Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page

1A) The Nuclear Posture: What's Wrong with this Picture?

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, this new nuclear posture paper that the Bush administration has presented itself, from the Pentagon to the President, looks like an entry in a contest as to how many things can we find wrong with this picture.

   To begin, most shockingly, it proposes to reduce the barrier that has long existed against the use of nuclear weapons. It proposes that we consider using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. It proposes using nuclear weapons in a variety of ways previously uncontemplated, or at least not advocated in our policy.

   There are several things, of course, wrong with that. In the first place, any American policy of trying to discourage other countries to develop nuclear weapons could not be more seriously undermined by anything we do.

   The town drunk is not going to be very credible preaching temperance, and having America threaten a more promiscuous use of nuclear weapons makes no sense whatsoever. If, in fact, the policy were to be carried out, it would, of course, add greatly to the billions that would be spent in development of these newer weapons to be used in new situations, further straining our ability to meet important domestic needs. It could very well mean a violation of the proposal of the nuclear test ban treaty and of our, up until now, policy of not testing.

   Reducing the psychological, physical, strategic barrier to the use of nuclear weapons is a very, very poor policy; but there is a silver lining. As with the proposal to have the Pentagon lie to us and others, as with the proposal to use military tribunals in place of the American domestic courts, as the Attorney General once suggested, we are now being told, well, never mind.

   The Pentagon has developed a very interesting approach and the Bush administration with it. This is the third time we have seen very, very extreme proposals which when they encounter resistance we are told we should not have paid a great deal of attention to.

   I am unpersuaded that the proposals were not meant in the first place. I am pleased in the face of the very wide and very thoughtful criticism that these proposals have brought forth the administration backs down; but we cannot be sure that they have totally disappeared and of all of the proposals this suggestion, more than a suggestion, this policy review urging more use of nuclear weapons in more situations against more countries is really quite frightening.

   The President has justly commanded virtually unanimous support in the United States in his defense of America against terrorism. It cannot be in our interests for him to raise serious questions about his judgment in other strategic areas.

   It is important that this policy not simply be characterized as a mere option but, in fact, repudiated thoroughly. There cannot be continuing suggestion, even more than a suggestion, that the United States contemplates this sort of use of nuclear weapons. Its impact on our alliances will be corrosive. It will have a negative, rather than a positive, effect on our ability to persuade even those countries to which we are opposed to respond in sensible ways.

   The President's effort to work out some kind of role with Russia is undermined by this and particularly by the suggestion when he says he is going to take some nuclear weapons down, he simply means putting them in another place. This clearly undermines our efforts to reach agreement with China, with Russia and with a whole range of other countries; and it is a very embarrassing episode for the United States. I am pleased that the administration now appears to be backtracking, but it is important that we make sure that this one does not rise again.

   Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the RECORD at this point some very good discussions of the absolute fallacy of this proposal, today's editorial from the New York Times, ``America as Nuclear Rogue''; today's editorial from the Boston Globe, ``A Twisted Posture''; and a very good article in today's Boston Globe by the writer Thomas Oliphant entitled, ``Bush's Stealth Policy on Nuclear Arms.''

   I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is the last time the Pentagon is going to play this game of putting forward something that is so demoralizing that it has to be withdrawn. We would be much better if these kinds of grave errors were not made in the first place.

   Bush's Stealth Policy on N-Arms

   WASHINGTON.--It is not simply the fresh list of countries that the United States is willing to consider nuking someday.

   What is truly significant--as well as stupid, scary, and outrageous--is the almost casual breaking of long-standing policy taboos about the unthinkable and the implications of this cavalier attitude for relations with the rest of the world and for future arms races.

   The Russians and Chinese already know the United States is unilaterally departing from the 1972 treaty effectively banning missile defense systems. Now the world has reason to doubt the American commitment to the 1974 treaty to guard against nuclear proliferation as well as the honesty and good will of Bush administration ``pledges'' to cut back our post-Cold War nuclear arsenal and to maintain a moratorium on testing.

   The cover story the administration sought to peddle on last weekend's TV talk shows--via Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice--is that contingency plans to target Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, and China are more theoretical exercises than serious policy work and that no special notice need be taken.

   The cover story is belied by actual intentions as revealed to Congress in a freshly completed Nuclear Posture Review and in the very faint, fine print of the recently unveiled Bush budget. Over the weekend the headline-making list of countries leaked from Capitol Hill, but as part of a leak of the underlying policy document that began four weeks ago.

   On Feb. 13, the Natural Resources Defense Council--well-known for its thorough, documented research--put out the first detailed

[Page: H791]  GPO's PDF

   At the time, no one really noticed. With the addition of the countries, The Los Angeles Times got noticed. Here's the council's highly critical but accurate summary view four weeks ago:

   ``Behind the administration's rhetorical mask of post-Cold War restraint lie expansive plans to revitalize U.S. nuclear forces and all the elements that support them, within a so-called ``New Triad'' of capabilities that combine nuclear and conventional offensive strikes with missile defenses and nuclear weapons intrastructure.''

   If the basic purpose of nuclear weapons since the end of World War II had been to prevent their use and proliferation, the deadly serious review by the Bush administration--with the force plans and massive spending as accompaniments--results in a doctrine that contemplates their use and appears indifferent to their proliferation.

   Numbers tell a large chunk of the story. When the administration's intention unilaterally to abrogate the ABM treaty was made known, President Bush made much of a supposed intention to reduce its supply of deployed warheads from roughly 8,000 to below 4,000 in 2007 and eventually to between 1,700 and 2,200.

   What the posture review actually reveals is a plan to cut ``immediate force requirements'' for ``operationally deployed forces.'' What's going on here is more a change of terms than in posture, hidden by a new, gobbledygook accounting system that the council properly declared ``worthy of Enron.''

   Behind the clearly visible nuclear inventory, the council found a ``huge, hidden arsenal.'' It included, but no longer ``counted,'' warheads on two Trident submarines being overhauled at all times, as well as 160 more now listed as ``spare.'' It included nearly 5,000 intact warheads now in a status called ``inactive reserve,'' not to mention a few thousand more bombs and cruise missile warheads as part of a new ``responsive force.'' And on top of that there is to be a stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium and other components from which thousands more weapons could be assembled quickly. Extrapolating the information, the Defense Council estimated that the United States would have a total of 10,590 warheads at the end of 2006, compared with 10,656 this year.

   And there's more. The administration's posture review also discloses plans to greatly expand the nuclear war infrastructure and to prepare for a resumption of testing, in part to make possible a new generation of warheads that could penetrate deep into the ground.

   The rules of the nuclear road from the U.S. perspective have never included a flat-out promise never to be the first combatant to resort to nuclear war. During the Cold War, the United States was always prepared to go nuclear to stop a massive, conventional attack from the east in Europe, and before the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein got a stern message that all bets were off if he used chemical or biological weapons.

   But this is different. This is a plan to use nukes in conventional war-fighting and to maintain a Cold War-sized arsenal by stealth and deception. It is disgraceful.

--

   America as Nuclear Rogue

   If another country were planning to develop a new nuclear weapon and contemplating pre-emptive strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state. Yet such is the course recommended to President Bush by a new Pentagon planning paper that became public last weekend. Mr. Bush needs to send that document back to its authors and ask for a new version less menacing to the security of future American generations.

   The paper, the Nuclear Posture Review, proposes lowering the overall number of nuclear warheads, but widens the circumstances thought to justify a possible nuclear response and expands the list of countries considered potential nuclear targets. It envisions, for example, an American president threatening nuclear retaliation in case of ``an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, or a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan.''

   In a world where numerous countries are developing nuclear , biological and chemical weapons, it is quite right that America retain a credible nuclear deterrent. Where the Pentagon review goes very wrong is in lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons and in undermining the effectiveness of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

   The treaty, long America's main tool for discouraging non-nuclear countries from developing nuclear weapons, is backed by promises that as long as signatories stay non-nuclear and avoid combat alongside a nuclear ally, they will not be attacked with nuclear weapons. If the Pentagon proposals become American policy, that promise would be withdrawn and countries could conclude that they have no motive to stay non-nuclear . In fact, they may well decide they need nuclear weapons to avoid nuclear attack.

   The review also calls for the United States to develop a new nuclear warhead designed to blow up deep underground bunkers. Adding a new weapon to America's nuclear arsenal would normally require a resumption of nuclear testing, ending the voluntary moratorium on such tests that now helps restrain the nuclear weapons programs of countries like North Korea and Iran.

   Since the dawn of the nuclear age, American military planners have had to factor these enormously destructive weapons into their calculations. Their behavior has been tempered by the belief, shared by most thoughtful Americans, that the weapons should be used only when the nation's most basic interest or national survival is at risk, and that the unrestrained use of nuclear weapons in war could end life on earth as we know it. Nuclear weapons are not just another part of the military arsenal. They are different, and lowering the threshold for their use is reckless folly.

--

   A Twisted Posture

   The Bush administration's classified new Nuclear Posture Review, presented to Congress in early January and leaked this month to the Los Angeles Times, proposes new departures in the nation's military planning that are questionable at best and, at worst, truly dangerous and destabilizing.

   The Nuclear Posture Review, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, amounts to a blueprint for undertaking what Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Center at the Carnegie Endowment, calls ``a major expansion of the role of nuclear weapons in US military policy.'' The new posture calls for new nuclear weapons, new missions and uses for those weapons, and a readiness to resume nuclear testing.

   These are among the changes in US nuclear doctrine that make the leaked review dangerous. The hawkish proponents of these changes were lobbying for mininukes and deep-penetrating bunker-busters well before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. They were also proposing resumed nuclear testing before that nightmarish atrocity. The reality, however, is that nothing in the Nuclear Posture Review would be likely to deter or counter the threat from terrorists sharing Osama bin Laden's demented notion of a holy war against America.

   The review threatens to become destabilizing--and therefore to expand rather than reduce American security risks--because it recommends a lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. Until now, America's nuclear arsenal was plainly meant only to deter other nuclear powers--principally the defunct Soviet Union--from using against the United States or from invading Western Europe.

   Now those limits on the envisaged uses of nuclear weapons are to be abandoned. The new posture recommends that nuclear weapons ``could be employed against targets able to withstand nunnuclear attack,'' in response to another country's use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and ``in the event of surprising military developments.''

   If America, with its enormous technological and military advantages, says it is willing to resort to nuclear weapons under such vague conditions, what might nuclear states such as India and Pakistan be willing to do? And if the Pentagon conducts new tests of smaller, more usable nuclear warheads, why would India, Pakistan, and China not follow suit, ending the current suspension of nuclear tests and provoking a nuclear arms race?

   The Pentagon's plan for enhancing ``

1B) Iraq and UN Inspectors

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I refer my colleagues to an incident that has perhaps occurred without the knowledge of those who are lamenting that our dependence on imported oil has been relieved somewhat because prices are down. I call to the attention of my colleagues the fact that oil is now at a 6-month high. It is over $24.50 a barrel and going up. It is the highest in 6 months. This is caused by the cartel called OPEC and its commitment to maintain a price level somewhere between $22 and $28. They do that by addressing the supply of oil on the world market.

Another very significant event occurred yesterday. This event was the response of Saddam Hussein to a request from the United Nations that inspectors again be allowed into Iraq. Saddam Hussein in effect told us to take a hike. He refused to allow inspectors into his country. We have not had inspectors in there in over 2 years.

What does this mean? It is in the eyes of the beholder, but clearly he has made his call. The next call has to be made by our President and the U.N. Are we going to force our inspectors to go into Iraq? What are the circumstances surrounding this issue?

One can conjecture that if we look at bin Laden, at the al-Qaida, we will wish we would have taken action prior to what occurred in association with the terrorist attacks on New York at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the situation we are in of fighting terrorism. Could we have initiated an action sooner?

We could have, but we didn't. In the case of Iraq, the recognition that we all are very much aware that Saddam Hussein is proceeding with weapons of mass destruction, many of my colleagues perhaps saw the CNN hour program the night before last on Iraq, the fact that he is using poison gas on some of his own people; that he has developed mass destruction weapons with warheads that obviously have biological as well as perhaps nuclear capability, clearly a delivery system that would take them from Iraq to Israel, one has to wonder just when we are going to address this reality and how we are going to do it.

I won't belabor my point other than to try and draw some attention to the fact that, indeed, it is a time for alarm. This is a time when the United States is importing from Iraq nearly 800,000 barrels of oil a day. As we reflect on how to relieve that increasing dependence, how do Members reflect upon just how serious a threat Saddam Hussein is to peace in the western world? How do we address our concern over the reality that he has weapons of mass destruction? How are we going to reflect on just how we are going to reduce our dependence on oil from the Mideast when we look to the Saddam Husseins of this world to provide us with our needed oil as opposed to developing oil reserves here at home, either in the Gulf of Mexico or in the State of Alaska?

This is a factor we will have to face because at some point in time, clearly, we will have to address the threat of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It is my hope that we can somehow prevail on getting inspectors in there and relieving this threat. Saddam Hussein has clearly told us otherwise. He told us yesterday to go take a hike.

I know the beliefs of the Chair with regard to the national security interests of our Nation as we continue to depend on unstable sources for our energy. I wish that more Members would concern themselves with this threat.

1C) Opposition to Yucca Mountain

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the nuclear industry lobbyists are trying to simply pull the wool over our eyes. As well as most Members of Congress and the American people, we are gullible to some of their ludicrous remarks. They want us to believe that by supporting the Yucca Mountain project that the nuclear waste problem at over 100 commercial nuclear power plants will just disappear. Puff. Gone.

Now, I am not sure how many of us believe in fairy tales; but that is exactly what this is, a fairy tale of monumental proportions.

The truth is, there are over 100 nuclear waste sites around the country; and if Yucca Mountain was open, we would have not only those sites, but also Yucca Mountain, and high-level nuclear waste traveling across the country. After all, the waste will not just magically appear in Nevada, it will take at least 38 years and more than 96,000 truck shipments to transport the waste from 38 States. Mr. Speaker, the viability of Yucca Mountain is not just a fairy tale, it is a nightmare. Protect America. Oppose Yucca Mountain.

2A) Relevant Issues to Colorado and NMD
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to spending a little time with my colleagues this evening. There are a number of different issues I would like to talk about. But first of all, I want to mention a fine young man from Grand Junction, Colorado, Ryan Patterson. Ryan was just selected on Monday of this week as the best young scientist in the world. What Ryan did is, first of all, he has won several contests, scientific contests. He is a very, very gifted young man. He was back here, he racked up another $100,000 in scholarships and is being recognized here.

   Let me just go through a couple of things. Prior to Monday, he won $192,000 in scholarships, about $16,000 in cash, two laptop computers, two trips to Sweden to attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies. Throughout all of his achievements, he has obviously maintained his modesty. What Ryan did is came up with a glove, a glove-type of apparatus that can take sign languages, as they work sign language with the finger, and it instantaneously puts it into the written word in a little computer screen. So someone who only knows sign language or who has some other type of handicap and their primary language is sign language can actually go to a McDonald's restaurant or some restaurant, hold the little screen there and put it out instantly, instantly on to that screen.

   This is a young man still in high school; he is a senior in high school. I am awful proud of him. Obviously, he is from my district, Grand Junction. But the achievements and the recognitions he has received this last year probably top any other student in the country in the scientific field and, obviously, in the latest recognition he was seen as the youngest and best scientist in the world for his age. So Ryan, congratulations.

   I was going to speak and still intend to speak on some water issues. As my colleagues know, the district that I represent is in the State of Colorado. The State of Colorado is the highest point not only in the United States, but also the highest point on the continent. So I am going to speak a little about Colorado, the dynamics of our snowfall up there, some of the land, the dynamics of the land and the situation facing Colorado, facing all of the States. There are many States that depend on the State of Colorado. I will talk about the geographical nature, a number of different things that I want to visit with on Colorado, but that is going to come later.

   Today, I just pulled this off the computer, and I am amazed: ``Lawmakers doubt the need for a missile defense plan.'' As my colleagues know, I spend a great deal of time on this House floor talking about the absolute necessity for this Nation to have a missile defense. It is unbelievable to most of the citizens that I represent that this country, the United States of America, has no capability, zero capability, zero capability to stop an incoming missile into this country.

   Now, we have lots of capability to determine that a missile has been fired against this country. In fact, the primary location of that headquarters is in Colorado, NORAD, Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs. We can, within seconds, determine anywhere in the world that a missile has been launched. We can within seconds of those seconds determine where the destination of the missile is, what type of missile it probably is, what kind of warhead it is probably carrying, the estimated time of arrival. Beyond that, as far as preventing the horrible destruction that it could wreak, the havoc that it could wreak on the country that it is directed towards, the United States cannot do anything. Fortunately, our President and this administration, as have some previous administrations, have made a very dedicated effort towards providing this country with a national security blanket for some type of defense against a threat by enemy missiles.

   Now, I am amazed to read that some of my colleagues today in a committee hearing act as if a missile threat does not exist out there. Where were they a couple of days after September 11? Can my colleagues recall what happened on September 11? We know September 11. Can my colleagues recall what happened a few days shortly after September 11? Think about it. Think about a missile, what happened with a missile. Do we remember what happened with that missile? A missile was accidentally fired in the Black Sea by the Ukrainian Navy by accident. Guess what that missile hit? It hit an airliner and it blew the airliner out of the sky.

   Now, the horrible, horrible events of September 11 overshadowed this tragedy. The only reason I bring this tragedy back up to the House floor is there is a perfect example of a missile that was not intended, they did not intend to shoot down a commercial airliner, there was no intent to do that. That missile was targeted at that

   airliner by accident. Once that missile was launched off its ship, there was no way to stop it.

   Some people think that the only missile threat to the United States of America is an intentional missile launch against this country. Wake up, folks. I am telling my colleagues that there is another threat out there. It is called an accidental launch against this country. Think of Russia, how many nuclear warheaded missiles they have in that land. It is possible. In fact, it is pretty possible that at some point in the future, one of these ballistic missiles may be, totally innocently and by mistake, could be fired by one nation against another nation. I hope that our country has in place a defensive mechanism that could stop the horrible, horrible events that could follow an accidental launch of a missile. I will talk about intentional firings here in just a minute.

   But every peace activist in the world ought to be the biggest cheer leaders out there for a missile defense system. What would the United States do if, for example, a sequence of missiles fired by mistake were launched out of Russia against a major city in the United States of America? If the United States could stop those missiles before they did any damage, it is something that could be worked out at the bargaining table. But if the United States does not have, and some of my colleagues would wish upon the United States that we not have a missile defensive system, if we did not have a way to stop those, what would our response be if our Nation was hit by several simultaneous missiles from another country, and that country says, wait a minute, do not retaliate. We did it by accident, and we are sorry we wiped out four or five of your cities. We did it by accident. That is why I say peace activists. Let me tell my colleagues, it is a lot easier to sit down at a bargaining table if we were able to stop the incoming bullet than it is after we look around and see our colleagues dead and our cities destroyed.

   Now, let me read a couple of quotes. Let me say that I am not going to use the names of the colleagues that these quotes are attributed to, because I am not sure of the accuracy of these quotes, outside of the AP wire that I pulled it off of this evening. But let me say one of my colleagues says this: ``Why would someone send a missile when they can just put it in a suitcase?'' Well, my friend, my colleague, the fact is they can perhaps, we are not convinced of it, but they can, perhaps, put it in a suitcase, and we ought to prepare for that. But because they might put it in a suitcase does not mean they will not put it in a missile. I can tell my colleague right now that there are a lot more ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads sitting on them aimed at the United States than there are nuclear suitcases being carried around. Only because, frankly, they do not have the technology in a lot of countries to get their hands on a so-called nuclear suitcase. I can tell my colleagues that one ballistic nuclear missile makes that suitcase look like an amateur's program.

   These nuclear missile heads can destroy entire cities. They can launch countries into war. We better prepare for those. I can remember Margaret Thatcher at the World Economic Forum, Beaver Creek, Colorado, 3 years ago. I cannot quote her exactly, but I can remember the quote pretty closely. She stood up and she looked at our Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen at the time, under the Clinton administration, and her words were similar to this: she says, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, your Nation has a fundamental and fiduciary responsibility to provide its citizens with a missile defense system. Failure to do so would be pure neglect and would shirk your responsibility as a leader of this country.

   Now, that is pretty close to what Margaret Thatcher said, and that is right on point. Do not let some of my colleagues here be naysayers and say, well, it costs too much to defend ourselves. The fact is, we had better do something about these nuclear missiles. Do not try to convince our constituents that they do not exist, or that one is not going to be launched against the United States of America or one of our allies. We have the technology. We are almost there.

   Sure, it seems like a huge challenge right now. But what do Members think the airplanes seemed like to the Wright brothers? What did it seem like when they wanted to fire a weapon through a propeller on one of our fighter planes, when they were doing that? Look at all the technology. It is all a challenge.

   There were a lot of people who said it was impossible when they first did it, but we are talking about the future of this Nation, the security of our citizens. We have an absolute obligation, we have an inherent responsibility, to provide a security blanket for this country and for our allies.

   Let me go on. This is a quote, again, from my colleague. And again, let me say that this is from the AP wire, so I am not sure of its accuracy. That is why I am not mentioning which colleague said this. But if it is accurate, I will not hesitate next time I am up here to use the gentleman's name.

   It is inexcusable for this administration not to recognize that possibility and act on it. Speaking of this, why would somebody send a missile, instead of just putting it in a suitcase? One of the reasons they might is because they have one. There are a lot of countries in this world that have missiles. Let me show a poster.

   My poster: Ballistic Missile Proliferation. Look at this: Countries Possessing Ballistic Missiles. To my colleague who asked the question, Why would someone send a missile when they can just put it in a suitcase, well, maybe some of these countries here who do not have missiles would not send a missile. But look at these countries that have missiles. The reason they would send the missiles is because they have them. They have the capability. They have the accuracy of these missiles. Unfortunately, several of these countries have nuclear capability, nuclear warheads on the tops of those missiles.

   The day of wishing that there were not missiles out there aimed at the United States has long since passed. Wake up. The reality of it is, the United States is going to be a target. It was a target on September 11, it was a target in 1941, and it is going to be a target in the future. We are the leaders of this country. We are the ones who are charged with some kind of capability to look forward into the future and say, All right, what do we see as future threats against this Nation?

   One clue might be if Members have a map that looks like this, that has all of these countries in purple with missiles, one might kind of draw a conclusion, hey, in the future, one of the threats against our Nation is going to be a missile, a missile coming in, an incoming missile.

   As I said not many days after September 11, do not forget, that is exactly what happened. A missile was not fired at a U.S. commercial aircraft, but it was fired at a commercial airplane and it blew it out of the sky. This is by the Ukrainian navy. This is not exactly the most sophisticated navy in the world. This is not a country that is known for its military might. Yet, they are able to have the accuracy to fire a missile from a moving ship being rocked in the sea, fire that missile up and hit a small airliner in the sky and blow it to smithereens.

   We need to see these future threats. Those threats exist today; those threats exist in the future. We have a fundamental responsibility to address these threats.

   Let us talk about this. Here is what the missiles look like. That is the proliferation of missiles in this world. Imagine what it is going to look like in 10 years. How many of these white spots here are going to have ballistic missile capability?

   Now let us look at the next poster. Nuclear proliferation. Look at this: Countries possessing nuclear weapons: Britain, China, France, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia. Look over here: Of concern, we think Iran probably has nuclear capability. We think Iraq probably has nuclear capability. I am confident that North Korea has nuclear capability. Libya, I do not know; that one might be questionable.

   Members are saying to me that there is some question whether or not we need a missile defense when this many nations in the world have missile capability and have nuclear capability combined. Let me go on with a quote further. Again, the accuracy of this quote, I am depending on the AP press release. It came out of a committee hearing, apparently, by some of my colleagues.

   Here is one of my colleagues. By the way, he is a Democrat. The only reason I point out that my colleague is a Democrat is, come on, this is not a partisan issue. Do not just attack Bush on missile defense because he is a Republican. Put the partisanship aside. This is a threat to every one of us. Remember, these missiles are not going to discriminate between Republicans and Democrats. This is a bipartisan issue. Do not just attack the administration simply for political convenience.

   Listen to what this colleague of mine says: ``We can't afford to waste billions of dollars because of the Bush administration's theological fascination with missile defense.'' Now, this is the most ludicrous, ill-informed statement I have heard from any of my colleagues in my entire tenure in the United States Congress. This colleague of ours says, ``No threat assessment exists to justify the spending.''

   My colleague is not on the floor this evening to hear this. I wish he was. I wish he could come up here and discuss this with me, ``No threat exists today to justify it;'' not nuclear proliferation, not ballistic missile proliferation, not any of these countries over here to my left that have ballistic missile capabilities. In my colleague's opinion, none of this justifies, none of this justifies a missile defense security blanket for this country.

   Let me go on and read some other things. ``The administration's comments followed news reports on its new nuclear posture review.'' By the way, every administration does this. It says, ``The Pentagon is developing contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against countries developing weapons of mass destruction.''

   Let me ask my colleague, what are they going to do about a country like Iraq? Iraq poisoned its own people. They went out, and Saddam Hussein poisoned his own people in an attack against the Kurds. Do we think this guy is going to go to church with us on Sunday, or over to the temple or wherever? This is a very sick individual who may very well have weapons of mass destruction and is on a fast, mad race to accumulate as many weapons of mass destruction as he can get his hands on. How else are we going to address this?

   Do Members think they can trust this guy? Look at the history of Saddam Hussein. How many years did the United States deal with him on inspections? How often were the inspectors stopped at the gates, the inspectors? The United Nations finally threw their arms up in the air. They said, We cannot do it. We cannot get our inspections done. Why? Because this individual, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, has no intention of stopping their pursuit for weapons of mass destruction. That is a threat to the United States of America, and these weapons of mass destruction involve not only nuclear weapons, but ballistic missiles fired at the appropriate location.

   For example, take a look at North Korea and South Korea. North Korea does not need a nuclear missile to wreak havoc on South Korea. All they need to do is fire a couple of missiles, I think, 35 miles away and they can hit the city of Seoul; ballistic missiles, not nuclear warheads. What do Members think would happen to a city with a population of 20 million people if a few missiles hit one morning? What kind of panic would happen? Those are threats. Those are viable threats.

   The only way in the long run to provide some type of defense against these missiles is to build ourselves a security blanket. If we have a system that will stop an incoming missile, and the technology is there, or will be there, if we have that, it makes those missiles and it makes a lot of these countries' capabilities to strike not only at the United States less, but it also diminishes or eliminates their capability to strike at

   other countries in this world.

   We are being completely naive. We are refusing, maybe because we are afraid to, and I am speaking of some of my colleagues, we are refusing to confront the reality that we are not loved by everybody in this world. There are a lot of nations that would love to see the United States fail and be a nation destroyed. There are a lot of nations that, once they get the capability, if we do not have the capability, one, to retaliate, or two, to defend ourselves, they will not hesitate. They will not hesitate to take what steps are necessary to destroy the United States, for all historical purposes.

   How can we sit by idly and criticize the President, a President who realizes this, who has had the guts to step forward and say that we are going to confront it? No Chicken Little here. We have to face up to this fact.

   It is kind of like discovering cancer on oneself. We say, look, if I do not confront it, do not irritate it, maybe it will not spread. Yes, right. Do Members know what that cancer is going to do? It is going to spread. Do Members think it will stop because we hope it will not go any further; because we think by not confronting it, by not cutting it off, by not taking radiation or chemotherapy that it is going to stop; that it is going to stop because you are a great person? Do Members think it discriminates because of its victims?

   Just as deadly as cancer are some of these countries and people out there who are developing these weapons of mass destruction. Take a look at what they do. What is the number one country they trash? What is the number one country? They take their children as soon as they can learn and they teach them to hate the United States of America. Yet, we have Congressmen of the United States of America willing to say that, Gee, there is no threat assessment that exists to justify spending money for a missile defense system.

   I think Colin Powell said it best this weekend: One of the reasons for a nuclear policy, one of the reasons they called those missiles peacekeeping missiles, is because, and I am quoting Colin Powell, ``We think it is best for any potential adversary to have uncertainty in his or her calculus.'' We want people out there to know that if they decide to fire one of these ballistic missiles against the United States of America, if they decide to launch a September 11 attack against the United States of America, they are going to have in the back of their minds what type of retaliation this will bring upon them.

   Let me summarize what I have been saying here for the last 15 or 20 minutes.

   I was surprised today to pick up an AP wire entitled Lawmakers Doubt the Need for a Missile Defense System for This Country.'' That is naivete at its height. That is a remark based on kind of a shot from the hip, a reactionary remark.

   Think about the kind of threat that this country faces. It is not imaginary. We know that missiles have been launched by countries, including our own country, by mistake. Missiles are very lethal weapons and we add on top of the missile the leadership of a country that is politically unstable; we add on top of the missile a missile system that is not adequate, does not have adequate safeguards and could be fired by accident; we had on a missile, put on top of the missile itself a nuclear warhead; we continue to see the ballistic missile proliferation spread around the world, and then our colleague has the audacity to sit up and tell the rest of their colleagues that we should not be building a missile defense system, or as I quote, we cannot afford to waste billions of dollars because no threat assessment exists to justify the spending. No threat assessment exists to justify this spending. The threat not only is out there, it exists in a very threatening mode, and I am telling my colleagues the consequences.

   Do I think it is going to happen tomorrow? I hope not. Do I think a lot of countries are all of the sudden going to fire random missiles against the United States of America? No. But do I think countries throughout have that capability? There is no doubt they do. Do I think there are countries out there who are not friendly to the United States of America who, in fact, have made throughout their history open resentment towards the United States of America, had the capability and possessed missiles that could wreak destruction upon the United States of America today if they desire? The answer is yes.

   One of my colleagues, and I said earlier, one of my colleagues, and let me quote that colleague, ``Why would someone send a missile when they can just put it in a suitcase?'' The reason they would send the missile is because they had the missile. They have got the capability to wreak destruction with these missiles, and the other reason they would launch a missile is because they know the United States of America cannot defend itself against an incoming missile.

   What President Bush has done, Vice President DICK CHENEY, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, what this administration has done is not run from it, not pretend that the threat does not exist; but they have confronted it, and they have said to the world, and many of our allies, by the way, have joined in this statement, they have said to the world, the United States of America no longer intends to go into the future without a defense mechanism to protect its citizens and the citizens of our allies and our friends from a rogue nation firing a missile against us.

   It is unbelievable to me, unacceptable and frankly a violation of a fundamental obligation for any one of us on this floor to stand up and say that a missile threat does not exist against the United States of America in such a way that would justify us defending against it with a missile defensive system. That is stupidity, stupidity not referring to my particular colleague and his personality, but stupidity in the thought that by simply putting shades over your eyes, that the missile threat against the United States of America will just disappear. It makes as much sense as closing your eyes to cancer on your body and saying if I pretend it is not there or if I simply acknowledge that it is there and ignore it, saying that it does not justify me going to the doctor to see about this cancer, it will go away on its own. It will only grow, and it will only become more deadly and more threatening to a person's very existence; and the same thing happens here.

   Every one of us, whether Republican, whether Democrat, regardless of party affiliation, September 11 was a wake-up call for all of us and not just in the United States. September 11 was a wake-up call for the world. There are evil people out there who do not care who their victims are. It has been said 10 million times if it has been said once, the victims on September 11, they were not white Anglo, they were not U.S. citizens, restricted to those. They were every nationality, 80 different countries, all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. It did not matter. It was a son or daughter, mother or father, sister or brother.

   It did not matter to these people who did not care, and some of my colleagues who think that some of these evil people will care and will not launch a ballistic missile, and let me tell my colleagues they have got them out there, there are countries out there, will not launch some type of harmful missile against this country is naive. It is going to happen. It is going to happen at

   some point in time.

   The people who have made these remarks, if, in fact, they are accurate, I want my colleagues to put this in a little time keeper, and remember a few years from now, God forbid this ever happens to our country, but if it happens, I want my colleagues to remember the position they took in the U.S. House of Representatives with the statement, no threat assessment exists to justify the spending to build a ballistic missile system to protect our country.

   Let me wrap it up by telling my colleagues, we do not stand alone in the world. In fact, I think it is safe to say that every country in the world that could get their hands on a missile defense system mechanism would deploy it. Why? It only makes sense. It is like getting a bulletproof vest. The other side may complain. Maybe the criminal is going to complain because the police officer gets the advantage of a bulletproof vest, but if the criminal had the opportunity they would put them on, too. Why? Because it gives them an advantage.

   We have a lot of nations in this world that support the United States of America in building a missile defense system. We are in partnership with Canada. The Brits are supportive. The Italians are supportive. And I can guarantee my colleagues, once we get the technology mastered, there will be a lot of nations knocking on our door saying, hey, do you mind if we had that missile defense system; do you mind if we provide a security system for our citizens.

   So I urge my colleagues to reconsider some of the statements they have made today in opposition to a missile defense system, and frankly, get ready for it. My colleagues can jump up and down all they want for media attention, for partisanship advantage; but the fact is, this administration will do what is necessary to protect the citizens of this country with the security blanket for a missile defense. It is a critical and fundamental obligation that we have to not only our generation but future generations.

   Mr. Speaker, I am going to shift my comments pretty dramatically here. I was not going to speak about missile defense this evening because, frankly, I have had several discussions on the House floor here with my colleagues about that; but after I read those remarks today, I could not resist it. I mean, I felt fire in my belly to come up here to the House floor and talk about that.

   Now I want to move towards more the direction I had planned all week to come tonight and the comments I wanted to make.

   Let me start out as I said at the beginning of my comments, colleagues. My district's in the State of Colorado. For those of my colleagues that do not know, Colorado is the only State in the Union where all of its water runs out of the State. We have no water that comes into the State of Colorado for our use. All of our water goes out of the State, and Colorado's a very unique State in its geographical makeup and frankly in its geographical location and its elevation.

   It is the highest point on the continent. In our area, for example, I think there are 64 mountains in the United States, including Alaska, I think 64 mountains that are over 14,000 feet, 64 of them. Fifty-six of those 64 mountains are located in the State of Colorado, 79 percent of the Nation's 14,000 foot peaks, and over 600 peaks at 13,000 feet. We have over 1,000 mountain peaks over 10,000 feet. The average elevation in the State of Colorado is 6,800 feet. That is a thousand feet over a mile. Well over a mile is the average elevation in the State of Colorado.

   Take a look at the lowest point in the State of Colorado. It is about 3,400 feet. That is about the

   lowest point in Colorado. The difference between our lowest points and our highest points are 11,000 or 12,000 feet. So just as a result of the elevation alone, we have got dramatic weather; we have got dynamics that do not happen in other States.

   The State of Colorado is a critical State for a number of different reasons, but first of all, look at what we find within the boundaries of the four corners. First of all, we find the plains. A lot of people think that Colorado's just a mountain State, that it is the State of mountains; but half of the State of Colorado are the plains, and when we look at Colorado, and I will just use my pointer here. To my left I have a better map of Colorado, but when we get on the very western edge, we actually have the desert plateaus. On the eastern side of the State of Colorado we have the plains, and then of course in between the desert plateaus and the plains we have the Colorado Rockies and some other mountains, not just the Rockies.

   To give my colleagues an idea of the land mass of it, it is about the eighth largest State in the Nation. I guess it is number eight. It has got four major parks that are without trees. There may be a couple of trees but generally without trees, north park, south park, places like that.

   Colorado's a very unique State and one of our most important assets in the State of Colorado is snow. Colorado's a very arid State. It does not get much rain. We cannot depend on our rainfall for our moisture. We have to depend on our winter snows. This year, for example, we have a lot to be concerned about because our winter snowfall is significantly below average. Now, not only Colorado that is dependent upon the snow fall in Colorado, but many, many States in the Union, well above 25 States in the Union, are also dependent for their water upon the snow fall in the high mountain peaks of the State of Colorado; and we not only depend on the snow fall in Colorado for our water, but we also depend on it for our economic well-being.

   Our ski areas, as my colleagues know, Colorado probably has the finest ski areas in the United States. Certainly known throughout the world for skiing in Colorado because of its elevation, because of the light, dry snow. So snow is a critical factor out there in our mountain region.

   Before I move much further, I want to give a little history. I have reviewed this history before, but it is important to remember Colorado is a State that is unique. On the western side we have the mountains and the eastern side we have the plains, generally speaking; and Colorado really is almost like two States. I am not suggesting it is two States or that it should become two States; but the dynamics in public ownership, public lands, where the forest lands are, where the Bureau of Land Management is, where the mountains are, one part of the State is water provider. The other part of the State is a water user.

   There are lots of different dynamics that play within its boundaries for Colorado, but first of all, I thought we ought to look at the dynamics of the continental United States and where the West fits in, why life in the West is a little different than life in the east, why the water issues in the West for example are entirely different in many cases than the water issues in the East.

   In many places in the eastern United States, the problem is getting rid of water. In the West, the problem is storing the water. In fact, if we drew a line down through Kansas and Missouri kind of like this, that portion of the United States gets about 73 percent of the water. If we took a look at the mountain region here, which is about half of the United States geographically, it only gets about 14 percent of the water.

   When the good Lord created this continent of ours, for some reason there was not even distribution of the water. So water becomes a critical factor.

   Now, let us take a look and kind of go back in time, go back in history, when our country was first being settled. The real comfort, and where most of the people lived, was on the East Coast, over here to my left. And the West, really, if you went very deep into Virginia, you were considered in the West. There was not much settlement at all, except for the Native Americans, of course, and the Mexicans. This was the nation of Mexico here. We actually had France and a number of others, but I think my colleagues understand what I am saying.

   The population of the United States in our early days was on the East Coast, and our leaders wanted to expand the United States of America. They wanted to make it a great country and they wanted to conquer and obtain as much land as they could. But in those days when the land was purchased, it did not mean much. Title to the lands did not mean much. What was important was who possessed the land. And to possess the land, you really needed to be on it with a six-shooter strapped on your side.

   So as this young country began to grow and we began to expand to the West, our leaders said, Well, how do we encourage people to move from the comfort of their homes on the East Coast into the inner part of the country, into this new land we bought? How do we get them to possess it? And the idea they came up with was, Well, let us give away land, like we did in the Revolutionary War. Believe it or not, in the Revolutionary War is when we first had other land grants in this country. We would give land or offer land to British soldiers who would defect and come to our side. We would give them free land.

   After all, our leaders correctly assessed that every person's dream, or most every person's dream was to own a piece of their own property, to build a home, to farm. Back then in the early days of our country, 99 percent of our population was involved in agriculture. So to be able to cultivate your own fields, to have your own wheat, your own cow, your goats, et cetera, et cetera, was everyone's dream. So they decided to offer land to encourage people to settle in the West. People would go out there, live on it, and they would be given 160 acres, or 320 acres, depending on the program they were involved in.

   Well, that worked pretty successfully, except for one region of the country, and that region is depicted by the colors on this map to my left. You can see some of these States have very, very little Federal lands. In the East the only real big blocks of Federal lands are down there in the Everglades, the Appalachians, and a little up here in the Northeast. In a lot of States, when you talk about public lands, people think you are talking about the courthouse. That is because the government was able to successfully turn this land over to private ownership by encouraging people to go out and settle the land.

   Well, the problem was that as soon as they hit the Rocky Mountains, and take a look at the State of Colorado, right here, right where the white hits the color on this map in the State of Colorado is exactly where the mountains start. And what happened is, when the settlers began to hit the mountains, they discovered 160 acres would not even feed a cow. In eastern Colorado, again referring to my map and going over here to my left, in eastern Colorado, 160 acres could support a family. In Nebraska and in Kansas you could support families there. But as soon as you hit those mountains, boy, the dynamics changed pretty dramatically.

   So they went back to Washington and they said, What do we do? We are not getting people to live in the mountains. They are not possessing the land so that we can lay claim to the land. Although we bought the lands, our Nation says we need people to be up there.

   What happened was, they had discussions here in the Nation's Capital and they thought perhaps what they should do is give them an equivalent amount of land. If they gave 160 acres in eastern Colorado or in Nebraska, take what they can grow on that and see how many acres in the mountains it would take, and maybe give them 3,000 acres.

   Well, what happened was that at the time they were making a lot of these land grants, the railroads had already been given large amounts of land and there was political pressure not to give any more government lands away. So the government, our leaders in Washington, D.C., consciously decided to hold the land in the government's name for formality purposes, but to let the people go out into the West and use it for multiple uses. A land of many uses. Those are enchanted words for us in the West. That is what we grew up under.

   In my particular congressional district, which geographically is larger than the State of Florida, every community in my district, except one, every community in my district, which is about 120, 119 communities, is completely surrounded by government lands. We are totally, not partially, not just a fraction, but totally and completely dependent upon government lands for our water, for our highways, for our utility lines, for our telephones, for our agriculture, for our recreation, for our environmental needs, for our enjoyment, for our own open space. All of those are completely dependent upon public lands, and that is the major difference between the West and the East.

   So I oftentimes find myself listening to some of my eastern colleagues, for whom I have great respect, talking about but not really understanding why we are so sensitive in the West when people in the East say, Well, let us just take this land out of bounds, let us get the people off this land, let us limit multiple use. Clearly, we have to manage these government lands, but we have an entire part of our Nation's population that live amongst those government lands and live on those government lands. And before we make decisions here, we need to understand that. My colleagues need to put themselves in the same kind of living situation, in other words, completely surrounded by government lands as we are in the West. So that is the clear distinction between the West and the East.

   As we move further, and now that we have a little description, let us move back to the State of Colorado and let me pull this other poster up here quickly. Now, this poster is a little cluttered, but I think I can go through parts of it. First of all, because Colorado has an average elevation of about 6,800 feet, because it is the highest point in the continent, obviously we are going to have a lot of water that runs off when that snow melts.

   Now, in Colorado, we have all the water we need for about a 60-to-90-day period of time, and that is actually beginning as we speak. It is called the spring runoff. Colorado is known as the State of the Rivers, the Mother River State, because we have five major rivers that have their headwaters in our State. But as the snow begins to melt, the water available diminishes dramatically. For example, we supply water not only for other States, but we even supply water for the country of Mexico.

   Here in the State of Colorado, this bright yellow section, basically, are the public lands of Colorado. That is what the public lands look like. All the rivers, all the headwaters are up here in the high mountains, and they run all directions out of the State of Colorado, as the mother rivers. Let me give a couple of the rivers. We have the Arkansas River, the Rio Grande, the South Platte River, the Colorado River, and so on.

   Now, what I hope to do, what I wanted to do tonight, and I intended to get a little further in my comments than I have, but I wanted us to visit a lot about that missile defense system, so we did not get quite through the series that I wanted to this evening, more specifically, on water coming out of those mountains, and what the salinity issues are, what the dilution issues are, what the multiple use issues are, what the water storage issues are, what are the hydropower issues, and why is it critical that we have a good understanding all across this country of multiple use on public lands? What does it mean not to divert any water?

   So these are issues that I kind of wanted to just tempt you with a little this evening. Now, I intend to continue my comments next week in much more depth on the dynamics of the high mountains, on the San Juans down in the southwestern part of the State, on the below-average snowfall that they have had this year and what the consequences of that is to fellow, down-river States; what down-river really means; what the wilderness areas are and what kind of impact the wilderness areas have; the government lands, the range management.

   There are lots and lots and lots of issues that face us high in the Rocky Mountains that are unique to the mountains or unique to the West, not found very often in the East, in fact, in some States not found at all.

   So I look forward next week to discussing these issues with my colleagues.

2B) The Importance of Faked Missile Defense Tests

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the GAO recently released a report outlining the ways in which the Pentagon and its contractors fudged the results of a missile defense test in 1997. The report found that missile test results were fabricated by excluding negative test data, ignoring sensor malfunctions, and by delaying the disclosure of undeniable errors. All this is now irrelevant, the Pentagon concludes, because the system used in that test has not been used in 4 years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I disagree. The fact that these test books were cooked could not be more important. The President has asked Congress to match last year's $8 billion-plus missile defense appropriation and has formally issued his intention for the United States to pull out of the ABM treaty. Yet the Pentagon recently canceled the supposedly important Navy missile defense system due to cost overruns of 65 percent, and more recent missile defense tests were found to have been fixed by the use of GPS location beacons.

Mr. Speaker, the CBO has estimated that a working missile defense system will cost another $64 billion by 2015, and the United States has been working on this since World War II and it still does not work. We do not need to give the Pentagon one more dollar.

2C) China's Military Expansion
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue of utmost importance to our national security. On Tuesday, March 5th, the Washington Post reported the People's Republic of China has increased its military spending by over 17% for the second consecutive year.

As I have pointed out many times on the House Floor, China's desire is for complete dominance and hegemony in the Asian-Pacific region.

Communist China's attempts to build anuclear arsenal capable of defeating the United States are undeniable. In that regard, the addition of multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles is the PRC's most significant threat to the United States. This targeted spending increase is clearly designed to close the nuclear gap that exists between the United States and China.

China's military buildup is especially disconcerting considering its much publicized goal of controlling Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, as you know, China has said it will take back Taiwan by whatever means necessary. Along these lines, Chinese military leaders have openly questioned whether the United States would be willing to sacrifice Los Angeles in our attempts to protect Taipei. We must be prepared to defend ourselves against this type of overt aggression.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I have been so vehement in articulating the need to act decisively to build a ballistic missile defense. The fact that our country remains completely vulnerable to a ballistic missile attack is a reflection of our lack of political will to build an adequate defense. The technology for a ballistic missile defense is available, and has been for years and even decades. It is obvious China will neither lay aside its obsessive quest to build and maintain an offensive nuclear missile program, nor cut its massive military spending. There is only one acceptable response to this threat. We need to fully fund a robust ballistic missile defense program, encompassing a variety of technologies and defenses, and we must accomplish this without delay.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I submit the text of the March 5th article to which I have been referring. I commend this article to our colleagues and all observers of these proceedings.
[From the Washington Post Foreign Service, Mar. 5, 2002] CHINA RAISES DEFENSE BUDGET AGAIN (By John Pomfret)

BEIJING.

The increase reflects Beijing's ambition to build a powerful military to complement its robust economy and underpin its strategic position in Asia. But despite more than a decade of big jumps in the defense budget, Asian and Western military officers and Chinese sources said the 2.5-million-member People's Liberation Army, the largest standing fighting force in the world, is struggling with its modernization program, handicapped by low pay, poor morale and difficulty absorbing new weapons.

Finance Minister Xiang Huaicheng will announce an increase of around 17.6 percent in defense spending when he details China's budget on Wednesday during a meeting of the legislature, Chinese sources, Asian diplomats and Chinese-language media reports said. China increased defense spending by 17.7 percent last year; the jump this year will bring its publicly acknowledged defense budget to $20 billion.

China's real defense spending, including funds expended but not reported, is considered the highest in Asia, considerably more than the $45 billion spent annually by Japan. By comparison, the Bush administration has proposed a $379 billion defense budget for the next fiscal year.

Beijing explained its increase last year as a response to ``drastic changes'' in the military situation around the world, a reference to the U.S.-led war in Kosovo in 1999. This year, sources said, Beijing needs more money to bolster its nuclear forces following the Bush administration's decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and continue work on a missile defense system.

China has often voiced concern that, if the United States builds a missile shield, the Chinese nuclear force would lose its strategic deterrent without more and better warheads and delivery vehicles.

China's main modernization efforts, however focus on turning the People's Liberation Army from an army of farmers into a modern, streamlined fighting force and to abandon the People's War doctrine, which involves basic guerrilla tactics in favor of more traditional doctrines used by world powers.

The goal, according to Pentagon reports, is to become a ``regional hegemon,'' project Chinese power into any corner of Asia, protect sea lanes for Chinese oil, replace the United States as the preeminent power in the region and use Chinese power to guarantee reunification with Taiwan.

To do so, China has embarked on a shopping spree for weapons from Russia, Israel and South Africa and a worldwide hunt for technology to improve its nuclear weapons and rocketry programs. China was the world's biggest arms importer in 2000, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It will probably be so again in 2001 and 2002, analysts say.

Starting in 1997, China shed 500,000 troops from the army, transferring them to the People's Armed Police, which deals with internal security. It has also launched an ambitious program to enhance training, education and living standards for the men and women currently in uniform.

Chinese analysts consider morale a major problem for the army. One Western military attache who has had links with the Chinese military since the 1980s described the army as facing a ``spiritual crisis.''

``It has lost its revolutionary elan,'' he said. ``It is no longer a tough, ragtag force of creative and motivated guerrilla fighters. It has become rigid, bureaucratized and slow.''

Morale problems are reflected regularly in the People's Liberation Army Daily, the army's newspaper, where complaints about bad pay, lack of vacation time and poor training are routine. Last week, the military, responding to years of complaints, promised to increase its rations budget by 20 percent, the newspaper reported.

Once a route out of the countryside for smart young men, the army no longer can attract the talent it needs, Chinese sources said, because other opportunities have arisen with economic reforms. Among the upper levels of society, an army career is almost a joke. Practically no students from Beijing or Qinghua universities, China's most prestigious, consider a career in the military, which pays a colonel less than $350 a month.

Reform-minded senior Chinese military officers regularly compare the army to a state-owned enterprise burdened by aging, untrainable workers. ``What can you do with someone who is 45 and has grown up in the old PLA?'' said one Chinese major general. ``There are thousands of people like this. Many are officers, and because we can't do anything with them, our younger officers are angry and leaving the service.''

A good percentage of training, up to 30 percent in some cases, is taken up with political indoctrination, Chinese sources said. ``Political reform is not just necessary for the economy to grow faster,'' said one former officer who recently left the army because it lacked opportunities. ``It's a prerequisite for military modernization, too.''

As a result, Chinese soldiering suffers. Western military officers in Beijing said one reason China is so reticent about participating in U.N. peacekeeping is that its units are incapable of operating independently.

In peacekeeping, the basic unit is a platoon, about 10 to 20 troops. ``But they cannot function as a platoon,'' said a Western officer. ``Once they are detached from the mother ship, they freeze up. In peacekeeping, if you don't have smart people commanding your small units, the situation can turn catastrophic very fast.''

More broadly, the PLA's reputation still has not recovered from the killings around Tianamen Square during the pro-democracy demonstrations of 1989. The PLA's efforts to save people during floods in the summer of 1999 helped for a while. But, simultaneously, many stories arose of local military leaders leading smuggling rings.

Jokes about corruption in the military and its obsession with politics are now routine. When Japanese Self-Defense Forces sank an intruding vessel, believed by Tokyo to be a North Korean spy boat, inside China's 200-mile exclusive economic zone in December, China's navy did not dispatch a ship to monitor the incident. ``They must have been busy,'' the punch line went, ``studying the `Three Represents' [the latest political philosophy of President Jiang Zemin] or smuggling.''

China's military acquisitions have been substantial. Recent Russian weapon and equipment sales have included 72 Su-27 fighter-ground attack aircraft; 100 S-300 surface-to-air missiles; 10 II-76 transport aircraft; four Kilo-class submarines and two Sovremenny-class destroyers. China has also signed a contract to assemble at least 200 more Su-27s at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp. in northeastern China.

But an Asian military officer estimated that 60 percent of the Su-27s cannot fly, either because they are broken or because the pilots lack the skill to fly them. ``Their men are 20 years behind ours in terms of their skill at handling and repairing these sophisticated machines,'' he said. ``This gap in personnel is not easily closed.''

China's purchases of the Sovremenny-class destroyers were touted as another sign of Beijing's new ability to project force and challenge U.S. influence in Asia. But attempts to purchase an early warning radar system failed in July 2000 when the United States blocked Israel from selling China an II-76 aircraft equipped with AWACS-style radar, a system Israel calls the Phalcon.

``Without the Phalcon,'' said a Western attacheŽ, ``the Sovremenny is a sitting duck.''

2D) Remarks on China
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, our government's consideration of China as a force for peace among its neighbors is impossible to substantiate and is overwhelmingly refuted by the facts. Our own good intentions are not sufficient to overcome the fact that China is a force for war, building up its military strength in warlike preparations aimed at its Asian neighbors such as Taiwan, and extending to the United States.

Policies of engagement with China do not excuse a lack of diligence by the United States over China's ballistic missile threat and arms buildup, as well as its failure to abide by non-proliferation agreements such as the one it signed in November 2000 to halt the sale of ballistic missiles and technology for the delivery of weapons of mass destruction.

In February 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell noted how China's proliferation of ballistic missiles remained ``an irritation in the relationship'' between it and the United States. This irritation understates China's reliance on ballistic missiles as a key component of its military power, including their use as precision weapons capable of deep penetration without the delivery of weapons of mass destruction--conventional warfare.

In February 2002 CIA Director George Tenet, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, warned about China's increasing military power, saying,

Over the past year, Beijing's military training exercises have taken on an increasingly real-world focus, emphasizing rigorous practice in operational capabilities and improving the military's actual ability to use force.

Mr. Tenet added,

This is aimed not only at Taiwan but also at increasing the risk to the United Stats itself in any future Taiwan contingency. China also continues to upgrade and expand the conventional short-range ballistic missile force it has arrayed against Taiwan.

Mr. Tenet noted the link between China's threat to Taiwan and its threat to the United States.

I believe this House and our nation's president recognize the link between China's threat to Taiwan and the United States. In his question-and-answer session with Chinese students at Qinghua University in Beijing, when asked why he did not use the term ``reunification'' with China and Taiwan, President George W. Bush responded by referring to the Taiwan Relations Act, ``which says we will help Taiwan defend herself if provoked.''

The United States must be wary of China's subtle rhetoric. The PLA understands only one language--the language of military strength to force one's will upon another, just as communism was forced on China through the barrel of a gun as stated by Mao Zedung. While China may cloak its intent in soft words of diplomacy, in 1995 and 1996 it launched ballistic missiles off the coast of Taiwan in a show of force to intimidate it and the Far East.

China's diplomatic overtures to Taiwan lack sincerity. Vice Premier Qian Qichen's remarks on Taiwan in January 2002, supposedly extending goodwill to Taiwan and interest in holding talks, were apparently intended as propaganda to divide Taiwan's president from his party, and create an impression of goodwill in advance of our president's visit.

Shortly after Qian's remarks, China's Vice Foreign Minister Li Zhao-xing firmly repeated China's demand that Taiwan accept China's view of ``one China'' before it would negotiate with Taiwan's duly elected democratic government. He suggested how Qian's remarks did not represent a major softening of China's position and demand for eventual reunification. He further noted how Taiwan would be the most important topic of our Bush's visit.

China's overtures to Taiwan need to be understood in the context of its United Front strategy seeking to isolate Taiwan, and divide Taiwan's ruling DPP party by playing on the economic interests of DPP members who may have business relations with China. In addition, China is continuing to entice Taiwan to invest in it, seeking economic and technological growth.

In his February Senate testimony, Mr. Tenet warned how China's arms buildup directed at Taiwan represented an increasing risk to the United States. What may not be as apparent is how China's buildup of intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles, including the road-mobile, solid-fuel DF-31 ICBM, threaten the United States and U.S. forces in the Pacific.

These intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles form part of China's Long Wall Project as explained by the Taipei Times in May 2001:

The Long Wall Project is aimed at the US, not Taiwan. The Chinese military leadership plans to put longer-range ballistic missiles in the southwestern provinces so that they can cover US military targets in the Pacific......

They can fire, for instance, a Dong Feng-31 at a US navy battle group shortly after the group leaves its base in Hawaii. The Long Wall Project is basically a deterrent against the US' fighting forces in the Pacific......

While the use of ballistic missiles against U.S. naval vessels may seem implausible, it forms part of China's asymmetrical military strategy, seeking to counter U.S. strengths by exploiting its vulnerabilities. Moreover, it is feasible as should be realized by the accuracies the United States obtained from its Pershing II intermediate-range ballistic missile equipped with a radar-guided terminal seeker.

The United States has no defense against DF-31 ICBM. The U.S. Navy has no defense against the DF-31, nor does it have any defense against China's short and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which can threaten American forces and bases in the Far East and Pacific.

China's probable attainment of an operational capability with its DF-31 ICBM by the end of December 2001, and its probable deployment of the DF-31 at two or more base in 2001 should be of grave concern to the United States.

China recognizes how the United States and its armed forces are undefended from ballistic missiles, with the exception of the short-range Patriot, which is inadequate against intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles. China plans to exploit this weakness with a maximum of surprise.

To support its use of ballistic missiles in conventional warfare, even against ships, China has not only developed accurate ballistic missiles, it is building reconnaissance satellites. These satellites include the Ziyuan-1 and Ziyuan-2 earth resource satellites believed to be for observingforeign military forces. The ZY-2, launched on September 1, 2000, is credited with a photographic resolution of about nine feet. Other reconnaissance satellites include the Haiyang-1 (HY-1) ocean color surveillance satellite expected to be launched by June 2002, and its follow on Haiyang-2 (HY-2).

Accurate ballistic missiles and the ability observe U.S. forces from space will give China the potential ability to attack U.S. ships at sea and in port. This capability is being enhanced by China's development of an integrated command and control system called Qu Dian, which relies on its Feng Huo-1 military communications satellite launched on January 26, 2000. Qu Dian, considered a major force multiplier, is similar to the U.S. Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, or JTIDS, and boasts a secure, jam-resistant, high capacity data link communication system for use in tactical combat. In addition to its potential use GPS and Glossnas satellite navigation, has developed its won Beidou navigation satellites.

Along with a integrated command and control system, China's improvements in inertial and satellite-aided navigation of ballistic missiles with potential breakthroughs in ballistic missile terminal guidance will give it a new form of precision attack, faster than relying of cruise missiles or aircraft.

The effect of China's ballistic missiles delivering a surprise blow must not be underemphasized. This type of attack, capable of being carried out with non-nuclear warheads, represents a new form of conventional warfare for the 21st century. Such an attack could occur in an hour. It could not only result in a major loss of U.S. military strength, It could create a sudden tide of momentum for China's regular forces to successfully challenge the United States.

The only comparison would be the German blitzkrieg unleashed against France in 1940. U.S. forces would be unlikely to respond in an effective manner, especially as the United States has not taken vigorous steps to counter its vulnerability to ballistic missiles.

The January 2002 CIA Report on Foreign Ballistic Missile Threats and Developments noted the transforming effect of China's ballistic missile forces as applied to its buildup of short-range ballistic missiles near Taiwan:

China's leaders calculate that conventionally armed ballistic missiles add a potent new dimension to Chinese military capabilities, and they are committed to continue fielding them at a rapid pace. Beijing's growing short-range ballistic missile force provides China with a military capability that avoids the political and practical constraints associated with the use of nuclear -armed missiles. The latest Chinese SRBMs provide a survivable and effective conventional strike force and expand conventional ballistic missile coverage.

This transformation applies to China's intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles as well, providing China with a capability for threatening the United States and its armed forces.

This development of China's military strategy was noted in the June 2000 Department of Defense Report on China's military power:

Chinese strategists believe that if a war against a technologically superior foe breaks out, the enemy likely will deploy forces rapidly and then launch a massive air campaign. While the enemy is assembling its forces, there exists a window of opportunity for pre-emptive strike. This approach--``gaining the initiative by striking first''--is viewed as an effective method to offset or negate the advantages possessed by a more advanced military foe.

The only possible defense against China's ballistic missile threat is a strong and effective U.S. ballistic missile defense. This defense, to be effective against China's development of decoys, multiple warheads, and other countermeasures, needs to focus on the deployment of a space-based defense building on the research and development conducted under the Strategic Defense Initiative during the Reagan administration and his successor's administration.

he advantages of a space-based ballistic missile defense include global coverage, boost phase interception, and multiple opportunities for intercepting a ballistic missile. These advantages are not inherent with a ground-based interceptor defense, which is currently under development, which will have limited coverage, no opportunity for boost phase defense, and fewer opportunities for intercepting a missile.

Space-based defenses such as the Brilliant Pebbles space-based interceptor and Space Based Laser were shown to be technologically feasible a decade ago, but their programs were either terminated or cutback because of intense political opposition from Congress during your father's administration, or because of opposition from President Clinton who cutback U.S. missile defense programs, especially for space-based defenses like Brilliant Pebbles, which he terminated in 1993.

Mr. Speaker, our President's decision to withdraw from the obsolete and violated 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty should have opened the door for the United States to build the most effective ballistic missile defense possible using space as that treaty was especially intended to cutback advanced U.S. ballistic missile defense programs employing space-based defenses such as lasers or interceptors.

In this respect, the amendment by Congress at the end of 2001 that reduced funding for space-based defenses, and cut the Space Based Laser program for fiscal year 2002 from $170 million to $50 million must be viewed in a shameful light, a case of seeking an inferior defense at greater cost.

The failure of the Missile Defense Agency to pursue space-based defenses and emphasize their value to Congress is inexcusable. These defenses are not far off into the future. They were shown to be technologically feasible years ago.

In March 2002 China increase its official defense budget by 17.6 percent. This follows a 17.7 percent increase in 2001. These increases follow its five-year plan increasing its stated defense budget 15-20 percent annually. China's actual defense budget has been estimated at three to five times the size of its official budget. These increases are aimed at the United States. China is modernizing its forces to a high-tech military deploying accurate ballistic missiles as the edge of its military transformation.

In contrast, the United States is only beginning to rebuild its military after a protracted decline lasting more than a decade, and this year's increase is largely attributable to housekeeping matters rather than an effort to modernize U.S. forces, or research and development, or the acquisition of a space-based ballistic missile defense.

The United States must recognize the peril it faces from China's transformational military strategy built around the ballistic missile, a transformation that can be seen in its DF-31 ICBM apparently aimed at U.S. forces.

Mr. Speaker, such an attack from China directed at U.S. forces could come before the end of this year. I would strongly urge you and our colleagues to take immediate action to overcome our vulnerability and include steps toward the support of a space-based ballistic missile defense.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit for the RECORD various sources supporting my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I have also submitted these identical observations and conclusions to the President by letter which I have posted today.

1. Mike Allen and Philip P. Pan, ``Bush Begins China Visit; No Accord On Weapons,'' Washington, Post, February 21, 2002.

2. David E. Sanger, ``China Is Treated More Gently Than North Korea for Same Sin,'' New York Times, February 21, 2002.

3. Mike Allen, ``Powell Says China's Sale of Arms Technology Still Hinder Relations,'' Washington Post, February 23, 2002.

4. Charles Snyder, ``CIA director warns US of China threat,'' Taipei Times, February 8, 2002.

5. John Gittings, ``Bush tells China that he will defend Taiwan,'' Guardian, February 23, 2002.

6. Tung Li-wen, ``China's new propaganda strategy,'' Taipei Times, February 9, 2002.

7. Charles Snyder, ``Taiwan at top of Sino-US agenda,'' Taipei Times, February 6, 2002.

8. Monique Chu, ``Taiwan welcomes Bush's comments,'' Taipei Times, February 22, 2002.

9. Willy Wo-Lap Lam, ``Trade Ties Taiwan to China's Leash,'' CNN.com, January 29, 2002.

10. AP, ``Chinese Ponder Bush Statements,'' Las Vegas Sun, February 22, 2002.

11. Brian Hsu, ``China builds new missile platforms to deter US forces,'' Taipei Times, May 7, 2001.

12. National Intelligence Council (CIA), Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015, January 2002, p. 10.

13. ``China's Spacecraft,'' Space Today Online, August 2001.

14. Wei Long, ``Ambitious Space Effort Challenges China In Next Five Years,'' SpaceDaily.com, September 18, 2001.

15. AP, ``China Launches Observation Satellite,'' September 1, 2000.

16. Bill Gertz, ``China's Military Links Forces to Boost Power,'' Washington Times, March 16, 2000.

17. Mark A. Stokes, ``Space, Theater Missiles, and Electronic Warfare: Emerging Force Multipliers for the PLA Aerospace Campaign,'' October 26-27, 2000.

18. Department of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, June 2000, p. 8.

19. Bill Gertz, ``China Ready to Deploy its First Mobile ICMBs,'' Washington Times, September 6, 2001.

20. AP, ``China Space Test Has Military Role,'' November 22, 1999.

21. Willy Wo-Lap Lam, ``China's Military Set for Budget Boost,'' CNN.com, February 8, 2002.

22. John Pomfret, ``China Raises Defense Budget Again,'' Washington Post, March 5, 2002.

3A) National Emergency with Respect to Iran
The following presidential message was laid before the Senate together with accompanying reports, which was referred as indicated:

   PM-75. A message from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Periodic Report on the National Emergency with Respect to Iran; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

To the Congress of the United States:

   Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the Iran emergency is to continue in effect beyond March 15, 2002, to the Federal Register for publication. The most recent notice continuing this emergency was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 15013).

   The crisis between the United States and Iran constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran, including its support for international terrorism , efforts to undermine Middle East peace, and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, that led to the declaration of a national emergency on March 15, 1995, has not been resolved. These actions and policies are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iran and maintain in force comprehensive sanctions against Iran to respond to this threat.

   George W. Bush.

   The White House, March 13, 2002.

[Top]