[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3205-S3206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AN ANNIVERSARY TO REMEMBER

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this past Saturday, March 23, marked the 
13th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's address to the Nation in 
which he outlined a vision of the future based on the common sense 
wisdom of developing a national defense against missile attack.
  To commemorate this occasion, I ask unanimous consent that a 
transcript of President Reagan's remarks on missile defense from this 
historic speech be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on that day in 1983, President Reagan 
announced his decision to begin the long march away from the suicidal 
defense doctrine known as mutual assured destruction. In one bold 
stroke, he singlehandedly committed the Nation to an intense research 
and development program designed to harness our technology to the task 
of countering the threat posed by ballistic missiles, and to do it with 
measures that are defensive. Wouldn't it be better, he asked, ``to save 
lives rather than to avenge them?''
  In retrospect, we can see that it was a speech that truly rocked the 
world. In the context of the closing strategy of the cold war, it posed 
the decisive final challenge to the Soviet Union. Three years later, at 
the Reykjavik Summit, extraordinary Soviet efforts to deter Reagan from 
his commitment to missile defense failed. As a result, the evil 
empire's days were numbered and Soviet leader Gorbachev knew it.

  In the context of domestic politics, Reagan's 1983 speech ignited a 
passionate debate over defense policy which still continues today. 
Within just hours after the speech, one of our distinguished colleagues 
in this body coined the term star wars. Opponents claimed Reagan's idea 
was a fantasy, that he wanted a perfect astrodome defense which would 
cost trillions of dollars.
  Despite such rhetoric, in the context of science and technology, the 
speech helped focus inquiries on numerous fronts which led to 
remarkable breakthroughs. Is it technically feasible, at an affordable 
cost, to ``intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before 
they reach our own soil or that of

[[Page S3206]]

our allies?'' In 1983, many critics answered ``no.'' Today, such 
questions are themselves--as Reagan would say--largely ``impotent and 
obsolete.''
  But still, 13 years later, America has not deployed, nor is it 
committed to deploy, any national missile defense system. Why? In a 
fundamental sense, the answer lies in the triumph of politics over 
science. The real technological barriers have been broken. We have the 
know-how. Even funding is no longer the real issue.
  Rather, it is the many political barriers that remain, and they are 
formidable. The Soviet Union is gone, and with it, the perceived threat 
posed by its awesome missile arsenal. Proliferation of missiles to 
other countries continues, but we are told that any real concern about 
it is premature. Today's Democrat President, like the Democrat 
Congresses before him, argues strenuously that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty should remain as the ``cornerstone'' of U.S. strategic 
defense policy. It prohibits the deployment of effective defenses on 
the theory that deterrence should rest solely on threat of instant 
retaliation--the same theory President Reagan sought to transcend.
  So the struggle for national missile defense continues. ``It will 
take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts,'' President 
Reagan said, and he was right.
  Today, I stand proudly with those who remain committed to the moral 
vision articulated by President Reagan: ``That the human spirit must be 
capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by 
threatening their existence.''
  We will continue the efforts President Reagan began. And I hope, that 
in marking this anniversary, we can take increased devotion to the 
cause of world peace and freedom--that we can learn from the wisdom, 
the foresight, the courage and the example of President Reagan.
  Like Ronald Reagan before us, we pursue this cause not because some 
public opinion poll told us it was the popular thing to do. We act 
because we know it is the right thing to do for our country and for 
future generations.

                               Exhibit 1

Address to the Nation on National Security By President Ronald Reagan, 
                             March 23, 1983

       The calls for cutting back the defense budget come in nice, 
     simple arithmetic. They're the same kind of talk that led the 
     democracies to neglect their defenses in the 1930's and 
     invited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that 
     grim chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or 
     neglect.
       This is why I'm speaking to you tonight--to urge you to 
     tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must 
     continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in 
     midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened 
     will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must 
     voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet 
     the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It's up 
     to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the 
     hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and 
     the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the 
     best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.
       The solution is well within our grasp. But to reach it, 
     there is simply no alternative but to continue this year, in 
     this budget, to provide the resources we need to preserve the 
     peace and guarantee our freedom.
       Now, thus far tonight I've shared with you my thoughts on 
     the problems of national security we must face together. My 
     predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on 
     other occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power 
     and have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the 
     advent of nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly 
     directed toward deterrence of aggression through the promise 
     of retaliation.
       This approach to stability through offensive threat has 
     worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing 
     nuclear war for more than three decades. in recent months, 
     however, my advisers, including in particular the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, have underscored the necessity to break out 
     of a future that relies solely on offensive retaliation for 
     our security.
       Over the course of these discussions, I've become more and 
     more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable 
     of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings 
     by threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe 
     we must thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing 
     tensions and for introducing greater stability into the 
     strategic calculus on both sides.
       One of the most important contributions we can make is, of 
     course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly 
     nuclear arms. We're engaged right now in several negotiations 
     with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction of 
     weapons. I will report to you a week from tomorrow my 
     thoughts on that score. But let me just say, I'm totally 
     committed to this course.
       If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to 
     achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in 
     stabilizing the nuclear balance. Nevertheless, it will still 
     be necessary to rely on the specter of retaliation, on mutual 
     threat. And that's a sad commentary on the human condition. 
     Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are 
     we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by 
     applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a 
     truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
       After careful consultation with my advisers, including the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share 
     with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that 
     we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile 
     threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the 
     very strengths in technology that spawned our great 
     industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we 
     enjoy today.
       What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that 
     their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. 
     retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept 
     and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached 
     our own soil or that of our allies?
       I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may 
     not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, 
     current technology has attained a level of sophistication 
     where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will 
     take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There 
     will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be 
     successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must 
     remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and 
     maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But 
     isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world 
     from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.
       In the meantime, we will continue to pursue real reductions 
     in nuclear arms, negotiating from a position of strength that 
     can be ensured only by modernizing our strategic forces. At 
     the same time, we must take steps to reduce the risk of a 
     conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by 
     improving our nonnuclear capabilities.
       America does possess--now--the technologies to attain very 
     significant improvements in the effectiveness of our 
     conventional, nonnuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these 
     new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive 
     that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the 
     United States or its allies.
       As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we 
     recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive 
     power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests 
     and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are 
     one. And no change in technology can or will alter that 
     reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments.
       I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations 
     and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with 
     offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an 
     aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these 
     considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific 
     community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, 
     to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and 
     world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear 
     weapons impotent and obsolete.
       Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty 
     and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our 
     allies, I'm taking an important first step. I am directing a 
     comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term 
     research and development program to begin to achieve our 
     ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic 
     nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control 
     measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither 
     military superiority nor political advantage. Our only 
     purpose--one all people share--is to search for ways to 
     reduce the danger of nuclear war.
       My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort 
     which holds the promise of changing the course of human 
     history. There will be risks, and results take time. But I 
     believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for 
     your prayers and your support.
       Thank you, good night, and God bless you.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________