[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 42 (Monday, March 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2833-S2834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT OF 1996

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join the 
distinguished majority leader, and my colleagues, in cosponsoring the 
National Missile Defense Act of 1996. This legislation builds on the 
Missile Defense Act of 1995. The 1995 act made significant

[[Page S2834]]

progress toward securing the funding necessary for the eventual 
deployment of a missile defense system capable of protecting the United 
States. Unfortunately, that act fell short by not explicitly directing 
that we deploy the missile defense system as soon as possible.
  The majority leader, in close cooperation with Congress' National 
defense leadership, has crafted a proposal that achieves our nation's 
missile defense through prudent, incremental development of policies 
and force structures. To begin with, we would produce the system 
necessary to protect the United States from limited, unauthorized or 
accidental ballistic missile attacks. We then would augment that 
capability to defend our Nation against larger and more sophisticated 
ballistic missile threats. I am especially heartened that this bill 
allows for the development of the most promising anti-ballistic missile 
technologies, including sea-based systems such as Navy Upper Tier.
  This bill assigns the Secretary of Defense the considerable task of 
reporting a missile defense development and deployment plan by March 
15, 1997. However, I feel confident that Congress will be more than 
willing to assist him in the formulation of that plan. This can, and 
should, be a joint endeavor, Congress will fulfil its constitutional 
responsibility to raise and support our armed forces, while the 
Executive determines how best to deploy these forces.
  At this time, Mr. President, I would like to expand upon section 5 of 
the act--that section regarding the ABM Treaty. Congress, through the 
Missile Defense Acts of 1991, 1994, and 1995 has repeatedly stated that 
the ABM Treaty does not, in any way, hinder the development of theater 
ballistic missile defenses. It has also called for a renegotiation of 
the ABM Treaty so as to allow the development of more robust national 
missile defense systems.
  Unfortunately, this country has abandoned the initiatives of the 
previous administration to cooperatively develop with the Russians a 
protective global missile defense systems. An insistence on keeping 
America vulnerable to attack, and a dogmatic faith in the deterrence of 
nuclear war through mutual assured destruction will no longer prevent 
missile attacks upon the United States.
  Mr. President, the times have changed since the ratification of the 
ABM Treaty. Our primary threats no longer come from a general nuclear 
attack by thousands of Soviet weapons--an attack that would probably 
overwhelm a ballistic missile defense system. Today our immediate 
threats come from rogue, unintentional, or unauthorized attacks of 
limited size and duration. The limitations of the ABM Treaty fail to 
address these new threats, and I believe, are incapable of being 
modified so as to address them. The administration has steadfastly 
stood by the antiquated strategies of the ABM Treaty, and I am afraid 
it is unwilling to address the threats posed to America by continued 
reliance on that treaty.
  Nonetheless, Mr. President, this Congress continues to be willing to 
work with the administration to address our missile defense needs. I 
believe the urging contained in section 5 represent our last, best hope 
of adequately modifying the ABM Treaty, and protecting America from 
ballistic missile attack. The Treaty may be fundamentally unable to 
address the threats we face today. It may be best to renounce it in its 
totality. Such a clear break with previous policy may not be feasible 
in this Congress. But it must be clear that this Congress worries that 
its urging and calls have fallen on deaf ears in the Executive, and 
that we believe the United States cannot afford to wait much longer. 
Therefore, I particularly support the provision in this bill that calls 
for withdrawal from the ABM Treaty if amendments allowing adequate 
national missile defenses are not agreed to within 1 year. I hope this 
is sufficient warning as to the extent of congressional frustration.
  The majority leader has displayed the foresight and perceptiveness 
critical for developing effective national security strategies. There 
can be no doubt that a fully operational and technologically capable 
ballistic missile defense system is crucial to that strategy. Nor can 
there be any doubt that antiquated treaties which fail to adapt to 
vastly different national security threats must be either changed or 
discarded.
  The majority leader's bill constitutes a reasonable and moderate 
attempt to bridge the broad philosophical gap that exists between 
Congress and the administration. We should not let this opportunity be 
lost. If concerns with the ABM Treaty prevent this bill from becoming 
law, then I believe it may be time to nullify that treaty.

                          ____________________