[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 40 (Friday, March 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2820-S2821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           RESTORING A NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO MISSILE DEFENSE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in his recent address to Congress, 
President George W. Bush made it clear that, unlike his immediate 
predecessor, he strongly endorses the deployment of an effective 
missile defense system capable of protecting the United States, its 
allies and its forward deployed forces from the growing threat of 
missile attack. As someone who has long viewed the deployment of 
missile defense as an urgent national priority, I look forward to 
working with President Bush to achieve this vital national security 
goal for America.
  March 23 marks the 18th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's 
historic speech announcing his determination to see America build a 
defense against ballistic missiles. It is gratifying to know that 
Reagan's vision remains alive today. As Reagan said in 1983:

       What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that 
     their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. 
     retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept 
     and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached 
     our own soil or that of our allies?
       I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may 
     not be accomplished before the end of this century. . . . It 
     will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. 
     There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be 
     successes and breakthroughs . . . as we pursue a program to 
     begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat 
     posed by strategic nuclear missiles.

  Now, 18 years later, at the dawn of the new century, a renewed 
Presidential focus on missile defense is appropriate and necessary. The 
threat posed by ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction is 
very real and growing. And as we have seen over time, the technology to 
begin to meet this threat is available, if we will make the effort to 
aggressively develop it. Today, President Bush promises to do just 
that.
  Unfortunately, the Clinton administration squandered most of the last 
8 years, failing to build a proper foundation for the kind of robust 
missile defense development and deployment which the growing threat 
demands. Wedded to the outdated 1972 ABM Treaty, to the superstitions 
of arms control and to greatly reduced defense budgets, Clinton was 
consistently hostile to the deployment of effective missile defense. 
Here is a quick year-by-year review of some of the highlights of the 
Clinton administration's dismal record on missile defense.
  1993: cut $2.5 billion from the Bush missile defense budget request 
for fiscal year 1994; halted all cooperation with Russia on a joint 
global missile defense program; terminated the Reagan-Bush Strategic 
Defense Initiative program; downgraded National Missile Defense to a 
research and development program only; cut 5-year missile defense 
funding by 54 percent from $39 billion to $18 billion; reaffirmed 
commitment to ABM Treaty, saying any defense must be ``treaty-
compliant.''
  1994: State Department official called the ABM treaty ``sacred 
text,'' saying ``arms control has more to offer our national security 
than do more weapons systems. We look first to arms control and second 
. . . to defenses;'' declared Theater High Altitude Area Defense 
(THAAD) non-treaty compliant; placed self-imposed limits on THAAD 
testing to keep it ``treaty-compliant.''
  1995: Placed self-imposed limits on Navy Upper Tier system to keep it 
``treaty compliant;'' politicized National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 
to downplay growing missile threat; vetoed Defense Authorization bill 
requiring missile defense deployment by 2003.
  1996: Cut funding and slowed development of THAAD and Navy Theater-
Wide systems, in defiance of the law--the Defense Authorization bill--
requiring accelerated development; announced fraudulent ``3-plus-3'' 
program for national missile defense: three years to develop, plus 
three years to deploy. (Later changed to ``5 plus 3,'' then ``7 plus 
3,'' then dropped the ``plus 3''); reaffirmed ABM Treaty as the 
``cornerstone of strategic stability;'' opposed and helped kill 
legislation calling for NMD deployment by 2003.

  1997: signed ABM Treaty agreements with Russia which, if ratified by 
the Senate, would: (1) reaffirm the validity of the ABM Treaty banning 
effective national missile defense; (2) sharply limit the effectiveness 
of theater defense systems; and (3) ban space-based missile defenses.
  Clinton never submitted these for ratification, knowing they would 
fail to get the needed 67 votes for ratification.
  1998: opposed and helped kill legislation calling for NMD deployment 
``as soon as technologically possible;'' disputed the Rumsfield 
Commission's assessment of the growing missile threat, arguing that 
there was no need to accelerate missile defense deployment; on August 
24, Joint Chiefs Chairman Henry Shelton wrote to me affirming his 
assurance that U.S. intelligence would detect at least three years' 
warning of any new rogue state ICBM threat; on August 31, one week 
later, North Korea surprised U.S. intelligence by testing a three-stage 
Taepo-Dong I missile with intercontinental range, demonstrating 
critical staging technology and rudimentary ICBM capability.
  1999: delayed by at least two years the Space Based Infrared System 
(SBIRS) satellites designed to detect and track missile launches 
necessary to coordinate with any effective national missile defense 
system; emasculated the Missile Defense Act of 1999--passed by veto-
proof majorities in both houses--calling for deployment ``as soon as 
technologically possible.'' In signing the bill into law, Clinton 
outrageously interpreted it to mean that no deployment decision had 
been made and that therefore he would make no change in his go-slow 
missile defense policy.
  2000: cut funding for the Airborne Laser (ABL) program by 52 percent 
over 5-year period, but the cuts were later reversed by Congress; 
allowed Russia to veto U.S. missile defense plans by making NMD 
dependent on Russia's agreement to modify the ABM Treaty, but Russia 
would never agree; postponed the administration's long-awaited NMD 
deployment decision from June to September and then decided to defer 
any decision indefinitely to the next administration, insuring that the 
entire eight years of the Clinton presidency would pass without a 
commitment to deploy national missile defense.
  The net result of this abysmal record is that America continues to 
remain completely vulnerable to missile attack, despite growing 
threats. In the 8 years of the Clinton administration, there was never 
a commitment to deploy national missile defense. Instead, there was a 
misguided ideological dedication to preserving the ABM Treaty, whose 
very purpose was to prohibit effective missile defense. In essence, the 
Clinton vision was exactly opposite of the Reagan vision.
  Today, the threat grows. Proliferation of missile and weapons 
technology around the world proceeds at an accelerated pace. Under 
Clinton, weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq; Russia greatly 
increased its military assistance to China; China was caught stealing 
U.S. nuclear secrets; U.S. companies were given a green light to help 
improve the accuracy and reliability of China's nuclear missiles; China 
transferred missile and weapons technology to North Korea, Iran, Iraq 
and others; China threatened to absorb Taiwan; and China threatened to 
attack the United States with nuclear missiles.
  The Rumsfeld Commission determined that new ICBM threats could emerge 
in the future ``with little or no warning.'' The Cox Commission 
determined that Clinton covered up or presided over some of the most 
serious security breaches in U.S. history, affecting critical national 
secrets about virtually every weapon in our nuclear arsenal and 
numerous military-related high technologies.
  The case for missile defense is more compelling today than it has 
ever been.

[[Page S2821]]

 With a new President determined to set a new course, or rather to set 
us back to the course first articulated by President Reagan, there is 
reason for hope and optimism.
  I urge President Bush to move quickly in forging a national 
commitment to the deployment of a robust global missile defense system 
capable of defending all 50 States, our allies and our forward deployed 
troops around the world. We should appropriate the necessary budgets. 
We should exploit all options and technologies. We should seriously 
consider an initial deployment at sea, using our proven Aegis ships and 
complementing it with important ground and spaced based systems.
  In consultation with our allies, and while maintaining our nuclear 
deterrent, we should break free of the constraints of the outdated ABM 
Treaty and begin to fashion a security regime based, as Reagan said, on 
our ability ``to save lives rather to avenge them.'' This is the legacy 
America deserves, consistent with Reagan's vision of courage, morality 
and security--a vision I know is shared by President George W. Bush.

                          ____________________