[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S582-S583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE MISSILE THREAT

  Mr. INHOFE. I wanted to take just a moment, Mr. President, to mention 
something else that will be very dear to the heart of our previous 
speaker, Senator John Kyl, from Arizona. I am sure, since he was quoted 
in the article that I am about to quote, that he shares my concern over 
an article that appeared in the Washington Times yesterday entitled 
``Missile Threat Report Politicized, GOP Says.''
  I will just read the first paragraph of this article. It says:

       A new intelligence estimate by the Clinton administration 
     which foresees no ballistic missile threat to the United 
     States for at least 15 years enraged GOP lawmakers who want 
     to deploy a defense against a limited missile attack.

  This is factual. I am one of those who was enraged because there is a 
lot of redundancy here. We have stood on this floor. We have tried 
through talk radio, through every other means possible, to convince the 
American people that we really do have a very serious threat out there. 
This estimate was made by the national intelligence estimate which only 
a year ago stated, as was pointed out by Senator Kyl, that there is a 
risk out there. And it specifically talked about North Korea and the 
Taepo Dong II missile that would have the capability--this was a year 
ago--of reaching Hawaii and Alaska by the year 2000 and the Continental 
United States by the year 2002.
  We just had a defense authorization bill that was vetoed by President 
Clinton. In his veto message he said we did not want to spend that 
money on a missile defense system to defend Americans against a missile 
attack. This is something that came not too long after the statement 
made by James Woolsey, who was the CIA Director appointed by President 
Clinton, that between 20 and 25 nations either have, or are developing, 
weapons of mass destruction, either chemical, biological or nuclear, 
and the missile means to deliver them. We also know that there are 
countries, as he pointed out, that now have this technology, and what 
they have they will sell.
  This article goes on to report that the new national intelligence 
estimate indicates that it is very unlikely that any of the countries 
with this missile technology would sell it. I find that very difficult 
to believe when you look at such countries as China and North Korea. 
Then you look at countries in the Middle East that have an abundance of 
wealth due to their oil holdings--Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, any number 
of countries--and you begin to realize that they could be willing 
buyers, not to mention in potential nations which could be inclined to 
fire a missile at the United States.
  I have to say this. I hesitate to stand on the floor of the Senate 
and make this statement, but I tend to think that this national 
intelligence estimate was dramatically influenced by the White House.
  It was just a week ago that we heard the State of the Union Message 
when the President of the United States made a statement that seemingly 
went unnoticed when he said that we are changing the role of our 
military from defense to peacemaking. Earlier, in vetoing the defense 
authorization bill, he talked about the fact that there is a linkage 
between the START II arms limitation agreement that was supported and 
ratified by this body a couple of days ago and the 1972 ABM Treaty.
  Well, I have questioned that linkage, but since the President 
believes it is there, I have to go back and talk about it and see how 
that relates to this article that came out just yesterday. The ABM 
Treaty was put together, it was a philosophy that was articulated for 
national defense to defend our strategic interests by the Nixon 
administration, by Dr. Henry Kissinger.
  Back at that time, they formulated a plan that was called MAD, 
mutually assured destruction, and what we were talking about at that 
time was we only had two superpowers in the world. We had the U.S.S.R. 
and the United States of America. They said, ``Well, I tell you what. 
You don't defend yourselves; we won't defend ourselves. If somebody 
shoots at us, we'll shoot back and we all die.'' That was fine. That 
was the policy. I did not agree with it at that time, but at least it 
was predicated on the assumption there were two superpowers in the 
world, and at that time it was true, the U.S.S.R. and the United States 
of America.
  Now, in light of the statement of James Woolsey and of what our 
intelligence has reported to us, there are probably 25 countries now 
that have this power. So we are not talking about just two.
  In a way, I think things were more secure back during the cold war; 
at least then we could identify a singular enemy. Now we do not know 
where it is coming from. So if the President has his way and we are to 
accept his idea of continuing a policy that was articulated and 
established back in 1972 of mutually assured destruction--assuming, of 
course, that Russia, which is the other party of this policy, this 
being the START II Treaty, if they do what they say they will do--and 
their performance is not very good in the past in their arms reduction 
commitment--but assuming that they do, then you have Russia and the 
United States reducing our nuclear capability at the same time there 
are 24 other nations out there that are not reducing theirs; they are 
raising theirs.
  That is the situation, the environment that we find ourselves in 
today. I felt we could win this argument on the debate because the 
American people are intelligent people. There are a lot of ways of 
getting to the American people and getting the truth that is not 
filtered through the Washington, DC, media, and that is going straight 
on talk radio and other means. 

[[Page S583]]

  Now, all of a sudden, as reported in yesterday's paper, we are 
confronted with this dramatic conversion in the national intelligence 
estimate from one that only a year ago said we were under a threat of 
nuclear attack within 5 years to one that now says there is no problem 
for the next 15 years. This is very disturbing because to most people, 
it is surely an implausible conclusion.
  If you look at the hits that have been taken on the budget that 
Senator Kyl was talking about, the only real reduction that we have had 
during this administration is in our military capability. We have 
consistently, time and time again each year for 10 consecutive years, 
reduced our military spending while all other spending has gone up.
  The Senator from Arizona quoted President Kennedy. The more I hear 
quotes of President Kennedy, the more he sounds like a present-day 
Republican. He did make the statements that Senator Kyl mentioned. But 
he also recognized back in 1961, when he developed his first budget, 
that we had to have a strong national defense. And the first budget 
under President Kennedy had 50 percent for military and 30 percent for 
human resources. Today, in the budget we have, only 17 percent is for 
military and defense and 60 percent is for human resources. So it is 
just reversed, and yet we are saying this at a time when some would 
like to lull the American people into believing that there is no threat 
out there when, in fact, we know that there is. So it may be only a 
handful of us in the Senate who are going to do our very best to keep 
America strong. And, again, I would reiterate my concern about what was 
reported in the article that just came out in yesterday's paper. I am 
personally outraged that this critically important estimate of the 
threat to our national security has been totally reversed from previous 
estimates seemingly just to support a position that the President is 
holding.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________