[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4819-S4820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AMERICAN MISSILE PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate failed to 
invoke cloture on S. 1873, the American Missile Protection Act of 1998. 
The bill is simple and its purpose can be stated very easily by 
reciting Section 3 in its entirety. ``It is the policy of the United 
States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective 
National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of 
the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether 
accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).''
  Everyone knows that it is necessary to first vote to stop endless 
debate on a bill when a filibuster has been threatened, then, after 
cloture, we can have limited debate followed by a vote on the bill 
itself. From this morning's vote, it can be seen that more than 40 
percent of my colleagues feel that it should be the policy of the 
United States to keep our citizens exposed to the risks of a ballistic 
missile attack.
  Mr. President, I know that the Cold War is over. Unfortunately, 
although some would like to believe otherwise, this does not mean that 
we are one happy world, where all countries are working in mutual 
cooperation. It is no time for the United States to let down its guard 
or to cease doing everything possible to maintain our national 
security.
  The nuclear testing in India this week should shake some sense into 
those calling for the U.S. to disarm itself of our nuclear deterrent 
capability, as if that would set an example to the rest of the world. 
We cannot ``uninvent'' nuclear weapons everywhere in the world. 
Therefore, we must do the next best thing--prepare our best defense.
  During the Cold War standoff with the Soviet Union, we operated under 
a system known as MAD, for Mutually Assured Destruction. No country, 
back then, would attack us with a nuclear weapon because there was full 
realization that it would face certain annihilation because we could 
and would retaliate in kind, and with greater strength. MAD was never a 
completely risk-free strategy, though. We had to rely on the hope that 
other governments would act responsibly and not put their citizens in 
the path of a direct, retaliatory missile hit. This was the best we 
could do back then. MAD has outlived its usefulness today because we 
have the capability to protect ourselves better--we now have the 
ability to develop defensive technologies that can give us a system 
that will knock out a ballistic missile before it can land on one of 
our cities.
  It should be clear to everyone that in today's more complicated world 
the threat of a ballistic missile attack is not confined to a couple of 
superpowers; there is a greater risk than ever before of a launch 
against the U.S., either by accident or design, from any of a number of 
so-called ``rogue'' nations. And, with the additional risk that 
chemical or biological weapons can be launched using the same ballistic 
missile technology as is used for nuclear weapons delivery, the threat 
is more widespread and we must defend against it.
  Without National Missile Defense, there is a greater risk that an 
incident, even one involving chemical or biological weapons, could 
escalate into full scale nuclear war. If we must stick with a MAD 
strategy, we will have to retaliate once we identify a ballistic 
missile launch at the U.S. It would be much better to eliminate those 
missiles with a defensive system, and then determine what most 
appropriate response, diplomatic or military, we would undertake.
  Ignoring that National Missile Defense can keep us from an escalating 
nuclear war, critics of the American Missile Protection Act, through 
twisted logic, say that if the U.S. builds a defensive capability, this 
will drive the world closer to a nuclear war. Their argument goes 
something like this--if we can defend against a ballistic missile 
attack, there is nothing that will stop us from striking another 
country first because we no longer have to worry about retaliation. As 
incredible as it may sound, they say that a National Missile Defense is 
actually an act of aggression.
  In order to buy into such an argument, however, you have to first 
assume that the United States has been standing by, waiting to take 
over the world with its nuclear defensive arsenal, but the Soviet bear 
kept us in our cage. You would have to believe that

[[Page S4820]]

Americans have been so intent on spreading democracy around the world 
that we would attack any country that would not adopt our free system 
of government and force democracy upon its peoples.
  No, Mr. President, building a National Missile Defense is not an act 
of aggression that would free us up to launch an unprovoked attack on 
other countries. It is an act of common sense in a dangerous world.

                          ____________________