[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10758-S10759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE ABM TREATY

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 10 days ago was the 25th anniversary of a 
policy in this country that was articulated in a treaty called the ABM 
Treaty. It was a treaty that many of us at that time did not think was 
in the best interests of this country. It was a treaty that came from 
the Nixon administration, a Republican administration. Of course, Henry 
Kissinger was the architect of that treaty in 1972.
  Essentially what it did was say to any adversaries out there that we 
will agree to disarm and not to be prepared to defend ourselves if you 
agree to do the same thing. Some people refer to it as mutual assured 
destruction, a policy I certainly did not adhere to at the time, did 
not feel was good policy for this country. However, there was an 
argument at that time, because we had two superpowers--we had the then 
Soviet Union and of course the United States--and at that time we had 
pretty good intelligence on them, they had pretty good intelligence on 
us, so I suppose we would be overly critical if we said there was just 
no justification for that program, even though I personally disagreed 
with it at that time.
  Since that time, starting in 1983 in the Reagan administration, we 
have elevated the debate that there is a great threat out there and 
that threat is from the many countries that now have weapons of mass 
destruction. Over 25 nations now have those weapons, either chemical, 
biological, or nuclear weapons. The critics, those who would take that 
money and apply it to social programs as opposed to defending our 
Nation, use such titles as ``star wars,'' and they talk about the 
billions of dollars that have been invested.
  Anyway, we are at a point right now where something very interesting 
has happened just recently. That is, on this 25th anniversary, we have 
found that the Clinton administration, just about 10 days ago, agreed 
to create new parties to the ABM Treaty. That would be Belarus, 
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia. This is going to have to come before 
this body. I think this is an opportunity that we need to be looking 
for, because all it would take is 34 Senators to reject this 
multilateralization of the ABM Treaty.
  Right now we have a number of systems that we are putting into place 
to defend the United States of America, both the national missile 
defense as well as a theater defense. Certainly, with what is going on 
right now in Russia and Iran, the need for such a system has been 
elevated in the minds of most Americans.
  We have right now, as we speak, 22 Aegis ships that are floating out 
there in the ocean, already deployed. They have the capability of 
knocking down missiles when they are coming in. All we have to do is 
take them to the upper tier, and we will have in place a national 
missile defense system. Certainly that is something that could take 
care of our theater missile needs. So several of us feel that we should 
go ahead and conclude that is the system that we need. However, that 
does violate, probably violates, the ABM Treaty, as it is in place 
today. So I believe we should take this opportunity that is there, when 
it comes before this body for ratification, to reject this and thereby 
kill the ABM Treaty, which certainly is outdated.
  By the way, it is interesting, the very architect of that treaty, Dr. 
Henry Kissinger, someone whose credentials no one will question, even 
though they may question some of his previous policy decisions, Dr. 
Kissinger, who is the architect of the 1972 ABM Treaty, now says it is 
nuts to make a virtue out of your vulnerability. He is opposed to 
continuing the ABM Treaty at this time.
  So I hope we will take this opportunity to get out from under a 
treaty

[[Page S10759]]

that imposes restrictions on our ability to defend ourselves and reject 
the upgraded system, or the treaty, as it comes before us and take this 
opportunity to defend America.
  We have an opportunity to get out from under the restriction imposed 
upon us by the ABM Treaty.
  We have an opportunity to elevate our Aegis system.
  We have an opportunity to defend America.
  After all, Mr. President, isn't that what we are supposed to be 
doing?
  I ask unanimous consent that a decision brief from the Center for 
Security Policy be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

A Day That Will Live in Infamy: 25th Anniversary of the A.B.M. Treaty's 
                    Ratification Should Be Its Last

       (Washington, D.C.): Twenty-five years ago tomorrow, the 
     United States ratified the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) 
     Treaty; this Friday will mark the 25th anniversary of that 
     Treaty's entry into force. With those acts, America became 
     legally obliged to leave itself permanently vulnerable to 
     nuclear-armed ballistic missile attack.
       It is highly debatable whether such a policy of 
     deliberately transforming the American people into hostages 
     against one means of delivering lethal ordnance against them 
     (in contrast to U.S. policy with respect to land invasion, 
     sea assault or aerial attack) made sense in 1972. It 
     certainly does not today, in a world where the Soviet Union 
     no longer exists and Russia no longer has a monopoly on 
     threatening ballistic missiles or the weapons of mass 
     destruction they can carry.


                           the reagan legacy

       Indeed, as long ago as March 1983, President Reagan dared 
     to suggest that the United States might be better off 
     defending its people against nuclear-armed ballistic missile 
     attack rather than avenging their deaths after one occurs. 
     And yet, while Mr. Reagan's address spawned a research 
     program that became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative 
     (SDI)--into which tens of billions of dollars have been 
     poured over the past fourteen years, the ABM Treaty remains 
     the ``supreme law of the land.'' As a consequence, the United 
     States continues to fail what has been called ``the one-
     missile test''. No defenses are in place today to prevent 
     even a single long-range ballistic missile from delivering 
     nuclear, chemical or biological warheads anywhere in the 
     country.
       This is all the more extraordinary since Republicans and 
     like-minded conservatives have generally recognized that such 
     a posture has become not just dangerous, but also reckless in 
     the ``post-Cold War'' world. In fact, one of the few 
     commitments of the `Contract With America' that remains 
     unfulfilled was arguably among its most important--namely, 
     its promise to defend the American people against ballistic 
     missile attack. Successive legislative attempts to correct 
     this breach-of-contract have all foundered for essentially 
     two reasons.


                      why are we still undefended?

       First, most Republicans have shied away from a fight over 
     the ABM Treaty. Some deluded themselves into believing that 
     the opportunity afforded by the Treaty to deploy 100 ground-
     based anti-missile interceptors in silos at a single site in 
     Grand Forks, North Dakota would allow the U.S. to get started 
     on defenses. Even though such a deployment would neither make 
     strategic sense (it would not cover the entire United States 
     from even a limited attack) nor be justifiable from a 
     budgetary point of view (while estimates vary widely, costs 
     of this minimal system could be well over $10 billion), some 
     missile defense proponents rationalized their support for it 
     by claiming that the anti-defense crowd would not object to 
     this ``treaty-complaint'' deployment and that it would be 
     better than nothing. To date, however, all these ``camel's-
     nose-under-the-tent'' schemes have come to naught.
       Such a system would create a basis for addressing new-term 
     missile threats and complement space-based assets that may be 
     needed in the future. The only problem is that the ABM Treaty 
     prohibits such an affordable, formidable sea-borne defensive 
     system. It must no longer be allowed to do so.


                            the bottom line

       As it happens, the opening salvos in what may be the 
     endgame of the ABM Treaty fight were sounded this weekend at 
     the first International Conservative Congress (dubbed by one 
     participant ``the Conintern''). One preeminent leader after 
     another--including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former 
     British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, once-and-future 
     presidential candidate Steve Forbes, former UN Ambassador 
     Jeane Kirkpatrick, Senator Jon Kyl and nationally syndicated 
     columnist Charles Krauthammer--denounced the idea of making 
     it still harder to defend our people against ballistic 
     missile attack. Several, notably Senator Kyl and Mr. Forbes, 
     have explicitly endorsed the AEGIS option to begin performing 
     that task.
       In an impassioned appeal for missile defenses as part of a 
     robust military posture, Lady Thatcher said yesterday:
       ``A strong defense, supported by heavy investment in the 
     latest technology, including ballistic missile defense, is as 
     essential now, when we don't know who our future enemy may 
     be, as in the Cold War era. And my friends, we must keep 
     ahead technologically. We must not constrain the hands of our 
     researchers. Had we done so in the past, we would never have 
     had the military superiority that in the end, with the 
     dropping of the atomic bomb, won the war in the Far East and 
     saved many, many, lives, even through it destroyed others. We 
     must always remain technologically ahead. If not, we have no 
     way in which to be certain that our armed forces will 
     prevail. And the research and technology of the United States 
     is sheer genius, and it always has been.''
       With such leadership, there now looms a distinct 
     possibility that the American people can finally be 
     acquainted with the ominous reality of their vulnerability 
     and empowered to demand and secure corrective actions. Thanks 
     to the Clinton ABM amendments and the new technical options 
     for defending America, we have both the vehicle for getting 
     out from under an accord that was obsolete even in Ronald 
     Reagan's day and the means for making good and cost-effective 
     use of the freedom that will flow from doing so.

  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________