[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 40 (Thursday, March 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2651-S2655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Helms, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mr. Warner, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Abraham, Mr. McCain, 
        Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Mack, 
        and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1635. A bill to establish a United States policy for the 
deployment of a national missile defense system, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


                     the defend america act of 1996

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which 
will have a profound impact on America's future. I am pleased to be 
joined by the chairman of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations 
Committees, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
the Republican leadership, and other Republicans strongly interested in 
missile defense, in introducing the Defend America Act of 1996. An 
identical bill is being introduced in the House by the Speaker and the 
chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and the National Security 
Committee, among others. This bill addresses the most fundamental 
responsibility the U.S. Government has to its citizens: to protect them 
from harm. At present, the United States has no defense--I repeat--no 
defense against ballistic missiles.
  The Defend America Act of 1996 answers the question of whether 
Americans should be protected from the threat of ballistic missile 
attack with a resounding ``Yes.'' There should be no doubt that we have 
the technical capability to defend our great Nation from the growing 
threat of ballistic missiles. What we need is the will and the 
leadership. We have seen no leadership from the White House on this 
issue. Indeed, we have witnessed a complete denial from the highest 
levels of the administration that there is even a threat to the United 
States. President Clinton vetoed the fiscal year 1996 Defense 
authorization bill because it required developing a national missile 
defense system for deployment by the end of 2003. President Clinton 
refuses to defend America preferring to rely on the false protection of 
the cold-war-era antiballistic missile [ABM] treaty.

  The cold war is over and the threat from ballistic missiles is real 
and growing. Among others, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and Syria 
are seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile 
delivery systems. China and Russia have been engaged in transferring 
related components and technologies.
  Just last week, the former Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency, James Woolsey testified before the House National Security 
Committee on his views of the threat posed by ballistic missiles--as 
well as the current national intelligence estimate on this threat. I 
would like to quote from his testimony:

       We are in the midst of an era of revolutionary improvements 
     in missile guidance. These improvements will soon make 
     ballistic missiles much more effective for blackmail purposes 
     . . . even without the need for warheads containing weapons 
     of mass destruction. . . .
       With such guidance improvements, it is quite reasonable to 
     believe that within a few years Saddam or the Chinese rulers 
     will be able to threaten something far more troubling . . .

  Woolsey went on to say:

       But, in current circumstances, nuclear blackmail threats 
     against the United States may be effectively posed by 
     North Korean intermediate ranged missiles targeted on 
     Alaska or Hawaii, or by Chinese ICBM's targeted on Los 
     Angeles.


[[Page S2652]]


  With respect to the national intelligence estimate, Woolsey 
criticized the narrow focus of the estimate which concentrated on 
indigenous intercontinental ballistic missile development--as opposed 
to the transfer of such components and technology. As Woolsey pointed 
out, since the end of the cold war, Russia, China, and North Korea have 
been actively exporting missile technology and components. Furthermore, 
Woolsey noted that the national intelligence estimate only looked at 
the threat to the 48 continental States. Well, the last time I checked, 
Alaska and Hawaii were part of the United States. The bottom line is 
that the threat is real and we cannot wait for it to arrive on our 
doorstep before we act. As former Assistant Secretary of Defense 
Richard Perle stated before the National Security Committee, and I 
quote:

       If we achieve a defensive capability a little before it is 
     absolutely necessary, no harm will have been done. But if we 
     are too late, the result could be catastrophic. In cases like 
     this, it is always wise to err on the side of too much, too 
     soon, rather than too little, too late.

  Mr. President, this legislation establishes a clear policy to deploy 
a national missile defense [NMD] system by the end of 2003, that is 
capable of providing a highly effective defense of U.S. territory 
against limited, unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attacks. 
The bill also specifies the components of a national missile defense 
system that are to be developed for deployment, including: An 
interceptor system, fixed ground-based radars, space-based sensors, and 
battle management, command, control, and communications.
  To implement this policy, this legislation directs the Secretary of 
Defense to: Promptly initiate planning to meet this deployment goal; 
conduct by the end of 1998, an integrated systems test using NMD 
components; to use streamlined acquisition procedures to reduce cost 
and increase efficiency; and to develop a follow-on NMD program.

  The Secretary of Defense is also required to submit a detailed report 
to the Congress no later than March 15, 1997, which outlines his plans 
for implementing this policy, the estimate costs associated with the 
development and deployment of the NMD system, a cost and operational 
effectiveness analysis of follow-on options, and a determination of the 
point at which NMD development would conflict with the ABM Treay.
  With respect to the ABM Treaty, the legislation urges the President 
to bring the Russians on board, by pursuing high-level discussions with 
Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow for the deployment of the NMD 
system specified in this act. If the Russians do agree, the legislation 
requires any agreement to be submitted to the Senate for advice and 
consent. However, if a satisfactory agreement is not reached within a 
year of the date of enactment of this legislation, the President and 
Congress will consider U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. President, deploying a national missile defense system--which 
will protect all 50 States--should be our top defense priority. The 
Defend America Act lays out a realistic and responsible course by which 
we can do so.
  A national missile defense system will not only defend, it will 
deter--by reducing the incentive of rogue regimes to acquire ballistic 
missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
  I hope that the White House is listening. Republicans are united and 
clear in their message that America must be defended. We are ready to 
exercise leadership to fulfill our responsibility to all Americans to 
protect them from ballistic missile attack.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1635

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Defend America Act of 
     1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Although the United States possesses the technological 
     means to develop and deploy defensive systems that would be 
     highly effective in countering limited ballistic missile 
     threats to its territory, the United States has not deployed 
     such systems and currently has no policy to do so.
       (2) The threat that is posed to the national security of 
     the United States by the proliferation of ballistic missiles 
     is significant and growing, both quantitatively and 
     qualitatively.
       (3) The trend in ballistic missile proliferation is toward 
     longer range and increasingly sophisticated missiles.
       (4) Several countries that are hostile to the United States 
     (including North Korea, Iran, Libya, and Iraq) have 
     demonstrated an interest in acquiring ballistic missiles 
     capable of reaching the United States.
       (5) The Intelligence Community of the United States has 
     confirmed that North Korea is developing an intercontinental 
     ballistic missile that will be capable of reaching Alaska or 
     beyond once deployed.
       (6) There are ways for determined countries to acquire 
     missiles capable of threatening the United States with little 
     warning by means other than indigenous development.
       (7) Because of the dire consequences to the United States 
     of not being prepared to defend itself against a rogue 
     missile attack and the long-lead time associated with 
     preparing an effective defense, it is prudent to commence a 
     national missile defense deployment effort before new 
     ballistic missile threats to the United States are 
     unambiguously confirmed.
       (8) The timely deployment by the United States of an 
     effective national missile defense system will reduce the 
     incentives for countries to develop or otherwise acquire 
     intercontinental ballistic missiles, thereby inhibiting as 
     well as countering the proliferation of missiles and weapons 
     of mass destruction.
       (9) Deployment by the United States of a national missile 
     defense system will reduce concerns about the threat of an 
     accidental or unauthorized ballistic missile attack on the 
     United States.
       (10) The offense-only approach to strategic deterrence 
     presently followed by the United States and Russia is 
     fundamentally adversarial and is not a suitable basis for 
     stability in a world in which the United States and the 
     states of the former Soviet Union are seeking to normalize 
     relations and eliminate Cold War attitudes and arrangements.
       (11) Pursuing a transition to a form of strategic 
     deterrence based increasingly on defensive capabilities and 
     strategies is in the interest of all countries seeking to 
     preserve and enhance strategic stability.
       (12) The deployment of a national missile defense system 
     capable of defending the United States against limited 
     ballistic missile attacks would (A) strengthen deterrence at 
     the levels of forces agreed to by the United States and 
     Russia under the START I Treaty, and (B) further strengthen 
     deterrence if reductions below START I levels are implemented 
     in the future.
       (13) Article XIII of the ABM Treaty envisions ``possible 
     changes in the strategic situation which have a bearing on 
     the provisions of this treaty''.
       (14) Articles XIII and XIV of the treaty establish means 
     for the parties to amend the treaty, and the parties have in 
     the past used those means to amend the treaty.
       (15) Article XV of the treaty establishes the means for a 
     party to withdraw from the treaty, upon six months notice 
     ``if it decides that extraordinary events related to the 
     subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme 
     interests''.
       (16) Previous discussions between the United States and 
     Russia, based on Russian President Yeltsin's proposal for a 
     Global Protection System, envisioned an agreement to amend 
     the ABM Treaty to allow (among other measures) deployment of 
     as many as four ground-based interceptor sites in addition to 
     the one site permitted under the ABM Treaty and unrestricted 
     exploitation of sensors based within the atmosphere and in 
     space.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

       (a) It is the policy of the United States to deploy by the 
     end of 2003 a National Missile Defense system that--
       (1) is capable of providing a highly-effective defense of 
     the territory of the United States against limited, 
     unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attacks; and
       (2) will be augmented over time to provide a layered 
     defense against larger and more sophisticated ballistic 
     missile threats as they emerge.
       (b) It is the policy of the United States to seek a 
     cooperative transition to a regime that does not feature an 
     offense-only form of deterrence as the basis for strategic 
     stability.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE.

       (a) Requirement for Development of System.--To implement 
     the policy established in section 3(a), the Secretary of 
     Defense shall develop for deployment an affordable and 
     operationally effective National Missile Defense (NMD) system 
     which shall achieve an initial operational capability (IOC) 
     by the end of 2003.
       (b) Elements of the NMD System.--The system to be developed 
     for deployment shall include the following elements:
       (1) An interceptor system that optimizes defensive coverage 
     of the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii against 
     limited, accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile 
     attacks and includes one or a combination of the following:
       (A) Ground-based interceptors.

[[Page S2653]]

       (B) Sea-based interceptors.
       (C) Space-based kinetic energy interceptors.
       (D) Space-based directed energy systems.
       (2) Fixed ground-based radars.
       (3) Space-based sensors, including the Space and Missile 
     Tracking System.
       (4) Battle management, command, control, and communications 
     (BM/C3).

     SEC. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.

       The Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) upon the enactment of this Act, promptly initiate 
     required preparatory and planning actions that are necessary 
     so as to be capable of meeting the initial operational 
     capability (IOC) date specified in section 4(a);
       (2) plan to conduct by the end of 1998 an integrated 
     systems test which uses elements (including BM/C3 
     elements) that are representative of, and traceable to, the 
     national missile defense system architecture specified in 
     section 4(b);
       (3) prescribe and use streamlined acquisition policies and 
     procedures to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of 
     developing the system specified in section 4(a); and
       (4) develop an affordable national missile defense follow-
     on program that--
       (A) leverages off of the national missile defense system 
     specified in section 4(a), and
       (B) augments that system, as the threat changes, to provide 
     for a layered defense.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON PLAN FOR NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM 
                   DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT.

       Not later than March 15, 1997, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the Secretary's plan for 
     development and deployment of a national missile defense 
     system pursuant to this Act. The report shall include the 
     following matters:
       (1) The Secretary's plan for carrying out this Act, 
     including--
       (A) a detailed description of the system architecture 
     selected for development under section 4(b); and
       (B) a discussion of the justification for the selection of 
     that particular architecture.
       (2) The Secretary's estimate of the amount of 
     appropriations required for research, development, test, 
     evaluation, and for procurement, for each of fiscal years 
     1997 through 2003 in order to achieve the initial operational 
     capability date specified in section 4(a).
       (3) A cost and operational effectiveness analysis of 
     follow-on options to improve the effectiveness of such 
     system.
       (4) A determination of the point at which any activity that 
     is required to be carried out under this Act would conflict 
     with the terms of the ABM Treaty, together with a description 
     of any such activity, the legal basis for the Secretary's 
     determination, and an estimate of the time at which such 
     point would be reached in order to meet the initial 
     operational capability date specified in section 4(a).

     SEC. 7. POLICY REGARDING THE ABM TREATY.

       (a) ABM Treaty Negotiations.--In light of the findings in 
     section 2 and the policy established in section 3, Congress 
     urges the President to pursue high-level discussions with the 
     Russian Federation to achieve an agreement to amend the ABM 
     Treaty to allow deployment of the national missile defense 
     system being developed for deployment under section 4.
       (b) Requirement for Senate Advice and Consent.--If an 
     agreement described in subsection (a) is achieved in 
     discussions described in that subsection, the President shall 
     present that agreement to the Senate for its advice and 
     consent. No funds appropriated or otherwise available for any 
     fiscal year may be obligated or expended to implement such an 
     amendment to the ABM Treaty unless the amendment is made in 
     the same manner as the manner by which a treaty is made.
       (c) Action Upon Failure To Achieve Negotiated Changes 
     Within One Year.--If an agreement described in subsection (a) 
     is not achieved in discussions described in that subsection 
     within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the President and Congress, in consultation with each other, 
     shall consider exercising the option of withdrawing the 
     United States from the ABM Treaty in accordance with the 
     provisions of Article XV of that treaty.

     SEC. 8. ABM TREATY DEFINED.

       For purposes of this Act, the term ``ABM Treaty'' means the 
     Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of 
     Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-
     Ballistic Missile Systems, and signed at Moscow on May 26, 
     1972, and includes the Protocols to that Treaty, signed at 
     Moscow on July 3, 1974.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am extremely proud to be a principal 
cosponsor of the Defend America Act of 1996, which was introduced by 
Senator Dole today. This legislation will fill a glaring void in U.S. 
national security policy by requiring the deployment of a national 
missile defense system by 2003 that is capable of defending the United 
States against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile 
attack.
  Ironically, most Americans already believe that we have such a system 
in place. This assumption is understandable since under the 
Constitution the President's first responsibility is to provide for the 
defense of the American homeland. Unfortunately, the current President 
has decided that this obligation is one that can be indefinitely 
delayed. I join Senator Dole and others today in proclaiming that the 
time has come to end America's complete vulnerability to ballistic 
missile blackmail and attack.
  The President and senior members of the administration have argued 
that there is no threat to justify deployment of a national missile 
defense system. This is simply not true. The political and military 
situation in the former Soviet Union has deteriorated, leading to 
greater uncertainty over the control and security of Russian strategic 
nuclear forces. China is firing missiles near Taiwan as if it were a 
skeet range, and has even made veiled threats against the United 
States. North Korea is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile 
that will be capable of reaching the United States once deployed. Other 
hostile and unpredictable countries, such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq, 
have made clear their desire to acquire missiles capable of reaching 
the United States. The technology and knowledge to produce missiles and 
weapons of mass destruction is available on the open market.
  China's recent provocations against Taiwan highlight the need for the 
United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as 
possible. Although veiled threats against the United States may be only 
saber rattling, American military and political leaders should not 
ignore them. If the United States possessed even a limited national 
missile defense system, U.S. decision-makers would have a much greater 
degree of flexibility in considering our military and diplomatic 
options. A vulnerable America is not only subject to missile attack, 
but also to blackmail and intimidation.
  Last year, President Clinton vetoed the Defense authorization bill 
mainly because it called for deployment of a national missile defense 
system. The administration argued that there was no need for such a 
system, that the threat is 10 or 15 years away. China has clearly 
illustrated how their judgment is flawed. The threat is here today.
  If the situation should deteriorate between China and Taiwan, 
President Clinton will almost certainly regret the fact that the United 
States has no means of dealing with Chinese missile threats other than 
by our own nuclear threats. This is hardly a credible response. A 
national missile defense system, on the other hand, would eliminate the 
risk and uncertainty that would surely occur if China and the United 
States engaged in a series of nuclear threats and counterthreats. This 
would be an invitation for disaster. If we had an operational national 
missile defense system, we could confidently deal with Chinese missile 
threats and pursue our policies and objectives without intimidation.
  The other important factor to bear in mind when considering the need 
for a national missile defense system, is that such a system can 
actually discourage countries from acquiring long-range missiles in the 
first place. In this sense, we should view national missile defense as 
a powerful nonproliferation tool, not just something to be considered 
some time in the future as a response to newly emerging threats.
  The policy advocated in the Defend America Act of 1996 is virtually 
identical to that contained in the fiscal year 1996 Defense 
Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress and vetoed by the 
President. Like the legislation vetoed by the President, the Defend 
America Act of 1996 would require that the entire United States be 
protected against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized attack by the 
year 2003. It differs from the vetoed legislation in that it provides 
the Secretary of Defense greater flexibility in determining the precise 
architecture for the system.
  The Defend America Act of 1996 urges the President to begin 
negotiations to amend the AMB Treaty to allow for deployment of an 
effective system. But it also recommends that, if these negotiations 
fail to produce acceptable amendments within 1 year, Congress and the 
President should consider withdrawing the United States from the ABM 
Treaty. Nothing in this legislation, however, requires or advocates 
abrogation or violation of the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. President, 3 months ago, the President of the United States 
vetoed

[[Page S2654]]

the Defense authorization bill because he opposed the deployment of a 
system to defend the American people against ballistic missile attack. 
Today, I am honored to join Senator Dole in sending a clear message--we 
will not stand idly by while the United States remains undefended 
against a real and growing threat. The legislation we are introducing 
today will fulfill a constitutional, strategic, and moral obligation 
that has been neglected for 4 years.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation 
to establish a policy for deploying a national defense system for the 
United States. This bill, the National Missile Defense Act of 1996, 
returns the United States on a clear path toward deploying a system to 
defend the American people against limited, accidental, or unauthorized 
ballistic missile attacks.
  In 1991, the Congress enacted the first Missile Defense Act, in a 
bipartisan effort to give direction to the Strategic Defense Initiative 
program, now known as the Ballistic Missile Defense program. The need 
for theater missile defense systems had been tragically demonstrated 
during the Persian Gulf war, and it was clear that the potential 
threats to our continent would continue to exist, even with the 
collapse of the Soviet Union.
  Subsequently, that policy was watered down and its deployment 
objectives were delayed time and again. I congratulate Senator Dole for 
taking the lead today in restoring much-needed direction to our 
national missile defense efforts.
  Our Nation has invested over $38 billion on missile defense programs 
over the past 15 years, with very little effective defensive capability 
to show for it. We are at a turning point in the development of 
capabilities to effectively defend our citizens and our troops deployed 
overseas from the devastating effects of ballistic missile attacks.
  We should focus our missile defense programs on the risk of 
accidental or unauthorized missile launch, missile proliferation in the 
Third World, and particularly the risk of theater missile attacks on 
our forces and allies.
  Deployment of effective, mobile theater missile defense systems for 
our troops in the field should be our first priority. To do so requires 
an evaluation of the many ongoing research programs to determine which 
demonstrates the most promise for deployable capability against 
battlefield missile attacks.
  I am greatly disappointed that the administration chose to ignore 
Congressional direction and cut the theater missile defense funding 
approved by the Congress last year. The core programs identified in the 
fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill, including both lower and 
upper tier systems, must be fully funded to ensure the most effective 
protection for our troops in the field. I fully expect Congress to 
restore the funding and restate the programmatic direction to make 
these systems available to our forces.
  At the same time, we must develop a deployment plan for an initial 
national missile defense system to provide an effective defense of U.S. 
territory against limited ballistic missile attacks. This bill 
establishes a goal of 2003 to deploy such a system and directs the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to implement that goal. It is 
now up to the Congress to provide the funding to develop and procure 
the most cost-effective system.
  Both efforts, toward theater and national missile defense systems, 
must balance the critical need for defenses with the reality of fiscal 
constraints. Every effort should be made to engage our allies both 
financially and technically in developing these systems.
  Mr. President, the threat of proliferation is too great to ignore. We 
must not replace the nuclear confrontation of the cold war with 
vulnerability to dictators, extremists, and nations who threaten us 
with nuclear blackmail, or our forces and allies with missile attack. 
Without effective, deployed missile defense systems, we remain at risk.
  I intend to work with Senator Dole to achieve early passage of this 
legislation in the Senate, and I urge President Clinton to approve it 
to ensure the safety of the American people.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Republican 
leadership of both the Senate and the House, and all Republican members 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as an original cosponsor of the 
Defend America Act of 1996. I call on all Members of Congress to join 
us in our effort to protect the citizens of the United States from 
ballistic missile attack.
  Earlier this year, President Clinton's veto of the Defense 
authorization bill forced us to reluctantly drop the important national 
missile defense provisions that we had included in that bill. At that 
time, we promised that we would be back with separate legislation to 
provide for the defense of the United States. With the introduction of 
today's legislation, we have fulfilled that promise and will continue 
the fight until this legislation is enacted into law--over President 
Clinton's veto, if necessary.
  Many Americans find it hard to believe that we currently have no 
system in place which could defend our Nation against even a single 
intercontinental ballistic missile strike. This, despite the fact that 
Russia and China currently have the capability to reach our shores with 
their intercontinental ballistic missiles; and North Korea is well on 
its way to deploying a long-range missile capable of striking Alaska. 
In addition, over 30 nations now have short-range ballistic missiles--
30 nations, many hostile to the United States. As China's saber 
rattling against Taiwan continues, we hear reports of veiled threats 
from China of a missile attack against California--something they are 
very capable of doing. And today's papers report that Iraq continues to 
possess Scud missiles.
  The need for defenses against these capabilities is clear. The cold 
war may be over, but the desire of more and more nations to acquire 
ballistic missiles is growing.
  But the Clinton administration believes there is no threat, and they 
have presented the Congress with a defense budget request which ``slow 
rolls'' our ballistic missile defense efforts. The American people 
deserve better.
  That is why I have long been in the forefront of the Republican 
effort to provide both our troops deployed overseas and Americans here 
at home with adequate defenses to counter the very real threat of 
ballistic missile attack. I drafted the Missile Defense Act of 1991 
which--in the aftermath of the Iraqi Scud missile attacks--set the 
United States on the path to acquiring and deploying theater and 
national missile defense systems. I also joined with my Republican 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in drafting the Missile 
Defense Act of 1995, an update of the earlier Missile Defense Act. 
Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, President Clinton's veto stopped 
that Republican effort to defend Americans.
  The Defend America Act calls for the deployment of a national missile 
defense (NMD) system to protect the United States against limited, 
unauthorized or accidental ballistic missile attacks. It is important 
to emphasize that we are talking about a limited system--one that would 
provide a highly effective capability against a limited ballistic 
missile attack. This is precisely the type of defensive system we need 
to deal with the threats we are facing in the post-cold-war world.
  A key difference between the Defend America Act and the missile 
defense legislation adopted last year, is that the current bill does 
not require the deployment of a specific NMD system. Rather, it 
establishes the requirement to deploy a system by a date certain, but 
leaves it to the Secretary of Defense to propose a plan by March 15, 
1997, to implement this requirement. This is a prudent approach which 
focuses the debate on the real issue--do you want to defend the 
American people against ballistic missile attacks?
  Mr. President, we all remember the Iraqi Scud missile attacks on our 
forces in Saudi Arabia, and our friends in Israel. I was in Tel Aviv 
during the last Scud attack--February 18, 1991.
  I do not want to see U.S. citizens subjected to the terror I 
witnessed in Israel. I pray that we never see a time when Americans are 
forced to carry gas masks around because some madman is threatening our 
shores. We owe it to our citizens to take action now--before it is too 
late--to provide them with effective defenses against these types of 
attacks.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation 
introduced today by Senator Dole regarding

[[Page S2655]]

national missile defense. I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I 
want to commend Senator Dole for his steadfast commitment to defending 
America.
  Mr. President, our Nation is walking a very dangerous tightrope. For 
reasons that are unknown and certainly inconceivable to most Americans, 
President Clinton refuses to defend our country against ballistic 
missiles, even though the technology to do so is available today.
  The truth is our Nation is absolutely, completely vulnerable to 
ballistic missiles. We have no defense whatsoever against a missile 
targeted on our territory, our industry, our national treasures, or our 
people. The Patriot missiles that everyone remembers from Desert Storm 
5 years ago are not capable of stopping a long-range missile. In fact, 
they can only defend very small areas against short-range missiles. The 
Patriot is a point-defense system that we send along with our troops 
when they go into harm's way.
  But here at home we have no defenses against long-range missiles 
based in China, in Russia, or in North Korea. We have no defenses 
against the missiles that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are so 
vigorously seeking to acquire. That is the truth. That is a fact. And 
that is unacceptable.
  When told of this situation, the vast majority of Americans become 
enraged. They cannot understand why their elected Representatives would 
leave them defenseless against the likes of Saddam Hussein, Mu'ammar 
Qadhafi, or Kim Jong-Il. They cannot understand why the tax dollars 
that they contribute for national defense are not being used to protect 
them. Frankly, they have every right to be upset. There is simply no 
excuse.

  The Congress agrees with the American people and took action last 
year to defend all Americans against ballistic missiles, whatever their 
source. In the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996, 
Congress established a program to develop and deploy a national missile 
defense system for the United States. This program was not some 
elaborate star wars concept, but rather, a very modest yet capable 
ground-based system that would provide a limited defense of America 
against accidental, unauthorized, or hostile missile attacks.
  But President Clinton vetoed the Defense bill specifically because of 
the requirement to defend America. In fact, in his statement of 
administration policy, the President called national missile defense 
quote ``unwarranted and unnecessary.''
  Mr. President, that is a very insightful quote, and it gets right to 
the heart of the differences between President Clinton, Presidential 
candidate Bob Dole, and the Republican Congress. To President Clinton, 
providing for the common defense is ``unwarranted and unnecessary.'' To 
the Congress and Senator Dole, it is the most fundamental of our 
constitutional responsibilities.
  Simply put, this is a defining issue. It is an issue that defines our 
Nation's character and commitment to its people. It is an issue that 
defines the two parties. It is an issue that defines the very basic 
difference between two men who are seeking the Presidency. It is an 
issue that history will undoubtedly look back and pass judgment upon 
and, for better or worse, it is an issue that will define our 
generation.
  Mr. President, if we fail to take action to defend America now, while 
we still have the chance, we will certainly regret it. At some point in 
the very near future, we will have waited too long. The theoretical 
threat of a hostile ballistic missile launch will have become a 
reality. And we will have no defense against it.
  What will it take for President Clinton to recognize this threat? 
Must a ballistic missile equipped with a chemical, biological, or 
nuclear warhead rain down upon citizens before he will act? Must tens 
of thousands of Americans perish before he corrects this terrible 
vulnerability.
  To those of us who are cosponsoring this legislation, the answer is, 
``No.'' The time to act is now, not tomorrow. Our Nation is in 
jeopardy. Ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are 
spreading throughout the world and we cannot stop them. In fact, some 
30 nations currently possess, or are actively acquiring, weapons of 
mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
  Just yesterday, the United Nations admitted that Iraq is covertly 
storing up to 16 ballistic missiles armed with chemical or biological 
warheads. Iraq is the most inspected and thoroughly monitored country 
in the world. If we cannot find these missiles in the deserts of Iraq, 
how can we expect to track them in the mountains and valleys of China, 
North Korea, Iran, or Syria?
  The answer is, We can't, and even if we could, we have no system to 
counter them. The only solution is to develop missile defenses. This 
bill does just that, and would require that our Nation deploy a 
national missile defense system capable of protecting all Americans by 
the year 2003.
  Mr. President, this is not about politics. It is not about 
partisanship. It is about national security and keeping faith with 
those who elected us and those who depend upon us to safeguard their 
lives and property. If we ignore this obligation, we will have failed 
in our most fundamental constitutional responsibility. To me that is 
unacceptable. It runs against every principle that I stand for, and as 
long as I have a breath in my body, I will fight to prevent that from 
happening.
  Mr. President, I want to again thank the distinguished majority 
leader for bringing this issue before the Senate. He does our Nation a 
profound service by highlighting the missile defense issue, and I am 
proud to cosponsor this important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______