[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12263-S12265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if I can address one other subject very 
briefly since we are coming to the end of this session. I noticed an 
article in the current Reader's Digest. I happen to be one who has such 
respect for the Reader's Digest.
  I was involved with a story 2 years ago with them. It took them 9 
months to write the story. Everything is authenticated and documented 
in a way I don't know any other publication would equal. They were 
talking about ballistic missiles that increasingly will be used by 
hostile states and is a real serious problem.
  We have stood on the floor of this Senate over and over and over 
again to try to address this problem, to make the people of America 
aware that we are probably in a more threatened position today than we 
have been in this country's history. They point out some things I had 
not thought about, putting it in proper context.
  They said there are five reasons why the Nation must take steps to 
defend itself:
  First, the ballistic missiles are proliferating. More than 20 nations 
are in the ballistic missile club, as they call it. Others are knocking 
on the door. This is something we have been saying over and over again. 
In fact, it has been 2 years since the former CIA Director, the first 
one under President Clinton, said that we know of somewhere between 25 
and 30 nations that currently either have developed, or are in the 
final stages of developing, weapons of mass destruction, either 
biological, chemical, or nuclear.
  This former CIA Director identifies five nations--Libya, Iraq, Iran, 
Syria, and North Korea--whose aggressive programs to arm missiles with 
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons could threaten the United 
States.
  The second thing they talk about is that missile range and accuracy 
are increasing rapidly. I suggest, Mr. President, that the reason for 
this is partly our fault because of what we have done in satellite 
technology.
  I had occasion to become the first Member of Congress to fly a small 
airplane around the world a couple of years ago. I used that satellite 
technology. I never lost the satellite all the way around the world. 
Because of that, there is no way of guarding against other uses, and 
that means, through our global positioning system, other nations have 
incredible accuracy, and this is something that has to be taken into 
consideration.
  The third point is warheads of mass destruction are within reach of 
many new missile powers.
  We were shocked when we found out and discovered at the end of the 
gulf war that Saddam Hussein had a huge biochemical arsenal. Hundreds 
of tons were destroyed by the U.N. observers. We have no way of knowing 
where else in the world this could be happening.
  The fourth point is, defense against ballistic missile attack is a 
practical reality. It is for political, not technological, reasons that 
the U.S. Government has chosen not to build a missile defense. I think 
that is very significant.
  We not long ago debated the START II Treaty and we did, in fact, 
approve that from this body. I think I was the first one, the only one, 
who voted against it until later in the vote when three others joined. 
My argument was we were going back to accepting the confinements and 
restrictions that were imposed upon us in the 1972 ABM Treaty, which at 
that time didn't make sense to me, but it made more sense than it does 
today, because that was a bilateral treaty with a country that no 
longer exists, which says, ``If you don't defend yourself, we will 
agree not to defend ourselves,'' therefore, that is a policy that 
offers some security.

  I never really believed it did. However, it is now pointed out by 
more and more people that that policy was flawed initially and 
certainly is not one that today makes any sense. In fact, it was Dr. 
Henry Kissinger, who was the architect of the ABM Treaty in 1972, who 
said, ``It is nuts to make a virtue out of your vulnerability.''
  So that is our posture today, where we are. The last thing they said 
is the longer we wait, the less time we may have.
  We had an NIA estimate not too long ago, a national intelligence 
estimate, that many of us felt was flawed in many ways. I think it told 
the President what the President wanted to hear. It came to the 
conclusion that there is no threat out there for the next 15 years. I 
think there are many problems with this. First of all, they talk about 
the continental United States. I agreed with James Woolsey the other 
day when he said the last time he checked, Hawaii and Alaska were part 
of the United States.
  The article also points out that it fails to mention that both Russia 
and China have ICBM's right now that have the capability of reaching 
the United States, along with the weapons of mass destruction.
  I remember President Clinton saying in the House Chamber during his 
State of the Union Message that there is not a single Russian missile 
pointed at America's children. The head of the Russian strategic 
missile forces told CBS news on ``60 Minutes'' that his ICBM's could be 
retargeted in a matter of minutes. I think it is a great disservice to 
the American people for the President to try to imply that the threat 
is not out there.
  Mr. President, many of the people in the intelligence community 
throughout the world have said that the United States of America is 
facing a greater threat today than we have faced since the 
Revolutionary War. I am deeply distressed that the President has been 
able to convince many of the American people that the threat is not out 
there, and I intend, certainly during this recess, to do all I can to 
be, if nothing

[[Page S12264]]

more than a one-man truth squad, to get the American people to 
understand the real threat that is facing us today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the missile defense 
article entitled ``Defenseless Against Missile Terror'' be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From Reader's Digest, October, 1996]

                   Defenseless Against Missile Terror

                       (By Ralph Kinney Bennett)

       ``Ballistic missiles can and increasingly will be used by 
     hostile states for blackmail, terror and to drive wedges 
     between us and our allies.''
       This warning, delivered to Congress last spring by R. James 
     Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 
     had a particular immediacy. Just weeks earlier, China had 
     threatened Taiwan by test-firing missiles off Taiwan's 
     shores. In a not-so-veiled warning against interference, 
     China reminded a former U.S. diplomat that Los Angeles was 
     within reach of its nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic 
     missiles (ICBMs).
       Ballistic missiles are becoming a dangerous factor in 
     international relations, but the United States has yet to 
     deal fully with the threat. Here are five reasons why the 
     nation must take steps to defend itself:
       1. Ballistic missiles are proliferating. More than 20 
     nations are in the ballistic missile ``club.'' Others are 
     knocking on the door. Although the United States stopped 
     exporting ballistic missiles over two decades ago, Russia, 
     China and North Korea eagerly peddle their rockets--often in 
     the guise of aiding ``space programs.''
       Pakistan, which has been developing its own ballistic 
     missile, the Hatf, has reportedly acquired 30 nuclear-
     capable, medium-range M-11 missiles from the Chinese to 
     counter India's growing missile force. Saudi Arabia owns 
     Chinese CSS-2 missiles. Iran has added Chinese CSS-8s, a 
     front-line ballistic missile, to its considerable arsenal of 
     Soviet-made Scuds. There has even been a report that Peru, 
     smarting from past reverses at the hands of its neighbors, 
     entered into negotiations with North Korea last year to 
     obtain ballistic missiles.
       The CIA identifies five ``rogue nations''--Libya, Iraq, 
     Iran, Syria and North Korea--whose ``aggressive'' programs to 
     arm missiles with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons 
     could threaten the United States.
       There are indications that Libya is seeking to buy 
     ballistic missiles from North Korea . Iraq, whose Scud 
     rockets rained down on Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf 
     War, is rapidly rebuilding production facilities to turn out 
     an upgraded Scud called the El-Hussein.
       In North Korea, scarce financial resources are being 
     lavished on long-range Taepo Dong missiles. Intelligence 
     sources in South Korea report that within five years, these 
     rockets may be able to reach all of the western, and much of 
     the central, United States.
       2. Missile range and accuracy are rapidly increasing. By 
     strapping on booster engines, countries can turn shorter-
     range missiles into multi-stage rockets--vastly increasing 
     attack distance.
       In December 1989 intelligence officials were astounded when 
     Iraqi missile scientists successfully tested a powerful 
     rocket bolted together from five Soviet Scud engines. Iraq's 
     ballistic-missile research and development facility at Mosul 
     was destroyed during the Gulf War, but it has been rebuilt 
     and expanded. North Korea and China are also creating 
     ``hybrid'' long-range missiles from rocket components. 
     Moreover, experts add, China is going all-out to make its 
     CSS-4 ICBM capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads.
       One problem for missile neophytes--accuracy--may have been 
     inadvertently solved by the United States. Our Global 
     Positioning System (GPS) uses an orbiting satellite network 
     to provide an exact location fix on earth. Originally a U.S. 
     defense program, GPS is now routinely available to anyone--
     including foreign governments.
       Former CIA Director Woolsey explains that within a few 
     years, GPS could give ballistic missiles such pinpoint 
     accuracy that even with nonnuclear warheads, they would have 
     immense destructive power. GPS could make it feasible, 
     Woolsey warns, ``for Saddam Hussein to threaten to destroy 
     the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) or for Chinese rulers to 
     cause a Chernobyl-like disaster at a Taiwanese nuclear-power 
     plant.''
       3. Warheads of mass destruction are within reach of many 
     new missile powers. The Grail for those building mass-
     destruction weapons is a ``deliverable'' nuclear warhead, one 
     that is small enough and sturdy enough to be launched by a 
     missile. Designing one requires technical sophistication and 
     immensely complex calculations, which is why high-speed 
     supercomputers are vital to advanced weapon designs.
       Thus, national-security experts were dismayed when the 
     Clinton Administration relaxed supercomputer export 
     guidelines. Since then, U.S. computers capable of bomb design 
     have gone to China and Russia. U.S. officials claim they will 
     keep close track to ensure the technology is used only for 
     civilian purposes. But as Stephen Bryen, a former Pentagon 
     official and an expert on strategic technology transfer, 
     notes, ``It is absurd to believe that in a country bent on 
     developing high-tech weapons, supercomputers will not end up 
     being used by the military.''
       Meanwhile, countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and North 
     Korea have not ignored the path to a big bang on the cheap: 
     chemical and biological weapons. Pound for pound, poison gas 
     and such deadly germs as anthrax can have the same mass-
     killing power as a nuclear bomb.
       A chilling discovery at the end of the Gulf War was Saddam 
     Hussein's huge biochemical arsenal; hundreds of tons were 
     destroyed by U.N. observers. During the war, according to 
     Gen. Hussein Kamil Hasan, Saddam's son-in-law, Iraq got as 
     far as filling warheads with deadly germs such as the cancer-
     causing aflatoxin.
       4. Defense against ballistic-missile attack is a practical 
     reality. It's for political, not technological, reasons that 
     the U.S. government has chosen not to build a missile 
     defense. One of the first anti-missile weapons, the Nike-X, 
     was ready by the early 1960s. But, partly as a gesture of 
     good intentions toward the Soviets, then-Defense Secretary 
     Robert McNamara refused to deploy it.
       This restraint culminated in the U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic 
     Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972, which limited both countries' 
     defense systems. Although the Kremlin repeatedly violated the 
     treaty by enlarging its ABM system to protect greater 
     portions of the Soviet Union, by 1976 the United States had 
     closed its sole missile-defense facility in North Dakota.
       Only when President Ronald Reagan revived interest in an 
     effective defense against ballistic missiles did funding pick 
     up, and the United States went on to make astounding leaps in 
     technology. The Reagan effort pointed to what is acknowledged 
     to be the most elegant and effective technique for killing 
     ICBMs--space-based sensing satellites and interceptor weapons 
     (either lasers or rockets) that find and destroy missiles at 
     their most vulnerable stage: shortly after launch. The space-
     based system would be augmented by ground-based, hyerfast 
     anti-missile interceptors to ``clean up'' any remaining 
     missiles or warheads.
       In 1993 a panel of scientists assembled by the American 
     Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) reviewed a 
     ballistic-missile defense system. The AIAA found ``no 
     technical barriers to the development and deployment'' of a 
     workable missile defense.
       5. The longer we wait, the less time we may have. In 
     November 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 
     12938, declaring missile proliferation to be a ``national 
     emergency.'' However, every Congressional effort to build a 
     defense against attack has been vetoed by the President or 
     thrown into a limbo of ``further research.''
       A secret National Intelligence Estimate, prepared for the 
     President last November declared flatly: ``No country, other 
     than the major declared nuclear powers, will develop or 
     otherwise acquire a ballistic missile in the next 15 years 
     that could threaten the contiguous 48 states and Canada.''
       Intelligence experts immediately pointed out the report's 
     flaws. It virtually ignored Alaska and Hawaii (``They're part 
     of the United States last time I heard, '' says Woolsey); 
     also, it brushed aside existing Russian and Chinese ICBMs and 
     the threat of instability in, or accidental launches from, 
     those countries. At least one freak launch of an armed Soviet 
     missile during routine maintenance has been reported.
       President Clinton has said ``there is not a single Russian 
     missile pointed at America's children.'' We have no way of 
     verifying this--nor would it mean much, if true. Gen. Igor 
     Sergeyev, head of Russia's strategic missile forces, told CBS 
     News's ``60 Minutes'' that his ICBMs could be retargeted in 
     ``a matter of minutes.'' Indeed, another Russian general told 
     Tass news agency last June that a multiple warhead test just 
     conducted was the 25th launch in the past four years.
       The Clinton Administration's missile-defense policy rests 
     on two slim pillars. One is the U.S. intelligence program--
     which, says the report to the President, will spot missile 
     programs ``many years before deployment.'' But Los Alamos 
     National Laboratory physicist and missile expert Gregory 
     Canavan points out that intelligence analysts were completely 
     surprised by Iraq's big 1989 missile test. Analysts also 
     thought Iraq was five years away from building a nuclear 
     weapon; documents and equipment uncovered after the Gulf War 
     showed Iraq was about two years away.
       The other pillar of the Clinton defense is the ABM treaty. 
     However, this agreement--negotiated with a national entity 
     that no longer exists--does not reflect the spread of 
     ballistic missiles to dozens of nations around the globe. By 
     bending over backward to comply with the treaty, the United 
     States has purposely blunted what small air defense it has. 
     This may already have cost American lives.
       On the night of February 25, 1991, in the midst of the Gulf 
     War, a Scud missile was fired from Iraq. The launch was 
     picked up by American surveillance satellites, which computed 
     the missile's speed and direction. The pooled information 
     revealed the target area--Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, where 
     American forces were stationed.
       This vital information was transmitted almost instantly 
     back to earth--but not to Dhahran's two batteries of Patriot 
     missiles, upgraded anti-aircraft weapons intended to provide 
     battle-zone missile defense. Because of concerns about ABM 
     treaty compliance, the data went to the U.S. Space Command 
     headquarters near Colorado Springs, Colo.

[[Page S12265]]

     There, analysts were supposed to evaluate the information and 
     send it on to Saudi Arabia--a time-consuming process in the 
     short life of a launched missile.
       On that night, analysts were so unsure of the data that 
     they didn't even phone a warning to the Patriot batteries. 
     There was no attempt to intercept the missile, which hit a 
     temporary barracks, killing 28 GIs.
       Surveys show that the public believes the United States can 
     ``shoot down'' incoming missiles. But if an ICBM were fired 
     at the United States today, here is what would happen:
       A vast network of reconnaissance satellites would detect 
     the launch, compute its speed and predict its trajectory and 
     approximate area of impact. Ground-based radars would track 
     it. Then . . .
       Nothing.
       Untold numbers of Americans might die from a nuclear, 
     chemical or biological strike.
       Surely, no treaty, no faith in our ability to see over the 
     political and technological horizon, should be allowed to 
     stand in the way of a missile defense that would prevent this 
     horrible outcome.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed in morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________