[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5627-S5628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE DEFEND AMERICA ACT OF 1996

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am proud to be a principal cosponsor 
of the Defend America Act of 1996. This legislation will fill a glaring 
void in United States 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.
  Mr. President, 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. In my view, the time has come to end America's 
complete vulnerability to ballistic missile blackmail and attack.
  The President and his supporters in Congress 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's recent use of ballistic missiles near Taiwan, and 
veiled threats against the United States, clearly demonstrates how such 
missiles can be used as tools of intimidation

[[Page S5628]]

and blackmail. 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.
  It is also important to bear in mind that a national missile defense 
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 non-proliferation 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 bill, 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 ABM 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, it is important to point out that in 1991, Congress 
approved, and the President signed, the Missile Defense Act of 1991, 
which established policies similar to those advocated in the Defend 
America Act of 1996. Like the Defend America Act, the Missile Defense 
Act of 1991 called for deployment of an initial national missile 
defense system by a date certain and provided for a follow-on system. 
Both also urged the President to begin negotiations to amend the ABM 
Treaty.
  Although there are clear differences between the Defend America Act 
of 1996 and the Missile Defense Act of 1991, I believe that these 
similarities are worth pointing out. A number of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are now saying that they oppose a policy to 
deploy by a date certain. But this is what we did in the 1991 Act. 
Several of these same Senators now also seem to be opposed to any 
amendments to the ABM Treaty, even though the 1991 Act clearly urged to 
the President to negotiate such amendments.

  Mr. President, it has been asserted that a commitment to deploy a 
national missile defense system might jeopardize the START II Treaty. 
But the Missile Defense Act of 1991 was signed into law at the same 
time that negotiations on the START I Treaty were being concluded. 
Indeed, at the same time that START I was being finalized, Russian 
President Yeltsin proposed that the United States and Russia cooperate 
on a ``Global Defense System''. I find it hard to believe that anything 
in the Defend America Act would jeopardize START II any more than the 
Missile Defense Act of 1991 jeopardized START I. Those who make this 
assertion are simply giving Russian opponents of START II another 
excuse to oppose the agreement.
  Mr. President, opponents of the Defend America Act have also argued 
that it would lock us into a technological dead end; that in 3 years we 
may have better technology available to do the job. The fact is that 
there are no technologies in development other than those identified in 
the Defend America Act. The Administration's so-called ``three-plus-
three'' national missile defense plan relies on the exact same 
technologies that would be employed if the Defend America Act were 
passed. The only difference is that under the Defend America Act, 
development of those technologies would be accelerated. Once again the 
Administration and its congressional allies are just making excuses for 
not getting on with the business of defending America.
  Mr. President, the last issue I want to deal with is the question of 
cost. We have heard some rather careless assertions made about the cost 
of the Defend America Act. It is true that if the Secretary of Defense 
decided to deploy a constellation of space-based lasers, a 
constellation of ``Brilliant Pebbles'' space-based interceptors, a 
constellation of ``Brilliant Eyes'' space-based sensors, and 300 or 400 
ground-based interceptors at multiple sites the cost could be as high 
as $60 billion over the next 15 to 20 years. But Mr. President, under 
the Defend America Act, the Secretary of Defense could also select a 
more modest deployment that could be achieved for $5 to $10 billion. 
The Air Force and the Army both have developed such low-cost proposals. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, a system consisting of 
100 ground-based interceptors, four new ground-based radars and a 
constellation of Brilliant Eyes sensors would cost approximately $14 
billion over the next 6 years.
  These are clearly affordable costs when compared with the costs 
associated with other major items in the defense budget. An entire 
national missile defense system could be acquired for less than an 
additional 20 B-2 bombers. The cost would be about the same for the 
Corps SAM theater missile defense system, which the administration 
strongly supports even though we already have four core theater missile 
defense systems in development to protect forward deployed forces.
  In my view, those who assert that we cannot afford an NMD system have 
simply gotten their priorities wrong. With an annual defense budget of 
$260 billion to $270 billion, it is irresponsible to argue that we 
should not spend $1 billion per year on the defense of the American 
homeland.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that the Defend America Act 
of 1996 is balanced and timely legislation. I understand that opponents 
of this legislation do not want to allow the Senate to vote on this 
issue. But the President will not be able to hide from it. If the 
President's allies in the Senate stand in the way of a vote on the 
Defend America Act to protect him from having to sign or veto this 
legislation, the American people will nonetheless know who stands for 
their defense and who does not.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________