THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

   Well, we also have to take a look, because we have a big problem once people get inside our borders. What kind of enforcement do we have across this country? My understanding is that the INS has about 2,500 agents for the interior of the United States, for our homeland; and that is what we are talking about. How do we defend the homeland? We have to assume that people will get by those borders, on legitimate reasons perhaps and then turn to illegitimate purposes, or get by those borders through illegitimate means and then they get into the center of the homeland. We have to provide the INS with the type of resources to have a homeland defense against those who violate some of the most liberal immigration laws in the world. Our country stands proud on its open arms to immigrants. Most of us were beneficiaries of that policy. But it does not mean that we should shirk our responsibility or look the other way at the problems that we have with the immigration policies that are in place.

   Senator Feinstein, through her proposal, the Feinstein proposal, urges major changes in the United States visa program. This proposal has found its time. These student visas , let me give a little background. This is from the proposal. One of the suicide pilots of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, had enrolled in an Oakland, California, college in November 2000 for an English language course, but never showed up. Mr. Speaker, when a foreigner gets a student visa, they are required, once they get the visa, to go to school; or obviously, they are not using the student visa to go to school, they are using it just to gain access to the country. That is what appeared to happen here. Investigators are also examining whether or not three others, also believed to be involved in the hijacking of Flight 77, attended a community college in San Diego.

   Officials estimate that 245,000, 245,000 foreign students have entered the United States this year to

   pursue a course of study. Between 1999 and 2000, in other words, in a 1-year period of time, the State Department issued 3,370 visas to students from nations on the United States Terrorism Watch List. In other words, the United States keeps a watch list of countries we consider that harbor or otherwise condone terrorism ; and from those States, we allow almost 4,000 students to come to college in the finest universities in the world here in the United States.

   What are we? Did we just hit our head falling out of a swing? I mean not even the civil libertarians can defend that kind of policy. We have a right to accept students, and we have a right to say no to students; and if we have students who are coming from a regime who have harbored terrorism , in my opinion, that should stop immediately. There should not be one more student , not one more student visa issued to a country on this Nation's terrorism list, not one. And that statement goes further than the Feinstein proposal.

   The Feinstein proposal, as I have read it, does not say that. I have said that. I do not think that the United States of America has to give one inch, has to give one inch to any country or any regime in the world that harbors or condones terrorism and allows their young people to come to our Nation for their education. We should not do it. We do not have to do it. It is not a question of being politically correct or not. In fact, being politically correct would say that our primary concern ought to be the national security, the

[Page: H6124]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. Speaker, let me continue on with the Feinstein proposal. In 1996, Congress approved a Federal law to require the INS to electronically collect data on all international students by 2003; but to date, the system has not yet been set up. They have no funding. It is section 110; it is under the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Zero funding for it. It is not and should not be considered ``politically incorrect'' to talk about the immigration policies of this Nation. What more of a wake-up sound do we need? What kind of an alarm do we need to sound before we start to look at these issues; and the student visas are an excellent place to start, a good place to start. So I think that the Feinstein proposal is something that this Congress ought to look at immediately.

   I want to move on to something else that I think is absolutely critical. I want to talk to my colleagues about missile defense. I am appalled that since the September 11 tragedy, that some people have addressed missile defense as something that is not necessary. If ever there was an example of a need to defend the homeland, that September 11 displayed to us that this time it was an airplane, next time it could be a biological weapon or it could be a missile.

   I will tell my colleagues something else that people are not thinking about. We not only in this country have zero defense against incoming missiles to this country; but we do not have any defense, not just a missile that is intentionally launched against this country. We frankly do not have a defense against a missile launched against this country by accident. Think about it. Everybody that talks about missile defense puts it in the context of an intentionally launched attack against the United States. I think that that is a high possibility at some point in the future, and I think we have an inherent obligation as Congressmen to defend this

   country, to defend the homeland, to give us homeland security against a missile defense.

   But we also need to broaden our thoughts and think about what would happen if Russia, for example, by accident, not intentionally, but through carelessness or through negligence or by accident, launched a missile against the United States and we do not have a missile defense system to stop it. Would that, because a country, which we could establish was a country, not a terrorist, but a country, fires a missile accidentally, and it hits a major city, and we know what kind of damage a nuclear weapon would do, it would make September 11 look kind of small compared to the damage that a nuclear weapon would do. What do we do, start a war? Every peace advocate in America ought to be some of the strongest proponents in America for missile defense. Why? Because missile defense could help us avoid a future war. Think about that accidental launch as I go through my remarks.

   Obviously, what we have to think about is preemptive defense. How do we preempt the challenge that faces us out there? Now, we know, for example, NORAD located in Colorado Springs, we have thought well enough into the future, and our forefathers had the foresight to say we need to have a detection system. We need to detect where the enemy moves around. We need to detect when people who do not have the best interests of this Nation in mind, we need to be able to detect what they are up to. And if they launch aircraft against us, if they launch a balloon against us, a hot air balloon, if they launch a missile against us, we need to track it. We need to have the capability to pick it up very early.

   Mr. Speaker, we did that, and NORAD, which is a joint operation with our good neighbors to the north, Canada, put together a system that has incredible detection. We have through this system that we have, that is in place today, we have the capabilities to pick up a missile launch anywhere in the world. We can, within seconds, tell where its target is, we can tell the speed of the missile, we can tell with pretty high probability what the speed of the missile is, whether it has multiple warheads on it; but much beyond that, we cannot do anything else. A lot of citizens out there today are asking questions: How do we defend ourselves? What do we actually have in our arsenal for homeland defense, for national security? Mr. Speaker, we do not have anything for missile defense.

   Our President, before September 11, one of the issues that he campaigned on and one of the issues that he has followed through on and has been very aggressive about is that we as a Congress, he as a President, and this Nation as a Nation has the responsibility for future generations to preempt missile attacks against the United States of America.

   Probability of events. I have two things listed on this poster. One of them, of course, as we look to my left is the intentional launch. Obviously, at some point in the future, now, people, it could be realistic that a nuclear missile would be launched against this country. Do we think that bin Laden or those terrorists who committed this terrible act, do we think that if they would have had a nuclear weapon in their hands that they would have thought twice about using it?

[Time: 22:00]

   If they would have had the capability to deliver a missile into this country, that would not have been an airline that hit those towers, that would have been a missile that hit those towers, in my opinion.

   The only thing that stopped those people from using a nuclear missile or a nuclear weapon is they did not have it. It was not because, by the way, we would stop it, because it is pretty well known we have no capabilities to stop it. We have the technology that has very rapidly progressed to the point where we think we can develop within this country, in a few short years, a very effective missile defense system. We need to do that. We need to do it today. The time is here, it is now, for a missile defense system.

   As I said earlier, again to my left, not necessarily an intentional launch, but take a look about an accidental launch. What if somebody accidentally launched against this country? If we had the capability to stop an accidentally-launched missile as it began to head for this country, if we had the capability to stop it, we may very well have averted a major, major conflict, the likes of which history has never seen.

   But if we do not have the capability to stop that missile, what do we do? What do we do if a country accidentally launched a nuclear missile into a major city in the United States, and we lost hundreds of thousands of people? We would feel pretty horrible that we did not take the opportunity we have today to put a missile defense system into place. We would feel pretty horrible that we did not take the time and the money that we have to continue to develop the technology to perfect defense for the United States of America for security for our homeland.

   I wanted to point out a few things here, that the terrorist attack of September 11, the terrorist attack of September 11, confirms the growing need for a missile defense. Homeland defense is insufficient without missile defense.

   I have heard people say in the last few days, we need to be biologically prepared to fight a biological attack. We need to be prepared to tighten up our airport security so we do not ever see a repeat of what happened on September 11. We have to be prepared for other types of attacks.

   Let me tell the Members, one of them that to me is the most dangerous threat for future generations, and frankly, for our generation, but as more countries develop and acquire nuclear weapons, our threat, one of our major threats, not the only threat, and I am not taking anything away from airport security, obviously, I am not taking anything away from biological defense for homeland security, but I am saying, put into that formula a missile defense system, or we will live, I think, I truly believe that my generation will live to see the day that we regretted back in the early part of the 2000's not putting a missile defense system in order.

   While systems are in place to thwart terrorism , the Nation still has no defense, and I stress the word ``no,'' the

[Page: H6125]  GPO's PDF

   Terrorist groups, not just states but terrorist groups, have the means to buy ballistic missiles. Missile defenses are needed to shield the United States from retaliation, should it take action against terrorist-harboring states.

   Look at that last point. Missile defenses are necessary. If the United States decides to take action against a country that is harboring or condoning terrorism , or actively engaged in terrorism against the United States, one of the critical elements of our offense against terrorism is the ability to defend our Nation from missile attacks that might come back as retaliation. Those are very, very key elements.

   The red is nuclear proliferation, nuclear proliferation. That is the red right now. Right now that is what we have. Countries of nuclear proliferation concern, that is the green.

   I say to my colleagues, take a look at this map today in 2001, a month after the worst disaster this country has ever suffered. Take a look at this map. If we do not do something about it, if we do not defend against it, take a look at how threatening this map will be just in 10 years. See what happens to these colors, and see how widely they spread throughout the world if we do not take decisive action in the period of time that we now have the opportunity to take decisive action.

   We have a little gap in there. We have a window of opportunity to develop this missile defensive system. Right now the countries that would intentionally launch against the United States I do not believe would engage in that kind of conduct within the near future. I do, however, believe, and I think every one of my colleagues would agree with me, that today every country in the

   world that has nuclear missile capability also has the capability, frankly, to screw up, to fire a missile by mistake.

   If that missile comes to the United States, we have an obligation, we have a need for the American people to defend against it. We have this short window of opportunity, a few short years here before this red spreads throughout the world to provide us, to provide Canada, to provide any of our allies or any of our friends defense against missile attack.

   Watch this map. Mark this map. A few years from now, a few years from now, take a look at it. By God, if we as a collective body have not, 10 years from now, provided this Nation with a missile defense system, we will have been grossly derelict in our duties. We will have been grossly derelict in our responsibilities for the future survivability of this Nation. That is how much weight I put on this decision to defend against accidental or intentional launches against the United States of America.

   Mr. Speaker, ballistic missile proliferation. I just showed Members what was happening with the nuclear spread throughout the world. Now take a look at what has happened with regard to proliferation with regard to ballistic missile capabilities. This is a very, very important chart. This indicates very clearly that when the antiballistic missile treaty was signed, for example, there were two countries in this world capable of attacking each other with nuclear missiles. It was Russia and the United States.

   But today, look how this has changed, ballistic missile proliferation. Look at the purple throughout this map. Countries possessing ballistic missiles.

   Let me just give some examples. There are Iran. Heard that name lately? There is Iraq, India, Hungary, Libya, Pakistan, Poland, Rumania, Syria, Taiwan, South Africa, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Algeria, Argentina, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan.

   Mr. Speaker, the capability of nations in this world to develop and to deliver a ballistic missile threat to the United States is no longer a threat in somebody's imagination, it is reality. It is there that we have a demand upon our authority and our power to protect this country to stand up and protect against ballistic missiles, either accidental or intentional, against this country.

   When we talk about ballistic missiles, when we talk about missile defense in this country, we obviously have to discuss the treaties that have some type of oversight on missile defense of a particular country. There is only one big treaty out there. It is called the ABM treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

   Now, some people have said that we cannot break or we cannot abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, that we are walking away, that we are breaching a treaty, that we have broken a treaty, in one of the few times, outside of the Native Americans, one of the few times in international relations the United States has broken a treaty.

   That is not the case we face. That is not what the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty says. I will go into some detail here in just a minute. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty obviously has a historical story to it. Let us look at that story.

   Back 30, 40 years ago, Russia and the United States were worried about Russia and the United States. They were not worried about Pakistan or India or Romania or Slovakia. They were not worried about any of these countries, they were worried about the nuclear capabilities of each other.

   So the United States and Russia sat down at a table and said, ``Let us negotiate some type of agreement to minimize the risk of us attacking each other.'' Remember, at that point in time, there was no other Nation in the world, no other Nation in the world that had the capability to deliver a ballistic missile onto the U.S. mainland or onto Russia with a nuclear warhead. Only two countries had it.

   So they sat down at that time and they came up with a theory. ``Look,'' the United States says to Russia, and vice versa, Russia says to the United States, ``Let us sign an agreement that will not allow either one of us to defend against the other's missiles.''

   Now, that sounds perfectly illogical. I think today it is absolutely crazy. But back then, there were some who thought, hey, that is logical. We will not attack because we are afraid of the retaliation. Since we cannot protect ourselves from the retaliation, the incentive to attack is taken away. That is the fundamental theory upon which this treaty was drafted.

   But when they drafted this treaty, both the Russian negotiators and the American negotiators had enough foresight to say, ``Look, treaties protect what is in effect today, as far as we can see into the future, but both countries must have the allowance or the flexibility

   under this treaty and under the terms of this treaty that if things change in our society, that there is a way to modify or to terminate the agreement.''

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display