[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 46 (Friday, March 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4272-S4273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for 
hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress Senator Kennedy and I 
introduced the Local Law Enforcement Act, a bill that would add new 
categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence 
of any kind is unacceptable in our society.
  I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred on September 
14, 2001 in Tulsa, OK. A food store employee of Middle-Eastern descent 
was attacked while leaving his apartment. Three people jumped on him, 
knocked him down, covered his eyes, and beat him. After addressing him 
with an expletive, the men threatened, ``We are going to cut you like 
you cut our people.'' Before his eyes were covered, he saw that one of 
the attackers had a knife-like object. The victim was hospitalized and 
treated for multiple lacerations.
  I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to 
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law 
Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I 
believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we 
can change hearts and minds as well.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, March 23 marks the 20th anniversary of 
President Reagan's historic address to the Nation in which he launched 
the program known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI, designed to 
help protect America and our allies from ballistic missile attack.
  I would like to commemorate this occasion by placing a copy of 
President Reagan's remarks into the Record at this time.
  With each passing year, we see more clearly the wisdom of President 
Reagan's vision. The spread of technology relating to ballistic 
missiles and weapons of mass destruction has grown enormously in 20 
years. Since September 11, 2001--and now as we are engaged in military 
operations to disarm IRAQ--more people have become aware of the growing 
threats we face from missile attack.
  When President Reagan spoke in 1983, he said it might take 
``decades'' before reliable missile defense was a reality. And he was 
right. As he well knew, it was not only the technical and engineering 
hurdles that stood in the way, but also the formidable political 
obstacles.
  During the Clinton years, the outdated ABM Treaty was enshrined as 
the ``cornerstone of strategic stability,'' SDI was essentially 
scrapped, and, in 1996, the Congress's determination to build a missile 
defense system by 2003 was vetoed.
  But George W. Bush dramatically changed the political climate and has 
taken a different course--a course in keeping with President Reagan's 
commitment. In 2001, he wisely announced U.S. withdrawal from the ABM 
Treaty, and in 2002, he announced that we would move to deploy the 
first elements, sea-based and land based for a real missile defense 
system capable of protecting U.S. cities from long-range missile 
attacks.
  I applaud President Bush for his steadfast commitment to America's 
national security and to fulfilling President Reagan's vision. The bold 
actions he is taking are moving us forward to the actual deployment of 
a missile defense capability that will serve our country for many years 
to come.
  I ask unanimous consent to have President Reagan's speech printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Address to the Nation on National Security By President Ronald Reagan--
                             March 23, 1983

       The calls for cutting back the defense budget come in nice, 
     simple arithmetic. They're the same kind of talk that led the 
     democracies to neglect their defenses in the 1930's and 
     invited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that 
     grim chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or 
     neglect.
       This is why I'm speaking to you tonight--to urge you to 
     tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must 
     continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in 
     midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened 
     will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must 
     voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet 
     the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It's up 
     to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the 
     hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and 
     the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the 
     best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.
       The solution is well within our grasp. But to reach it, 
     there is simply no alternative but to continue this year, in 
     this budget, to provide the resources we need to preserve the 
     peace and guarantee our freedom.
       Now, thus far tonight I've shared with you my thoughts on 
     the problems of national security we must face together. My 
     predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on 
     other occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power 
     and have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the 
     advent of nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly 
     directed toward deterrence of aggression through the promise 
     of retaliation.
       This approach to stability through offensive threat has 
     worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing 
     nuclear war for more than three decades. In recent months, 
     however, my advisers, including in particular the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, have underscored the necessity to break out 
     of a future that relies solely on offensive retaliation for 
     our security.
       Over the course of these discussions, I've become more and 
     more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable 
     of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings 
     by threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe 
     we must thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing 
     tensions and for introducing greater stability into the 
     strategic calculus on both sides.
       One of the most important contributions we can make is, of 
     course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly 
     nuclear arms. We're engaged right now in several negotiations 
     with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction of 
     weapons. I will report to you a week from tomorrow my 
     thoughts on that score. But let me just say, I'm totally 
     committed to this course.
       If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to 
     achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in 
     stabilizing the nuclear balance. Nevertheless, it will still 
     be necessary to rely on the specter of retaliation, on mutual 
     threat. And that's a sad commentary on the human condition. 
     Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are 
     we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by 
     applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a 
     truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
       After careful consultation with my advisers, including the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share 
     with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that 
     we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile 
     threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the 
     very strengths in technology that spawned our great 
     industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we 
     enjoy today.
       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. Yet, 
     current technology has attained a level of sophistication 
     where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. 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. And as we proceed, we must 
     remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and 
     maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But 
     isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the 
     world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.
       In the meantime, we will continue to pursue real reductions 
     in nuclear arms, negotiating from a position of strength that 
     can be ensured only by modernizing our strategic forces. At 
     the same time, we must take steps to reduce the risk of a 
     conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by 
     improving our nonnuclear capabilities.
       America does possess--now--the technologies to attain very 
     significant improvements in the effectiveness of our 
     conventional, nonnuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these 
     new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive 
     that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the 
     United States or its allies.
       As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we 
     recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive 
     power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests 
     and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are 
     one. And on change in technology can or will alter that 
     reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments.
       I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations 
     and raise certain problems

[[Page S4273]]

     and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can 
     be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants 
     that. But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call 
     upon the scientific community in our country, those who 
     gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now 
     to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the 
     means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and 
     obsolete.
       Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty 
     and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our 
     allies, I'm taking an important first step. I am directing a 
     comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term 
     research and development program to begin to achieve our 
     ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic 
     nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control 
     measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither 
     military superiority nor political advantage. Our only 
     purpose--one all people share--is to search for ways to 
     reduce the danger of nuclear war.
       My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort 
     which holds the promise of changing the course of human 
     history. There will be risks, and results take time. But I 
     believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for 
     your prayers and your support.
       Thank you, good night, and God bless you.

                          ____________________