[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5631-S5632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           DEFEND AMERICA ACT

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to turn to the legislation at 
hand which was addressed by the distinguished chairman of the 
committee.
  I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting this crucial 
legislation to protect the American people from the very real threat of 
long-range ballistic missile attack. I find it curious that the day 
after President Clinton made headlines by claiming that he supports a 
National Missile Defense System, the Democrats in the Senate are 
preventing the Senate, as the distinguished chairman stated, from even 
debating and considering a bill that would provide for such a system.
  It was timely, in my judgment, for this debate because the interest 
of the American people have been drawn to the fact that we do not have 
a defense against an accidental or unintentional firing of a long-range 
strategic ballistic missile. That, I think, is agreed on by all.
  During his speech yesterday at the Coast Guard Academy, President 
Clinton made a series of points on national missile defense. Let us 
examine carefully his assertions.
  The President begins by talking about theater missile defense: ``Our 
first priority is to defend against existing or near-term threats, like 
short-and medium-range missile attacks on our troops in the field or 
our allies.'' So far, I concur. This is also the priority that 
Republicans established years ago, in the wake of the Persian Gulf war. 
On trips to that theatre during that war I saw the destruction of 
Iraq's use of the scud. I experienced with other Senators, a scud 
attack on Tel Aviv on February 18, 1991. It impacted a considerable 
distance from where we were at the Defense Ministry Building.
  The President then continues, ``And we are, with upgraded Patriot 
missiles, the Navy Lower and Upper Tier and the Army THAAD.'' What are 
the facts? The facts are that the administration's recent BMD Program 
Update Review shifted the focus of TMD efforts to point defense systems 
(Patriot PAC-3 and Navy Lower Tier) at the expense of the more 
promising and capable area wide systems (THAAD and Navy Upper Tier). As 
a result of this review, $2 billion was stripped from the THAAD program 
over the FYDP; and the Navy Upper Tier program remains little more than 
a science project--with no acquisition or deployment strategy. These 
actions were taken despite last year's clear legal requirements to 
accelerate both programs. Once again, the Armed Services Committee has 
had to come to restore both of these programs--adding almost $500 
million to the administration's inadequate request in the Senate bill.
  Next, the President addresses the threat: ``The possibility of a 
long-range intercontinental missile attack on American soil by a rogue 
state is more than a decade away.'' I say wrong Mr. President. The 
President and many of our Democrat colleagues are relying on a recent 
intelligence community assessment which reportedly claims that the 
threat of ballistic missile attack against the United States is 15 
years away. Several important qualifications must be highlighted. 
First, that intelligence assessment was carefully crafted to consider 
only threats to the continental United States--not Alaska and Hawaii. 
The threat to Alaska, in particular, from a long-range ballistic 
missile currently under development by North Korea is real and near-
term. Also, that 15-year scenario is based on the assumption that rogue 
nations will develop their missiles indigenously--without foreign help. 
We all know that these nations are receiving substantial foreign 
assistance for their weapons development programs. Such assistance will 
substantially accelerate the threat.
  We should not be lulled into a sense of complacency by such reports. 
Remember the assessments we received just prior to the Gulf War--Iraq 
was supposed to be least 5 years away from a nuclear weapons 
capability. After Desert Storm, and the U.N. inspections, we were 
shocked to learn the true extent of the advancements in the Iraqi 
nuclear program
  A focus on the threat from rogue nations also ignores the substantial 
military capabilities both Russia and China--both nations with 
intercontinental missiles capable of reaching our shores. We all know 
of the threats the Chinese made during the recent stand-off with 
Taiwan. They correctly know that the United States is currently 
defenseless against ICBM attack. And the President may take comfort in 
the Russian promise that they are no longer targeting the United 
States. But we all know that--even if this representation is true--
retargeting is a relatively quick and easy thing to change. I would 
prefer us to rely on limited U.S. defenses, rather than Russian 
promises, for our security.
  In criticizing the Defend America Act, the President claims that 
``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. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this 
cost will be between $30 and $60 billion.'' The facts? The Defend 
America Act does not specify a particular architecture for a national 
missile defense system--it simply says that the United States should 
have a highly effective system to defend against limited, accidental or 
unauthorized ballistic missile attacks. There is nothing new here. This 
is technology that we have been investing in--to the tune of $38 
billion--since the early 1980s. We are simply saying that the time for 
``science projects'' is over, the time has arrived to turn this 
technology into a deployed system that will protect Americans.

  Weapons development programs--on average--take a decade from start to 
finish. As technology advances, those advancements are incorporated 
into the weapons. Why should NMD be any different--why does the 
President think that an NMD system would be

[[Page S5632]]

``obsolete'' by the time it is deployed in the year 2003? There is no 
basis for such a claim.
  Concerning the CBO cost study, the $30 to $60 billion range the 
President refers to represents the high end of the CBO's conclusions. 
According to the study, a NMD system capable of protecting the United 
States could be developed and deployed for less than $14 billion over 
the next 13 years--or about a billion dollars a year. This is a 
relatively smaller cost--less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the DoD 
budget--to protect the United States from attack.
  I should also point out that other cost estimates--these coming from 
the administration--are much lower than CBO's. For example, the Air 
Force has said that it would cost only $2.5 billion to deploy such a 
system; and the Army estimates a cost of $5 billion.
  The President states: ``Those who want us to deploy this system 
before we know the details and the dimensions of the threat we face I 
believe are wrong. I think we should not leap before we look.'' This is 
not a surprising statement from a President who is a recent ``convert'' 
to the need for a national missile defense system. Republicans have 
been following ``the details and dimensions of the threat'' for over a 
decade. What more do we have to wait for before committing to defend 
the United States? The threat is not diminishing. Approximately 30 
countries currently have ballistic missiles, with varying ranges, and 
many of these nations either have or are actively seeking to acquire 
war heads of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical or biological. There 
is no lack of appetite in the world for such ``status symbols.'' 
Weapons of terror, intimidation. I submit that the only thing 
inevitable about the missile threat we face is that the threat will 
continue to increase. The President seems to believe that we have the 
luxury of time to sit around and discuss and contemplate the threat--
all the while with Americans remain unprotected against an 
unintentional or terrorist firing of one or more missiles. I say it is 
time to act to protect our Nation before it is too late.
  One of my favorite lines in the President's speech is: ``It is 
(Defend America Act) would weaken our defenses by taking money away 
from things we know we need right now.'' This from a President who 
submitted a budget request that was $18.6 billion below the FY96 level 
for defense; and the same President who recently threatened to veto the 
FY97 Defense Authorization Bill passed by the House because it contains 
$12 billion more than he requested. A President who has a history for 
inadequately funding our military.
  Finally, the President claims that: ``It is (Defend America Act) 
would violate the arms control agreements that we have made and these 
agreements make us more secure.'' Again, the facts. There is nothing in 
the defend America Act which would violate the ABM Treaty. The Act 
calls on the President to negotiate changes to that Treaty to allow for 
the deployment of an effective NMD system. I should point out to my 
colleagues that the ABM Treaty--a 25-year old agreement with the Soviet 
Union--was never intended to be a static agreement. The Treaty itself 
includes provisions for amendments--and, in fact, the Treaty has been 
amended over the years. Why, all of a sudden, is the Treaty now not 
amendable?
  I firmly believe that Americans here at home and U.S. troops deployed 
overseas should be protected by highly effective missile defenses as 
soon as is technologically possible.

                          ____________________