Congressional Record: February 28, 2002 (Extensions)
Page E242                    



                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 28, 2002

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have addressed this 
House on the matter of National Security and the threat to it posed by 
China's aggressive arms buildup. Particularly, with regard to China's 
long-range missile program, America's vulnerability is growing, not 
  While I applaud the leadership of our President to advance a national 
missile defense program, Congress must rely upon complete, accurate, 
and candid assessments of the threat posed by China, or any other 
nation. Without such candid assessments, Americans are burdened by 
excessive risk.
  I hereby submit for the Record, a letter I have today posted to Mr. 
George Tenant, who heads America's Central Intelligence Agency. I urge 
each of our colleagues to review this letter and respond to its 
contents or reinforce its sentiments to the Director, and to the 
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the following for the Record.

       Dear Mr. Tenet: Last month, your agency produced the 
     assessment of China's ballistic missile threat to the United 
     States in the unclassified summary of the January 2002 
     National Intelligence Estimate "Foreign Missile Developments 
     and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015." The lack of 
     attention to the pronounced and growing danger caused by 
     China's ballistic missile buildup, and its aggressive 
     strategy for using its ballistic missiles cannot go 
     unchallenged. The report is misleading, and, because it 
     understates the magnitude of threat, is profoundly dangerous.
       Perhaps the unclassified National Intelligence Estimate was 
     meant to conceal from foreign eyes what the CIA really thinks 
     or knows. But this government has a duty to defend the lives 
     and freedom of its citizens. A large part of that defense is 
     informing the American people of the threats they face rather 
     than downplaying, for example, China's ballistic missile and 
     military buildup.
       In this regard, I protest the inferior quality and lack of 
     information compared to Department of Defense reports such as 
     the Soviet Military Power series initiated by Secretary of 
     Defense Caspar Weinberger in the 1980's, which addressed the 
     Soviet military threat in detail, providing numbers of 
     missile, bombers, and warheads, and location of forces.
       Your report is an issue because China has focused on a 
     buildup of ballistic missiles to defeat the United States. In 
     addition to its ballistic missile and information warfare 
     buildup, you yourself have noted the threat posed by China's 
     growing anti-satellite capabilities. China is engaged in 
     economic and surrogate terrorism, and diplomatic initiatives 
     using its mouth to promise friendship while preparing for 
     war. America needs to be informed and warned.
       Without adequate intelligence about the ballistic missile 
     threat, or the courage to act on the intelligence it has, the 
     United States will not be able to defend itself. President 
     Bush's proposed defense budget understates the need to 
     accelerate ballistic missile defense programs, and emphasizes 
     a poor design for a ballistic missile defense using 
     groundbased defenses over space-based defenses that can 
     provide boost phase interception, global coverage, and 
     multiple opportunities for interception.
       One point is how China's program for multiple reentry 
     vehicles for its road-mobile ICBMs and SLBMs is 
     "encountering significant technical hurdles and would be 
     costly," giving an impression that China may not develop a 
     MIRV capability, at least in the near future.
       In contrast, in 1999 defense analyst Richard D. Fisher, 
     Jr., could convincingly write, "Both the DF-31 and DF-41 
     ICBMs are expected to incorporate multiple independently 
     targeted reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads." Fisher further 
     noted China has been suspected of trying to develop MIRVs for 
     years, and that in 1998 Air force General Eugene Harbinger 
     said China is developing MIRVs for its ICBMs. One would 
     suspect that China would have made some progress since 
     Fisher's analysis in 1999, especially given technological 
     assistance from the United States and Russia. In January 2002 
     Fisher noted the CIA report appeared to be too low in its 
     estimates of China's threat.
       On the issue of MIRVs, the report appears to understate how 
     China's spy and intelligence gathering program, highlighted 
     by the 1999 Congressional Cox Committee report, was focused 
     on obtaining information on U.S. nuclear warheads and 
     ballistic missile technology, which makes extensive use of 
     MIRVs. In addition to U.S. missile, nuclear warhead, and 
     satellite technology that could be used for MIRVs, China has 
     obtained considerable technological help from Russia. China 
     is one of Russia's largest arms customers and has signed a 
     strategic partnership with it. Russia has perfected the 
     technology for multiple warheads in its advanced rail and 
     road-mobile ICBMs--the SS-24 and SS-27 Topol-M, and 
     reportedly transferred to China SS-18 technology that would 
     presumably include MIRV technology as the SS-18 was designed 
     to carry 10 nuclear warheads, and could be fitted with even 
       Of surprise is the CIA statement that "China could begin 
     deploying the DF-31 ICBM during the first half of the 
     decade." In contrast to the uncertainties contained in the 
     CIA report, in May 2001 Taipei Times defense reporter Brian 
     Hsu noted China has built two bases for housing the DF-31 and 
     plans to build more. It would be very reasonable to assume 
     that these bases house DF-31s. In addition, according to a 
     story by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, China was 
     expected to obtain an operational capability for the DF-31 by 
     the end of 2001, before the release of the CIA report.
       If China's deployment of the DF-31 ICBM follows its pattern 
     of deploying short-range road-mobile ballistic missiles over 
     a number of bases as it has done with its ballistic missile 
     buildup aimed at Taiwan, the United States should expect 
     China to deploy the DF-31 over more than two bases to blunt 
     the effect of any potential counterattacks or preemptive 
       The CIA report, rather than telling the American people how 
     China is taking steps to deploy the DF-31 and apparently has 
     achieved an operational capability, is content to word its 
     analysis as a possibility. In addition, it overlooks why 
     China is building the DF-31--its ballistic missile strategy.
       The Taipei Times noted that China's buildup of the DF-31 is 
     part of its "Long Wall Project" that "is aimed at the US, 
     not Taiwan," and said that "The Chinese military leadership 
     plans to put longer-range ballistic missiles in the 
     southeastern provinces so that they can cover US military 
     targets in the Pacific."
       The CIA report, moreover, appears remiss with respect to 
     China's buildup of intermediate-range ballistic missiles such 
     as the DF-21-X and DF-25, which can attack U.S. forces and 
     bases in the Far East and Pacific. The report also projects 
     that by 2005 China will have a force of short-range ballistic 
     missiles that will number "several hundred missiles." Yet, 
     throughout 2000 and 2001 China was reported as having massed 
     300-350 short-range ballistic missiles against Taiwan in a 
     number of news accounts, and increased production to more 
     than 50 per year. China already has an arsenal exceeding 
     "several hundred missiles."
       China's view on using its long-range ballistic missiles is 
     very aggressive. It does not believe in a "balance of 
     power" dictated by equal numbers of missiles or nuclear 
     warheads. Rather, according to one Chinese analyst, China 
     believes that "It is not necessary for China to seek a 
     nuclear balance with the US. If we have the capacity to 
     launch a nuclear counterattack, there will be no difference 
     between 10 and 10,000 nuclear warheads." This same view 
     appeared in an August 1999 planning document of China's 
     Central Military Commission headed by President Jiang Zemin.
       In May 2000, the late Congressman Floyd Spence, quoting the 
     Liberation Army Daily, noted that China "is a country that 
     has certain abilities of launching a strategic counterattack 
     and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike . . .  
     It is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as 
     China, a point which the U.S. policymakers know fairly well 
     also." In 1995 PLA General Xiong Guangkai issued a similar 
       China has used its ballistic missiles to intimidate, seen 
     in its launch of ballistic missiles off Taiwan in 1995 and 
     1996. While the diplomatic failure which occurred resulted in 
     the tempering of its diplomacy, the fact that China has 
     changed its diplomatic tactics toward Taiwan and the United 
     States should not obscure its strategy for using its 
     ballistic missiles for aggression. China's words of 
     friendship are a mask for its ballistic missile and military 
       American should be concerned with its defense. The 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 showed what can 
     happen with a lack of vigilance. The United States needs to 
     realize that China is engaged in a military and ballistic 
     missile buildup pointed at Americans. We must take the 
     necessary steps to defend our citizens, and we should build a 
     space-based ballistic missile defense. We must have better 
     information about China's ballistic missile threat. 
     Regrettably, your report on this matter is insufficient.
           Very truly yours,
     Bob Schaffer,
         Member of Congress from Colorado.