[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3-S4]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION VETO

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern 
over the President's veto of the defense authorization bill and to 
state very clearly why I am not convinced that ratification of the 
START II Treaty is in the best interests of the United States national 
security.
  At the heart of both of these matters is the issue of national 
missile defense and whether we are really serious about defending our 
Nation and the American people against ballistic missile attack. As I 
have stated many times on this floor, I am serious about this issue. I 
think there is no higher priority for our Nation's overall defense 
posture than the issue of national missile defense.
  The threat is a very real threat. I have stated several times on this 
floor and quoted many people who are the experts who understand and 
evaluate what the threats are around the world. Certainly, the former 
CIA Director, James Woolsey, is in a position to know and to evaluate 
what a threat is to our Nation. That is what he did for a living. He 
was appointed by this President. He stated that he knows of between 20 
and 25 nations that have or are developing weapons of mass 
destruction--either chemical, biological, or nuclear--and are 
developing the missile means of delivering these weapons.
  In addition to that, we know that North Korea--with its development 
of the Taepo Dong II missile--is going to be capable of reaching Hawaii 
and Alaska by the year 2000 and the continental United States by the 
year 2002. Yet all we are talking about in the defense authorization 
bill is to develop a national missile defense system by the year 2003, 
not even meeting the time that missiles would be able to reach the 
continental United States. Many people like to speak of social programs 
and priorities almost as if national defense no longer matters now that 
the cold war is over. Yet I am convinced more every day that the threat 
facing the United States is in many ways greater now than it was when 
we had only two superpowers that we could identify. Right now we have 
Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and many other nations that are developing 
the kind of destructive weapons and missile technology that pose a 
direct threat to our country.
  I suggest also that when the President and others try to use such 
terms as ``star wars,'' are grossly misleading the American people, 
trying to make it appear not only that the prospect of a real and 
affordable missile defense is somehow a fantasy but also that the 
threat itself is a mythical thing that is not real, not something that 
we need to be even remotely concerned about. But they are wrong, Mr. 
President. They are living in the past. They do not realize that 
today's advancing weapons and missile technology are not the same as 
what they were 10 years ago when they might not have been so imminent a 
threat affecting our Nation's security. Today it is there and it is not 
to be taken lightly by those charged with responsibility for defending 
America.
  We have an investment in this country of over $38 billion in just the 
Aegis system. The Aegis is an existing system of naval ships that have 
advanced capabilities for both air and missile defense. For an 
additional investment of just $4 to $5 billion over several years, we 
could have a very basic and limited national missile defense capability 
ready to deploy in that short period of time that was called for in our 
defense authorization bill.
  That has now been vetoed. It was vetoed for one major reason, and 
that is the President stated that it would be in violation of the ABM 
Treaty. But as others have pointed out previously, the bill was 
specifically crafted so as not to violate the treaty. Instead, it 
merely suggested that the President be urged to negotiate cooperative 
arrangements with Russia to allow us to proceed with necessary missile 
defense programs.
  Now, Mr. President, I think it is important to realize the President 
is saying that we do not have a high priority on our Nation's missile 
defense system. The ABM Treaty was put in place back in 1972 during the 
Nixon administration. The architect of that treaty was Henry Kissinger. 
Dr. Kissinger at that time felt that this policy of mutual assured 
destruction was something that was worthwhile in that we had two 
superpowers and it put us each in a vulnerable position. Since we would 
not be able to defend ourselves, and the other side would be in the 
same position, it was thought that this would be some kind of an 
advantage in providing strategic stability. I did not agree with it at 
the time but nonetheless that is what was adopted.
  I think it is interesting to remember what was stated not too long 
ago by Dr. Kissinger when we asked him the question, publicly, on 
public record: You were the architect of the ABM Treaty back when the 
ABM Treaty was put in place, and you felt this was something that was 
in the best interests of this country; what about today, now that we 
have the proliferation of missiles and of weapons of mass destruction? 
He said it does not make any sense anymore. He said in a direct quote, 
``It is nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.''
  Mr. President, that is exactly what we have done when we hold up the 

[[Page S4]]
  ABM Treaty as the cornerstone of U.S. strategic defense policy as this 
administration has done. The President has stated in his veto message 
that there is a linkage between the ABM Treaty and the START II Treaty. 
He says the Congress' determination to proceed with national missile 
defense ``puts U.S. policy on a collision course with the ABM Treaty,'' 
and ``puts at risk Russian ratification of the START II Treaty.'' I 
reject the notion that we should adopt some type of a treaty--in this 
case the START II Treaty--just in order to protect the provisions of 
the ABM Treaty.
  I am aware that there is broad support in this body for ratification 
of the START II Treaty. I understand it. I expect the final vote to be 
overwhelmingly in favor. That vote may be a 98 to 1 vote and I may be 
the 1, but I would be compelled to speak out and at least let the 
American people realize how significant an issue this is.
  There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the merits of the 
START II Treaty. You could talk about compliance, the fact that the 
Russians' past record does not inspire a lot of confidence. We could 
talk about verification. Many provisions would be difficult to verify 
in the very best of circumstances. We could talk about the SS-18 MIRV'd 
missiles, and the fact that this would not actually do away with the 
launch facilities for these destructive multiwarhead missiles. We could 
talk about the downloading provisions and the fact that, in many cases, 
it does not require that you do away with the missile. It merely 
requires that you download it. And if you download it, then you can 
turn around and upload it.
  Yet for all of these concerns, I don't seek to go into great detail. 
But what I will be addressing is what it does as far as the ABM Treaty 
is concerned and how it impacts our ability to proceed with the kind of 
national missile defense we need. This is what is most important.
  I agree with Dr. Kissinger that the ABM Treaty is something that 
outlived its usefulness and no longer should be effective today. And, 
while I respect the views of some of my colleagues who are saying we 
now have managers' amendments that address all of these problems, I do 
not think these managers' amendments really do address them. For one 
thing, they do not change the treaty itself. All they are is advice by 
the Senate. I agree that those nine provisions of the managers' 
amendments are good and they make the Senate's understanding of the 
treaty much clearer. Unfortunately, they are not a part of the treaty.
  I think we should recognize, finally, Mr. President, that they 
underwent some parliamentary elections in Russia on December 17. The 
Communists got 22 percent of the vote gaining seats and renewed 
influence. We now have the Communists at 157 seats in the Duma. Then 
you have Boris Yeltsin's party. Then there is a very interesting 
individual by the name of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, from the 
ultranationalist party that is now No. 3, close behind the party that 
we were hoping would stay in power.
  So it is a changed situation that we have today. And, of course, none 
of us can predict the future with certainty. But I come back to a 
simple proposition. Missile defense is among our highest national 
security priorities. If the President believes this priority must be 
sacrificed to gain Russia's approval of START II, then I would suggest 
it is too high a price to pay. This is why I believe it is imperative 
to resolve the impasse over the Defense authorization bill before we 
move to final approval of the START II Treaty.
  Therefore, today, I am joined by Senator Bob Smith in sending a 
letter to the majority leader stating we will object to proceeding to 
final action on the START II Treaty until an arrangement has been made 
with the Clinton administration enabling the people of America to be 
defended against missile attack. I believe this a prudent and justified 
course of action and I would urge my colleagues to concur.
  Finally, if there were other individuals who had been with me in 
Oklahoma City on April 19, where we observed the results of the most 
devastating domestic bombing in the history of this country, they might 
begin to understand what is at stake. There at the Murrah Federal 
Office Building, we saw the destruction and had heard the cries of the 
individuals who were in there trapped and injured. And, of course, so 
many died--169 brave Oklahomans and wonderful people; citizens, who 
were not guilty of anything. They were killed without warning and 
without provocation for no apparent reason. This is modern terrorism at 
its worst. But if you just multiply that tragedy by 100 or 200 or 300, 
you can only begin to imagine what type of impact a future missile 
attack might have on a major American city.
  The threat is there. The threat is more imminent than many realize. 
It is a very real threat. And I do not think there is anything this 
body will be engaged in, in discussing and putting into effect, that 
has a greater significance for our future security, than developing a 
national missile defense system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized to speak 
in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

                          ____________________