Chairman Robert Wexler

Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Europe and Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade

House Committee on Foreign Affairs

May 3, 2007

“Does the United States and Europe Need Missile Defense”

The joint subcommittee hearing will come to order. I would like to welcome my distinguished colleague, Congressman Brad Sherman, Chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-proliferation and Trade, who is co-chairing this hearing. I also want to welcome the Ranking Member of the Europe Subcommittee Elton Gallegly and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-proliferation and Trade Ed Royce.

Today's hearing is aptly titled "Does the United States and Europe Need Missile Defense?" This is a critical question for American and European officials given mounting and complex global threats from Non-State Actors, such as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and from rogue nations, such as North Korea and Iran. In this increasingly dangerous environment, it is essential that America, along with our allies in Europe, be proactive and cooperate closely to ensure that both sides of the Atlantic are protected and secure.

To this end, I have deep reservations about the President’s proposed Europe-based missile defense plan that would include placing 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic. I am deeply concerned about the Administration’s rush to put in place an unproven ballistic missile defense system as well as its impact on our relations with our allies in Europe.

According to the Washington Post's Editorial page yesterday, this system has had "only one successful test” and that was “under controlled conditions that wouldn't be present in a real attack." Frederick K. Lamb, who co-chaired a 2003 American Physical Society study on boost-phase intercept systems for missile defense noted that, "not a single test of this system has ever been carried out under realistic combat conditions. To assume it is going to work under realistic conditions with only a few minutes warning is like assuming a gun that has only been fired against a single, carefully arranged target in a brightly lit firing range is going to be successful in a fast-moving night battle against many enemies."

Congress is right to question whether US resources are best spent on a questionable ballistic missile defense program or securing our nation’s borders, ports and railways against another 9/11-type attack or on additional funding to beef up our counter intelligence agencies and military capabilities to combat global terrorist networks.

Given the political, economic and security concerns being raised, it is unacceptable for the American people -- who have footed hundreds of billions of dollars for the debacle in Iraq -- to once again provide a blank check to the President to spend billions more on a questionable missile defense program -- whose costs at a minimum ought to be shared by our European allies.

I strongly support the vote taken in the House Armed Forces Strategic Forces Subcommittee yesterday that significantly cuts funding for the President’s plan for a missile defense site in Europe.  The subcommittee has acted in the best interest of America by halting construction of the system while at the same time providing funding for an independent comprehensive study to be conducted to examine the technical feasibility of the system, its economic impact as well as effect on our NATO and European allies.

It is clear there is no consensus of opinion in Congress whether this particular missile defense program is in the best interest of the United States, and it is painfully clear that many of our European allies are wary of placing this system in Europe and its impact on relations with an increasingly bellicose Russia. Europeans also question why -- if this program is really intended to protect Europe – did the Administration choose to bilaterally negotiate with Poland and the Czech Republic rather than collectively decide this issue in NATO.

Mr. Fried, you along with Under Secretary Nick Burns have spent the last two years tirelessly working to reverse America's setbacks in Europe - I say this with the greatest amount of respect for your efforts.  If that is the case, shouldn't the Administration be wary of cherry picking allies - a kind of coalition of the willing -- instead of making certain that our missile defense policy is agreed to by our European allies in a Transatlantic organization such as NATO?

From an Al Qaeda terrorist carrying a suitcase bomb to ensuring energy security to addressing proliferation of missile technologies -- the US along with European must determine collectively whether it makes strategic sense to deploy this missile program or to focus our collective resources on more immediate threats facing America and our allies.