[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 41 (Friday, March 22, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. BOB LIVINGSTON

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 21, 1996

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today the Defend 
America Act of 1996.
  Just a few short weeks ago, during consideration of the National 
Defense Authorization Act, S. 1124, I stood in this Chamber with 
Chairman Spence and my colleagues on the Authorization Committee and 
said that Members of this Republican controlled House would not be 
party to one of the most irresponsible acts of negligence on the part 
of this or any administration. It is no secret to this body that I am 
speaking of the administration's decision to leave the American people 
defenseless against a ballistic missile attack.
  On that day, Chairman Floyd Spence and I vowed that Congress would 
initiate its own legislation to make certain that ballistic missile 
defense is one of our Nation's highest priorities. Today, along with 
Speaker Gingrich, Chairman Floyd Spence, and other leadership in the 
House, we are making good on that promise. Today, we are introducing 
the Defend America Act of 1996. This legislation stands in sharp 
contrast to the Clinton administration's philosophy. It is an 
unequivocal statement in favor of defending the United States from 
ballistic missile attack. Let me list some of the differences between 
the Congress and the administration as outlined in this legislation:
  First, unlike the administration's weak, noncommittal approach, known 
as, 3 plus 3, this legislation calls for a firm deployment date of 2003 
for a National Missile Defense [NMD] system. The administration claims 
it will develop an NMD capability within 3 years. But, a decision to 
deploy will not be made for 3 years, in 1999, and only if a threat 
emerges. My friends, there is no need to invent a threat. An article in 
the New York Times, January 23, 1996, records China's veiled threat to 
use a nuclear missile against Los Angeles. What more do we need?
  Second, we call for an NMD system that can defend the United States 
and its terrorities. The administration's proposal leaves open the 
possibility that Alaska and Hawaii would be left defenseless. We know 
North Korea is already developing a long-range missile that is capable 
of hitting points in Alaska and Hawaii. Given these facts, it is hard 
to image the President of the United States proposing to defend only 
part of the Nation against missile attack. Yet, it seems that this is 
exactly what the administration is intent on doing.
  Third, this legislation does not limit the ballistic missile 
architecture simply to comply with an outdated, obsolete treaty. 
Rather, it permits the Pentagon to develop an effective National 
Missile Defense system that will be able to counter emerging threats 
and defend the American people.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this legislation will ensure that the next time 
China makes a veiled threat to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles, 
the United States has a response that does not include a massive 
nuclear lay down and the destruction of thousands of lives.

                          ____________________