 warheads; Russia, about 
     6,100. Under various START agreements and negotiations, both 
     nations have agreed to a target of 2,000 to 2,500. Bush has 
     said lately that he envisions still lower numbers, and Moscow 
     seems ready to go along. (Not the least of its reasons is the 
     cost savings.)
       Cost still casts a long shadow on the missile defense idea 
     as well, though. Defense Department sources say even a 
     rudimentary plan could start at $35 billion. One of the 
     proposal's harshest critics, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, 
     has fielded a figure almost 30 times higher; $1 trillion. At 
     such prices (in addition to what already has been spent), the 
     nation certainly deserves a system that works. Bush's 
     commitment to it should include a commitment to eliminating 
     the engineering hanky-panky that marked previous tests.
       In coming months, Bush and other top officials will be 
     fanning out over Asia and Europe, talking to America's allies 
     and seeking input--views to be taken into account. This has 
     all the earmarks of a rational, reasoned approach far 
     superior to the gunslinger rhetoric of last year's campaign. 
     It just might work. The administration is to be congratulated 
     for being both assertive and constructive.

     

                          ____________________