[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 213]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       REMARKS ON MISSILE DEFENSE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 24, 2002

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, never has the case for a national missile 
defense system been more firmly established than now. The terrorist 
attack of September 11, 2001, confirmed America's enemies are not only 
capable of killing innocent American civilians, but they are willing to 
carry out such acts of violence despite the certainty of America's 
ferocious retaliation.
  That the terrorists would have used long-range ballistic missiles, 
had they possessed them, is a proposition beyond dispute. Alarmingly, 
had even a single long-range missile been launched against the American 
people, our government would have only stood by powerless, unable to 
defend the very citizenry the Constitution charges it to protect.
  America's vulnerability to long-range ballistic missile attack exists 
today, and it is shameful because it is deliberate. For a myriad of 
reasons, American presidents and congressmen, generals and budget 
directors have ignored President Ronald Reagan's call for a national 
missile shield. They have hemmed and hawed, denied and ridiculed, or 
just plain procrastinated even in the face of the mounting threat to 
American liberty that is represented by the global proliferation of 
long-range missiles.
  Despite Reagan's clear and convincing arguments in favor of a 
national missile defense system, his prescient challenge to the 
American people has been relegated to the lowest of national 
priorities. Confronted with difficult decisions, the nation's 
politicians and military tacticians have routinely dismissed the 
warnings and summarily discounted the threats that forcefully warrant 
the deployment of a comprehensive, multi-layered missile defense 
framework.
  Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001, may have changed that.
  America's cold war strategy of mutually assured destruction, though 
precarious and risky, in the end proved sufficient when carried out 
against a single opponent whose goal was to at least preserve an 
independent sovereign state. However tense, the norms and rules of 
international diplomacy had meaning in the relationship between the 
Soviets and the United States. Times have changed.
  Despite the cold war's celebrated conclusion in 1991, the threat of 
missile attack has only been displaced. So-called ``rogue'' nations 
have stepped up efforts to demonstrate long-range ballistic missile 
capacity. Countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and others 
have actively pursued the capability to deliver chemical, biological, 
explosive, and nuclear warheads--and their rapid acquisition of these 
means have exceeded our best predictions.
  China has publicly threatened the use of nuclear missiles, and the 
possibility of accidental and unauthorized launches must be taken just 
as seriously. Americans can no longer rest their complacency upon the 
spurious belief their diplomats will always be able to talk our enemies 
out of harming us, or that they can spend enough cash from the U.S. 
Treasury to buy indifference and placate the rage of those inclined to 
bury us.
  Mr. Speaker, the technology exists today to pursue a robust missile 
defense system. Moreover, President George W. Bush's decision to 
withdraw from the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty removes perhaps 
the greatest diplomatic barrier to deployment. The opportunity of a 
space-based platform effectively means it is now possible to create a 
world where long-range nuclear missiles are rendered obsolete. 
Political will is the missing key ingredient.

                          ____________________