Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Missile Defense Bill. I think we all agree that this is a vitally important issue to the American people. That is why I am disappointed by the Republican Leadership's decision to deny any member the basic right of introducing an amendment to this bill so we may have a full and open debate.
For example, the closed rule under which we are debating this bill blocks the amendment from my good friend from Maine, Representative Allen. The Allen amendment proposes ideas I believe my Republican colleagues would support. The Allen amendment specifies that the United States deploy a National Missile Defense that is operationally effective and that a National Missile Defense System not jeopardize other efforts to reduce threats to the United States. If we can not agree on these points, then I fear we are farther apart then I imagined.
The future of this country depends on a strong economy and a strong military. Neither is possible without an educated populace. That means that everyday, we have to make difficult decisions about where we spend our money and that we must be wise when deciding such matters. Therefore, we must not rush to deploy any missile defense system that will not guarantee our protection.
This debate involves many complex issues. Lest some of my colleagues have forgotten, one of our potentially most significant foreign relations accomplishments over the last 30 years was our agreement with the former Soviet Union to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenals. I am talking about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the START II and III nuclear arms reduction proposals. And I say they are potentially significant because I worry that if we pass the current version of H.R. 4, we would be in violation of the ABM Treaty and force the Russian Duma to fail to ratify START II. Additionally, as far as Russia is concerned, do we really want to put pressure on a country trying to stabilize its fragile economy by tempting it to respond to our actions.
I agree with my colleagues who believe that a new threat to our security has emerged and that we have a responsibility to address that threat. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know as well as anyone that the potential for a rogue state to strike our shores may exist in the near future. However, it would be irresponsible for us to rush to meet that potential threat by spending money on something that one, is not even technologically possible and two, even if it were possible, would not end the threat.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need a missile defense. If we need anything, we need a strong non-proliferation policy. If my colleagues only want a missile defense, then they will have the chance to vote for that today. However, if they truly want to protect the American people, then they will only settle for something that also attempts to stop other, more realistic, threats to our safety, such as cruise missiles or smuggled bombs. The missile defense systems being considered do not adequately address these possibilities. The remarks of Secretary Cohen are very poignant here. The Secretary acknowledged that the Joint Chiefs of Staff worry more about a suitcase bomb going off in one of our cities and that very few countries would launch an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile aimed at the United States, knowing that they would face virtual elimination.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 4.