[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5626-S5627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFEND AMERICA ACT
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, yesterday President Clinton acknowledged--
belatedly--that the post-cold-war era presents us with new national
security challenges. He stated, ``The end of communism has opened the
door to the spread of weapons of mass destruction * * *.''
Unfortunately, while the President is finally willing to recognize the
threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he
remains unwilling to seriously respond to it--with progress, as opposed
to pronouncements--on national missile defense.
Most Americans do not know--let me underscore--most Americans do not
know that the United States has no defense against ballistic missiles.
If you were to ask the average American, in fact to ask anybody in this
Chamber unless they are on the Armed Services Committee, they might not
know. If you were asked a question, ``If a missile, an incoming missile
was headed toward Chicago, what should the President of the United
States do?'' and the people will tell you in these little focus groups,
``Shoot it down''--we can't. We don't have a defense. So, if a rogue
state such as North Korea launched a single missile at the United
States, we could do nothing to stop its deadly flight towards an
American town or city.
In his speech yesterday President Clinton pointed to his $3 billion
budget request for missile defense programs as evidence of a ``strong,
sensible national missile defense program.'' This happens to be 21
percent less than the President's own national security advisers
proposed in their Bottom-Up review of U.S. defense needs. It is also 30
percent less than what the Senate Armed Services Committee provides in
this year's defense authorization bill. In short, it is not enough for
a determined and effective effort to defend the American people from
the threat of ballistic missiles.
President Clinton attacked the Defend America Act, which I introduced
2 months ago, claiming:
They have a plan that Congress will take up this week that
would force us to choose now a costly missile defense system
that could be obsolete tomorrow.
This is simply not true. The Defend America Act only forces to commit
now to deploy a national missile defense system by the year 2003. The
choice of what type of system is left up to the Secretary of Defense
who will report back to the Congress on the requirements for an
effective ballistic missile defense system. And making a decision to go
forward with missile defense now will not, as the President argued
yesterday, lead to America deploying an obsolete system.
The programs we currently have in development can serve as the
building blocks for a system that meets the missile threat as it
emerges. Furthermore, as with the procurement of any weapons system,
moving from development to deployment requires lead time. You cannot do
it in a week or a year or 18 months. It does not happen overnight. The
President's assertions contradict those of his own Secretary of
Defense, who recently stated that these technologies ``would be quite
capable of defending against the much smaller and relatively
unsophisticated ICBM threat that a rogue or a terrorist could mount any
time in the foreseeable future.''
That is the Secretary of Defense.
I would like to address the issue of cost. There has been quite an
uproar about a Congressional Budget Office estimate of the cost of
deploying a national missile defense system pursuant to the Defend
America Act. The CBO stated that total acquisition costs for the year
2010 would range from $31 billion to $60 billion, if such a system
largely consists of advanced space-based components. However, the
Defend America Act does not specify any required components of a
national missile defense system to include space-based components. On
the other hand, the CBO says that a ground-based system with upgraded
space-based sensors
[[Page S5627]]
would run around $14 billion. Section 4 of the Defend America Act
states:
The Secretary of Defense shall develop for deployment an
affordable and operationally effective national missile
defense system which shall achieve initial operational
capability by the end of 2003.
The decision on what is affordable and effective is left up to the
Secretary of Defense. What I would like to know is how CBO estimated a
national missile defense system whose components are unknown. It seems
to me that the CBO approach was somewhat like a family deciding they
are going to buy a house and being told by a real estate agent that it
will cost them anywhere between $40,000 to $4 million. That is the
range.
That is true, houses come in many prices. There are two-bedroom homes
and then there are the mansions and the couple's decision would come
down to what they need and what they can afford. Those are the same
guidelines we need to use here. What does the United States need to
protect its citizens, and how can it best be done and how can we
achieve this protection in an affordable manner?
Outlining these estimates are a good way to avoid a serious debate on
a most serious issue. The American people deserve better, because we
are talking about the safety and security of their children and their
grandchildren and themselves.
You would not know, if you follow some of the press coverage of this
issue, that the cold war is over.
We do not need a so-called space shield to defend against an attack
of thousands of missiles. We do, however, need to defend the American
people against the much more limited threat of an accidental launch or
an attack by rogue and terrorist regimes, such as North Korea and Iran,
who are acquiring a limited, but deadly, capability to deliver weapons
of mass destruction with ballistic missiles.
As President Clinton's former Director of Central Intelligence
testified, the threat of ballistic missiles is growing and the
administration is not addressing this frightening reality. This is
President Clinton's former Director of the CIA.
In his testimony before the House National Security Committee, James
Woolsey stated:
Ballistic missiles can, in the future they increasingly
will, be used by hostile states for blackmail, terror, and to
drive wedges between us and our allies. It is my judgment
that the administration is not currently giving this vital
problem the proper weight it deserves.
Through budgetary scare tactics and skewed analysis, the
administration is trying to confuse this issue and avoid answering the
central question of whether or not the American people should be
protected. By seeking to proceed to the Defend America Act today, I
hope to move beyond rhetoric and misinformation to a serious debate on
a critical matter affecting the future security of all Americans.
I believe the number one responsibility this Government has to its
citizens is to provide them with protection. That is what the Defend
America Act is all about.
So, again, let me repeat the question: If you had an incoming
ballistic missile and you ask somebody in my State or any State, What
should the President do, they would say, ``Shoot it down.'' And your
response would have to be, ``We cannot. We have no defense.''
I suggest those who say it is a decade away go back and look at some
of the predictions made in the past. I believe we have that obligation.
When we talk about the cost, $14 billion is a lot of money, but so
would be the human cost and any added cost if some rogue state or some
accidental launch directed a missile toward the United States.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1635
Mr. DOLE. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the
consideration of calendar No. 411.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DOLE. Let me identify that as S. 1635, the ``Defend America''
bill.
____________________