[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5754-S5756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE DEFEND AMERICA ACT

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the Defend America 
Act. First, let me state I am very disappointed that the Senate, one, 
had to file a cloture motion, and, two, was unsuccessful in obtaining 
cloture so we could at least take up the Defend America Act, debate it, 
discuss it and vote on it.
  It is unfortunate the Democrats in the Senate today decided to 
filibuster even moving to consider legislation which would allow us to 
further develop systems capable of defending America. Even right now we 
are defenseless against intercontinental ballistic missiles. I want to 
compliment Senator Dole for scheduling this for a floor vote, I 
compliment the House of Representatives for passing it, but I am 
displeased that the Senate was not able to consider this legislation.
  It is unfortunate to think that we need to have 60 votes just to move 
to consider the Defend America Act. I am happy to cosponsor this act. I 
think it is good legislation, needed legislation.
  It was part of the defense authorization bill that we passed last 
year that unfortunately President Clinton vetoed. He vetoed it for 
whatever reason. I think in the campaign he continued to refer to the 
strategic defense initiative, star wars. But for whatever reason, he 
leaves us defenseless against incoming intercontinental ballistic 
missiles, missiles that could have a nuclear warhead, missiles that 
could have a chemical warhead or a biological warhead. Right now we do 
not have defense capabilities.
  Regrettably, the vote today was almost straight party line. We had 
all Republicans vote in favor of taking up this legislation. One 
Republican Senator was necessarily absent. We had one Democrat, Senator 
Heflin, that voted for it. I compliment Senator Heflin. I hate to see 
him leave the Senate. He has been one of the Senators I think that 
shows courage on occasion and says, ``I'm going to do what is right for 
this country.'' The Senator from Alabama, I compliment him for his 
vote.
  What was right for this country was voting for the Defend America 
Act. We do need to develop capabilities to be able to destroy incoming 
missiles that we do not have today. President Clinton does not agree 
with that. And I am going to go through a statement that talks about 
what the Defend America Act does, and what it does not do, and why it 
is needed.
  The Defend America Act of 1996 states clearly and simply the United 
States should be defended against limited, unauthorized or accidental 
ballistic missile attacks and calls for the deployment of a national 
defense system to protect America.
  This bill does not violate any treaty. It only urges the 
administration to negotiate with Russia changes to the 1972 Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow for the deployment of an effective 
missile defense system.
  If an agreement is not reached within 1 year after the bill is 
enacted, the President and Congress are to consider withdrawing from 
the treaty, as provided under article 15 of the treaty.
  Why is the legislation needed? Currently the United States is 
undefended. We are defenseless against ballistic missile attack. Most 
people are surprised and even shocked to hear this. They are of the 
mistaken belief that the United States can defend itself against 
incoming ballistic missiles. They are wrong.
  While the United States remains defenseless, Russia long ago 
recognized the value of missile defenses and deployed its own missile 
defense system around Moscow.
  In the ultimate irony, the United States is now assisting Israel in 
acquiring its own missile defense system to protect Israeli citizens. I 
wish the Clinton administration could explain why it will help Israel 
defend its citizens against missile attack but refuse to protect 
Americans against missiles. That does not make sense. Maybe it makes 
good politics, but it does not make good policy.
  Mr. President, the threats are real, and they are growing. It is 
clear that ballistic missile threats to the United States are growing 
from a couple of sources, unauthorized or accidental ballistic missile 
attacks from Russia and China and also from small dictatorships now 
fielding missile forces.
  We may no longer think in terms of having to defend ourselves against 
a massive Soviet missile attack. Yet political instability and 
political uncertainty in Russia and China emphasize the need to guard 
against a possible unauthorized or accidental missile launch.
  China has proven willing to threaten the use of ballistic missiles 
for political and military blackmail, as shown during the Taiwan Strait 
crisis in March of this year. One month before Chinese military 
exercises and its launching ballistic missiles into the Taiwan Strait, 
a Chinese official warned Charles Freeman, Deputy Chief of Mission at 
the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, that ``the United States would not 
intervene on Taiwan's behalf, because Americans would not be willing to 
sacrifice Los Angeles on Taiwan's behalf,'' as reported in the Los 
Angeles Times on January 27, 1996, page 5.

  Recently, lower level Chinese officials made a not-so-veiled threat 
to American officials. Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary of State for 
East Asia and the Pacific, quoted these Chinese officials as saying the 
United States ``wouldn't dare defend Taiwan because they'd [China] rain 
nuclear bombs on Los Angeles,'' as reported in the Boston Globe, March 
18 of this year.
  Other ballistic missile threats exist or are also on the horizon. 
More than 25 countries currently possess, or are seeking to acquire, 
weapons of mass destruction--namely, nuclear, chemical, and biological 
weapons. Many countries that already have shorter range ballistic 
missiles are seeking to acquire more sophisticated, long-range 
ballistic missiles. Rather than defend Americans, the Clinton 
administration is rationalizing its inaction by hiding behind 
questionable intelligence estimates.
  While recent intelligence estimates say that a new ballistic missile 
threat to the United States will not appear for the next 15 years, this 
analysis is flawed for several reasons. First, it focuses only on 
indigenous development and assumes that international trade does not 
exist. The Secretary of Defense, William Perry, recently admitted the 
intelligence community's estimate ``could be foreshortened if any of 
those nations were able . . . to get direct assistance from countries 
that already have [such systems], either sending them missiles, selling 
them missiles, or giving them important component or technology 
assistance.'' That was in his statement before the Senate

[[Page S5755]]

Armed Services Committee on March 3 of this year.
  In fact, Secretary Perry recently acknowledged that, ``We do have 
information that China was seeking SS-18 technology from Russia.'' That 
was May 22 of this year. The SS-18 is a massive, 10-warhead ICBM. By 
integrating SS-18 technology into its current ICBM arsenal, China would 
greatly enhance the range and sophistication of its nuclear weapons 
capability. We should remember that China has sold ballistic missiles 
to other countries and has exported missile technology to Iraq, Iran, 
and Pakistan.
  Second, the estimate that no new threat to the United States will 
appear within 15 years focuses only on the continental United States. 
What about Alaska? What about Hawaii? The Clinton administration 
apparently prefers not to include the cities in these States as part of 
our Nation, even though they could be vulnerable to a North Korean 
attack in just a few years. In 1995, the Acting Director of Central 
Intelligence, Adm. William Studeman, acknowledged that ``if Pyongyang 
has foreshortened its development program [of the Taepo Dong I or Taepo 
Dong II], we could see these missiles earlier'' than 3 to 5 years. That 
was before the Intelligence Committee on April 3, 1995.
  Finally, intelligence estimates are often wrong. Several years before 
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Maj. George Fielding Elliot, author and 
military science writer, declared, ``A Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 
is a strategic impossibility,'' as quoted in September of 1938. This 
prediction is chillingly similar to the ones we are hearing from 
critics of the Defend America Act today.
  Looking at the situation today, while recent 1995 national 
intelligence estimates state, ``We [the intelligence community] are 
likely to detect any indigenous long-range missile program many years 
before development,'' it was the same community that failed to detect 
the breadth of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Once international 
inspections were conducted after the Persian Gulf war, it was revealed 
that Iraq's nuclear program was far larger and more advanced than the 
United States intelligence community had predicted, and the inspections 
showed that Saddam Hussein was just months away from deploying a 
nuclear bomb, not years, as the intelligence community had estimated.
  Just several months ago, CIA Director John Deutch admitted Iran, 
Iraq, North Korea, and Libya all had explored the possibility of buying 
fissile materials as a way of rapidly acquiring an arsenal of nuclear 
weapons. So far, according to Deutch, none has succeeded in these 
efforts. But the CIA Director further stated the United States and its 
allies ``have been lucky so far.'' That was in the Washington Post of 
March 21 of this year. Mr. President, I am not willing to depend on 
luck to keep Americans safe from ambitious leaders such as Iraq's 
Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jong-il, who are eagerly seeking 
to acquire more weapons of mass destruction.

  The Clinton administration prefers to rely on cold war theories and 
an outdated 1971 treaty to protect America. The Republicans' Defend 
America Act provides a vision for the future where the United States 
and Russia negotiate changes to the moribund 1972 Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty, commonly called the ABM Treaty, to allow for national 
defense against the emerging threats to both Russia and the United 
States from Third World countries. Just like the last guest lingering 
at a dinner party, the ABM Treaty has overstayed its welcome.
  Let us be very clear. Nothing in the Defend America Act requires the 
United States to withdraw from or violates the ABM Treaty. The act 
merely reiterates that withdrawal from the treaty is a legal option 
under the provisions of the ABM Treaty itself and urges considering 
such withdrawal if negotiated changes are not forthcoming within 1 
year. Some of the statements that were made earlier today, I think, 
frankly, are not the case, or maybe our colleagues have not read this 
legislation as closely as they should have.
  The imperative for deploying a national defense system has never been 
more clear. Yet the Clinton administration refused to take immediate 
steps to defend America. Last year, we worked hard to include similar 
language in the 1996 DOD authorization bill, requiring the President to 
deploy by a certain date a missile defense system to protect our 
country. President Clinton vetoed this bill largely because of this 
provision. So we passed the defense authorization bill without it.
  Now we try to pass it as an individual item. The Democrats 
unfortunately, with one exception, Senator Heflin from Alabama, said, 
``No, we do not want to consider it. We do not want to debate it.'' Mr. 
President, I think that is a sad day for our country. It bothers me 
when I think of the fact that we had Americans lose their lives in 
Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war because a Scud missile came in 
and our only defense capability at that time was the Patriot 
antimissile defense. But the Patriot is a very limited defense and was 
only partially successful. It destroyed a couple of missiles that were 
fired toward Israel and fired toward Saudi Arabia, but destroyed them 
in their backyard, as the missile was coming in, in some cases just 
right before it reached its target. As I said, it was only partially 
successful.
  That is not a defense capability against more sophisticated weapons. 
The Scuds that the Iraqis were firing at Americans, Saudi Arabians, and 
Israelis, those were old missiles, old technology, way behind the 
times, not sophisticated in any way, that we can only knock down. Our 
success rate was limited. People would be really shocked if they 
realized we do not have the capability to shoot down incoming missiles. 
We need it. We have the technology to develop it. It can be done a lot 
more economically than the Congressional Budget Office said. It came up 
with an estimate that said over the next 14 years it might cost $31 to 
$61 billion.
  In our bill we said ``affordable.'' Frankly, if it costs $31 billion 
and you do that over 14 years, that is a couple of billion a year. I 
think that is a good investment. I think it would be done a lot more 
economically than that. Should we not make an investment? Is that not 
really what the Federal Government is all about, protecting our 
freedom, protecting our country, protecting our people? When we find 
out we are defenseless against intercontinental ballistic missiles, we 
do not have the capability to shoot them down, do we not owe it to our 
country to invest in a system to destroy these missiles before they get 
in our backyard? If you have a weapon such as a nuclear warhead, it 
does not do any good to destroy it over your city, before it reaches 
the target. Then it is too late. It would maximize damage. If it is 
biological, the same is true, as well as with a chemical weapon. You do 
not gain anything destroying it just before it hits the target. You 
need to destroy it well before it gets into your backyard.
  We would like to have the opportunity to utilize the technology 
advances that we have in this country to be able to defend our country. 
Unfortunately, the Clinton administration and Democrats in the Senate, 
with one exception, have said ``No, we are not going to do it. We want 
to worship at the altar of a treaty from 1972 that says we are not 
going to defend ourselves.'' Now, the 1972 treaty does allow you to 
have at least 100 interceptors, and it also says you can renegotiate. 
That is really what we are saying we would do. We do not abrogate, we 
do not violate the ABM Treaty under the Defend America Act. I am 
bothered by the fact that our colleagues would play politics with an 
issue so important as defending American citizens.
  I am bothered by the fact that this administration finds it 
politically acceptable to develop anti-missile systems for Israel, but 
not the United States. That bothers me. It bothers me when I read 
statements by high-level officials in China talking about the 
possibility of destroying Los Angeles, and we do not have the 
capability to avoid that should they be irrational enough to ever try 
to carry out such a threat. It bothers me when I see 25 nations around 
the world, many of which are not real friends of the United States, 
seeking earnestly to develop intercontinental ballistic missile 
technology with a variety of warheads that could threaten not only the 
United States, but our allies, and we do not do anything to give us 
defense capabilities.

[[Page S5756]]

  That is what Senator Dole was trying to do with the Defend America 
Act today. That is what Senator Wallop, who was one of the real leaders 
in trying to develop strategic defense initiative for years, was trying 
to do. We have a significant investment that this country has made, and 
now we have an administration that says: We do not think there will be 
a threat for 15 years, so let us not do anything. Or let us develop 
missile systems, and we will pay for three-fourths of it in Israel 
because, politically, that is popular.
  Why is it not popular in the United States if we want to help Israel 
defend itself? I was in Israel prior to the Persian Gulf war, and I 
urged the administration to get Patriot missiles over there to shoot 
down the Scuds. It partially worked. But the Patriot is certainly not 
good enough for an ICBM. We can develop systems to shoot down in-coming 
missiles before they get in our back yards. We should do it. If it is 
an investment of a couple of billion dollars, or $4 billion, or $31 
billion over the next 14 years, that is a good investment for 
protecting the American people, our interests and our cities. We should 
do it.
  Yet, unfortunately, our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle 
say, no, they are going to protect President Clinton and play politics. 
President Clinton does not want it, so we are not going to do it. I 
think that is a serious, serious mistake. We should not play politics 
with the security of the American people and American interests. I am 
afraid that is what happened today. I regret that decision.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________