• Forum
• SITREP
• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security

• Space

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Public Eye

[Page: S2651]

By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Helms, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Warner, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Abraham, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Domenici):

S. 1635. A bill to establish a United States policy for the deployment of a national missile defense system, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

THE DEFEND AMERICA ACT OF 1996

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which will have a profound impact on America's future. I am pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Republican leadership, and other Republicans strongly interested in missile defense, in introducing the Defend America Act of 1996. An identical bill is being introduced in the House by the Speaker and the chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and the National Security Committee, among others. This bill addresses the most fundamental responsibility the U.S. Government has to its citizens: to protect them from harm. At present, the United States has no defense--I repeat--no defense against ballistic missiles.

The Defend America Act of 1996 answers the question of whether Americans should be protected from the threat of ballistic missile attack with a resounding `Yes.' There should be no doubt that we have the technical capability to defend our great Nation from the growing threat of ballistic missiles. What we need is

the will and the leadership. We have seen no leadership from the White House on this issue. Indeed, we have witnessed a complete denial from the highest levels of the administration that there is even a threat to the United States. President Clinton vetoed the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill because it required developing a national missile defense system for deployment by the end of 2003. President Clinton refuses to defend America preferring to rely on the false protection of the cold-war-era antiballistic missile [ABM] treaty.

The cold war is over and the threat from ballistic missiles is real and growing. Among others, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and Syria are seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems. China and Russia have been engaged in transferring related components and technologies.

Just last week, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey testified before the House National Security Committee on his views of the threat posed by ballistic missiles--as well as the current national intelligence estimate on this threat. I would like to quote from his testimony:

We are in the midst of an era of revolutionary improvements in missile guidance. These improvements will soon make ballistic missiles much more effective for blackmail purposes . . . even without the need for warheads containing weapons of mass destruction. . . .

With such guidance improvements, it is quite reasonable to believe that within a few years Saddam or the Chinese rulers will be able to threaten something far more troubling . . .

Woolsey went on to say:

But, in current circumstances, nuclear blackmail threats against the United States may be effectively posed by North Korean intermediate ranged missiles targeted on Alaska or Hawaii, or by Chinese ICBM's targeted on Los Angeles.

With respect to the national intelligence estimate, Woolsey criticized the narrow focus of the estimate which concentrated on indigenous intercontinental ballistic missile development--as opposed to the transfer of such components and technology.

As Woolsey pointed out, since the end of the cold war, Russia, China, and North Korea have been actively exporting missile technology and components. Furthermore, Woolsey noted that the national intelligence estimate only looked at the threat to the 48 continental States. Well, the last time I checked, Alaska and Hawaii were part of the United States. The bottom line is that the threat is real and we cannot wait for it to arrive on our doorstep before we act. As former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle stated before the National Security Committee, and I quote:

[Page: S2652]

If we achieve a defensive capability a little before it is absolutely necessary, no harm will have been done. But if we are too late, the result could be catastrophic. In cases like this, it is always wise to err on the side of too much, too soon, rather than too little, too late.

Mr. President, this legislation establishes a clear policy to deploy a national missile defense [NMD] system by the end of 2003, that is capable of providing a highly effective defense of U.S. territory against limited, unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attacks. The bill also specifies the components of a national missile defense system that are to be developed for deployment, including: An interceptor system, fixed ground-based radars, space-based sensors, and battle management, command, control, and communications.

To implement this policy, this legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to:

Promptly initiate planning to meet this deployment goal; conduct by the end of 1998, an integrated systems test using NMD components; to use streamlined acquisition procedures to reduce cost and increase efficiency; and to develop a follow-on NMD program.

The Secretary of Defense is also required to submit a detailed report to the Congress no later than March 15, 1997, which outlines his plans for implementing this policy, the estimate costs associated with the development and deployment of the NMD system, a cost and operational effectiveness analysis of follow-on options, and a determination of the point at which NMD development would conflict with the ABM Treay.

With respect to the ABM Treaty, the legislation urges the President to bring the Russians on board, by pursuing high-level discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow for the deployment of the NMD system specified in this act. If the Russians do agree, the legislation requires any agreement to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. However, if a satisfactory agreement is not reached within a year of the date of enactment of this legislation, the President and Congress will consider U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

Mr. President, deploying a national missile defense system--which will protect all 50 States--should be our top defense priority. The Defend America Act lays out a realistic and responsible course by which we can do so.

A national missile defense system will not only defend, it will deter--by reducing the incentive of rogue regimes to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

I hope that the White House is listening. Republicans are united and clear in their message that America must be defended. We are ready to exercise leadership to fulfill our responsibility to all Americans to protect them from ballistic missile attack.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Defend America Act of 1996'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Although the United States possesses the technological means to develop and deploy defensive systems that would be highly effective in countering limited ballistic missile threats to its territory, the United States has not deployed such systems and currently has no policy to do so.

(2) The threat that is posed to the national security of the United States by the proliferation of ballistic missiles is significant and growing, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

(3) The trend in ballistic missile proliferation is toward longer range and increasingly sophisticated missiles.

(4) Several countries that are hostile to the United States (including North Korea, Iran, Libya, and Iraq) have demonstrated an interest in acquiring ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States.

(5) The Intelligence Community of the United States has confirmed that North Korea is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be capable of reaching Alaska or beyond once deployed.

(6) There are ways for determined countries to acquire missiles capable of threatening the United States with little warning by means other than indigenous development.

(7) Because of the dire consequences to the United States of not being prepared to defend itself against a rogue missile attack and the long-lead time associated with preparing an effective defense, it is prudent to commence a national missile defense deployment effort before new ballistic missile threats to the United States are unambiguously confirmed.

(8) The timely deployment by the United States of an effective national missile defense system will reduce the incentives for countries to develop or otherwise acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles, thereby inhibiting as well as countering the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

(9) Deployment by the United States of a national missile defense system will reduce concerns about the threat of an accidental or unauthorized ballistic missile attack on the United States.

(10) The offense-only approach to strategic deterrence presently followed by the United States and Russia is fundamentally adversarial and is not a suitable basis for stability in a world in which the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union are seeking to normalize relations and eliminate Cold War attitudes and arrangements.

(11) Pursuing a transition to a form of strategic deterrence based increasingly on defensive capabilities and strategies is in the interest of all countries seeking to preserve and enhance strategic stability.

(12) The deployment of a national missile defense system capable of defending the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks would (A) strengthen deterrence at the levels of forces agreed to by the United States and Russia under the START I Treaty, and (B) further strengthen deterrence if reductions below START I levels are implemented in the future.

(13) Article XIII of the ABM Treaty envisions `possible changes in the strategic situation which have a bearing on the provisions of this treaty'.

(14) Articles XIII and XIV of the treaty establish means for the parties to amend the treaty, and the parties have in the past used those means to amend the treaty.

(15) Article XV of the treaty establishes the means for a party to withdraw from the treaty, upon six months notice `if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests'.

(16) Previous discussions between the United States and Russia, based on Russian President Yeltsin's proposal for a Global Protection System, envisioned an agreement to amend the ABM Treaty to allow (among other measures) deployment of as many as four ground-based interceptor sites in addition to the one site permitted under the ABM Treaty and unrestricted exploitation of sensors based within the atmosphere and in space.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.
(a) It is the policy of the United States to deploy by the end of 2003 a National Missile Defense system that--

(1) is capable of providing a highly-effective defense of the territory of the United States against limited, unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attacks; and

(2) will be augmented over time to provide a layered defense against larger and more sophisticated ballistic missile threats as they emerge.
(b) It is the policy of the United States to seek a cooperative transition to a regime that does not feature an offense-only form of deterrence as the basis for strategic stability.

SEC. 4. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE.
(a) Requirement for Development of System: To implement the policy established in section 3(a), the Secretary of Defense shall develop for deployment an affordable and operationally effective National Missile Defense (NMD) system which shall achieve an initial operational capability (IOC) by the end of 2003.
(b) Elements of the NMD System: The system to be developed for deployment shall include the following elements:

(1) An interceptor system that optimizes defensive coverage of the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii against limited, accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile attacks and includes one or a combination of the following:

(A) Ground-based interceptors.

(B) Sea-based interceptors.

(C) Space-based kinetic energy interceptors.

(D) Space-based directed energy systems.

(2) Fixed ground-based radars.

(3) Space-based sensors, including the Space and Missile Tracking System.

(4) Battle management, command, control, and communications (BM/C3).

[Page: S2653]

SEC. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.
The Secretary of Defense shall--

(1) upon the enactment of this Act, promptly initiate required preparatory and planning actions that are necessary so as to be capable of meeting the initial operational capability (IOC) date specified in section 4(a);

(2) plan to conduct by the end of 1998 an integrated systems test which uses elements (including BM/C3 elements) that are representative of, and traceable to, the national missile defense system architecture specified in section 4(b);

(3) prescribe and use streamlined acquisition policies and procedures to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of developing the system specified in section 4(a); and

(4) develop an affordable national missile defense follow-on program that--

(A) leverages off of the national missile defense system specified in section 4(a), and

(B) augments that system, as the threat changes, to provide for a layered defense.

SEC. 6. REPORT ON PLAN FOR NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT.
Not later than March 15, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the Secretary's plan for development and deployment of a national missile defense system pursuant to this Act. The report shall include the following matters:

(1) The Secretary's plan for carrying out this Act, including--

(A) a detailed description of the system architecture selected for development under section 4(b); and

(B) a discussion of the justification for the selection of that particular architecture.

(2) The Secretary's estimate of the amount of appropriations required for research, development, test, evaluation, and for procurement, for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003 in order to achieve the initial operational capability date specified in section 4(a).

(3) A cost and operational effectiveness analysis of follow-on options to improve the effectiveness of such system.

(4) A determination of the point at which any activity that is required to be carried out under this Act would conflict with the terms of the ABM Treaty, together with a description of any such activity, the legal basis for the Secretary's determination, and an estimate of the time at which such point would be reached in order to meet the initial operational capability date specified in section 4(a).

SEC. 7. POLICY REGARDING THE ABM TREATY.
(a) ABM Treaty Negotiations: In light of the findings in section 2 and the policy established in section 3, Congress urges the President to pursue high-level discussions with the Russian Federation to achieve an agreement to amend the ABM Treaty to allow deployment of the national missile defense system being developed for deployment under section 4.

(b) Requirement for Senate Advice and Consent: If an agreement described in subsection (a) is achieved in discussions described in that subsection, the President shall present that agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent. No funds appropriated or otherwise available for any fiscal year may be obligated or expended to implement such an amendment to the ABM Treaty unless the amendment is made in the same manner as the manner by which a treaty is made.
(c) Action Upon Failure To Achieve Negotiated Changes Within One Year: If an agreement described in subsection (a) is not achieved in discussions described in that subsection within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President and Congress, in consultation with each other, shall consider exercising the option of withdrawing the United States from the ABM Treaty in accordance with the provisions of Article XV of that treaty.

SEC. 8. ABM TREATY DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term `ABM Treaty' means the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and signed at Moscow on May 26, 1972, and includes the Protocols to that Treaty, signed at Moscow on July 3, 1974.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am extremely proud to be a principal cosponsor of the Defend America Act of 1996, which was introduced by Senator Dole today. This legislation will fill a glaring void in U.S. national security policy by requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003 that is capable of defending the United States against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile attack.

Ironically, most Americans already believe that we have such a system in place. This assumption is understandable since under the Constitution the President's first responsibility is to provide for the defense of the American homeland. Unfortunately, the current President has decided that this obligation is one that can be indefinitely delayed. I join Senator Dole and others today in proclaiming that the time has come to end America's complete vulnerability to ballistic missile blackmail and attack.

The President and senior members of the administration have argued that there is no threat to justify deployment of a national missile defense system. This is simply not true. The political and military situation in the former Soviet Union has deteriorated, leading to greater uncertainty over the control and security of Russian strategic nuclear forces. China is firing missiles near Taiwan as if it were a skeet range, and has even made veiled threats against the United States. North Korea is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be capable of reaching the United States once deployed. Other hostile and unpredictable countries, such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq, have made clear their desire to acquire missiles capable of reaching the United States. The technology and knowledge to produce missiles and weapons of mass destruction is available on the open market.

China's recent provocations against Taiwan highlight the need for the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as possible. Although veiled threats against the United States may be only saber rattling, American military and political leaders should not ignore them. If the United States possessed even a limited national missile defense system, U.S. decision-makers would have a much greater degree of flexibility in considering our military and diplomatic options. A vulnerable America is not only subject to missile attack, but also to blackmail and intimidation.

Last year, President Clinton vetoed the Defense authorization bill mainly because it called for deployment of a national missile defense system. The administration argued that there was no need for such a system, that the threat is 10 or 15 years away. China has clearly illustrated how their judgment is flawed. The threat is here today.

If the situation should deteriorate between China and Taiwan, President Clinton will almost certainly regret the fact that the United States has no means of dealing with Chinese missile threats other than by our own nuclear threats. This is hardly a credible response. A national missile defense system, on the other hand, would eliminate the risk and uncertainty that would surely occur if China and the United States engaged in a series of nuclear threats and counterthreats. This would be an invitation for disaster. If we had an operational national missile defense system, we could confidently deal with Chinese missile threats and pursue our policies and objectives without intimidation.

The other important factor to bear in mind when considering the need for a national missile defense system, is that such a system can actually discourage countries from acquiring long-range missiles in the first place. In this sense, we should view national missile defense as a powerful nonproliferation tool, not just something to be considered some time in the future as a response to newly emerging threats.

The policy advocated in the Defend America Act of 1996 is virtually identical to that contained in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress and vetoed by the President. Like the legislation vetoed by the President, the Defend America Act of 1996 would require that the entire United States be protected against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized attack by the year 2003. It differs from the vetoed legislation in that it provides the Secretary of Defense greater flexibility in determining the precise architecture for the system.

The Defend America Act of 1996 urges the President to begin negotiations to amend the AMB Treaty to allow for deployment of an effective system. But it also recommends that, if these negotiations fail to produce acceptable amendments within 1 year, Congress and the President should consider withdrawing the United States from the ABM Treaty. Nothing in this legislation, however, requires or advocates abrogation or violation of the ABM Treaty.

Mr. President, 3 months ago, the President of the United States vetoed the Defense authorization bill because he opposed the deployment of a system to defend the American people against ballistic missile attack. Today, I am honored to join Senator Dole in sending a clear message--we will not stand idly by while the United States remains undefended against a real and growing threat. The legislation we are introducing today will fulfill a constitutional, strategic, and moral obligation that has been neglected for 4 years.

[Page: S2654]

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation to establish a policy for deploying a national defense system for the United States. This bill, the National Missile Defense Act of 1996, returns the United States on a clear path toward deploying a system to defend the American people against limited, accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile attacks.

In 1991, the Congress enacted the first Missile Defense Act, in a bipartisan effort to give direction to the Strategic Defense Initiative program, now known as the Ballistic Missile Defense program. The need for theater missile defense systems had been tragically demonstrated during the Persian Gulf war, and it was clear that the potential threats to our continent would continue to exist, even with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Subsequently, that policy was watered down and its deployment objectives were delayed time and again. I congratulate Senator Dole for taking the lead today in restoring much-needed direction to our national missile defense efforts.

Our Nation has invested over $38 billion on missile defense programs over the past 15 years, with very little effective defensive capability to show for it. We are at a turning point in the development of capabilities to effectively defend our citizens and our troops deployed overseas from the devastating effects of ballistic missile attacks.

We should focus our missile defense programs on the risk of accidental or unauthorized missile launch, missile proliferation in the Third World, and particularly the risk of theater missile attacks on our forces and allies.

Deployment of effective, mobile theater missile defense systems for our troops in the field should be our first priority. To do so requires an evaluation of the many ongoing research programs to determine which demonstrates the most promise for deployable capability against battlefield missile attacks.

I am greatly disappointed that the administration chose to ignore Congressional direction and cut the theater missile defense funding approved by the Congress last year. The core programs identified in the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill, including both lower and upper tier systems, must be fully funded to ensure the most effective protection for our troops in the field. I fully expect Congress to restore the funding and restate the programmatic direction to make these systems available to our forces.

At the same time, we must develop a deployment plan for an initial national missile defense system to provide an effective defense of U.S. territory against limited ballistic missile attacks. This bill establishes a goal of 2003 to deploy such a system and directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to implement that goal. It is now up to the Congress to provide the funding to develop and procure the most cost-effective system.

Both efforts, toward theater and national missile defense systems, must balance the critical need for defenses with the reality of fiscal constraints. Every effort should be made to engage our allies both financially and technically in developing these systems.

Mr. President, the threat of proliferation is too great to ignore. We must not replace the nuclear confrontation of the cold war with vulnerability to dictators, extremists, and nations who threaten us with nuclear blackmail, or our forces and allies with missile attack. Without effective, deployed missile defense systems, we remain at risk.

I intend to work with Senator Dole to achieve early passage of this legislation in the Senate, and I urge President Clinton to approve it to ensure the safety of the American people.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Republican leadership of both the Senate and the House, and all Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as an original cosponsor of the Defend America Act of 1996. I call on all Members of Congress to join us in our effort to protect the citizens of the United States from ballistic missile attack.

Earlier this year, President Clinton's veto of the Defense authorization bill forced us to reluctantly drop the important national missile defense provisions that we had included in that bill. At that time, we promised that we would be back with separate legislation to provide for the defense of the United States. With the introduction of today's legislation, we have fulfilled that promise and will continue the fight until this legislation is enacted into law--over President Clinton's veto, if necessary.

Many Americans find it hard to believe that we currently have no system in place which could defend our Nation against even a single intercontinental ballistic missile strike. This, despite the fact that Russia and China currently have the capability to reach our shores with their intercontinental ballistic missiles; and North Korea is well on its way to deploying a long-range missile capable of striking Alaska. In addition, over 30 nations now have short-range ballistic missiles--30 nations, many hostile to the United States. As China's saber rattling against Taiwan continues, we hear reports of veiled threats from China of a missile attack against California--something they are very capable of doing. And today's papers report that Iraq continues to possess Scud missiles.

The need for defenses against these capabilities is clear. The cold war may be over, but the desire of more and more nations to acquire ballistic missiles is growing. But the Clinton administration believes there is no threat, and they have presented the Congress with a defense budget request which `slow rolls' our ballistic missile defense efforts. The American people deserve better.

That is why I have long been in the forefront of the Republican effort to provide both our troops deployed overseas and Americans here at home with adequate defenses to counter the very real threat of ballistic missile attack. I drafted the Missile Defense Act of 1991 which--in the aftermath of the Iraqi Scud missile attacks--set the United States on the path to acquiring and deploying theater and national missile defense systems. I also joined with my Republican colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in drafting the Missile Defense Act of 1995, an update of the earlier Missile Defense Act. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, President Clinton's veto stopped that Republican effort to defend Americans.

The Defend America Act calls for the deployment of a national missile defense (NMD) system to protect the United States against limited, unauthorized or accidental ballistic missile attacks. It is important to emphasize that we are talking about a limited system--one that would provide a highly effective capability against a limited ballistic missile attack. This is precisely the type of defensive system we need to deal with the threats we are facing in the post-cold-war world.

A key difference between the Defend America Act and the missile defense legislation adopted last year, is that the current bill does not require the deployment of a specific NMD system. Rather, it establishes the requirement to deploy a system by a date certain, but leaves it to the Secretary of Defense to propose a plan by March 15, 1997, to implement this requirement. This is a prudent approach which focuses the debate on the real issue--do you want to defend the American people against ballistic missile attacks?

Mr. President, we all remember the Iraqi Scud missile attacks on our forces in Saudi Arabia, and our friends in Israel. I was in Tel Aviv during the last Scud attack--February 18, 1991.

I do not want to see U.S. citizens subjected to the terror I witnessed in Israel. I pray that we never see a time when Americans are forced to carry gas masks around because some madman is threatening our shores. We owe it to our citizens to take action now--before it is too late--to provide them with effective defenses against these types of attacks.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation introduced today by Senator Dole regarding national missile defense. I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I want to commend Senator Dole for his steadfast commitment to defending America.

Mr. President, our Nation is walking a very dangerous tightrope. For reasons that are unknown and certainly inconceivable to most Americans, President Clinton refuses to defend our country against ballistic missiles, even though the technology to do so is available today.

The truth is our Nation is absolutely, completely vulnerable to ballistic missiles. We have no defense whatsoever against a missile targeted on our territory, our industry, our national treasures, or our people. The Patriot missiles that everyone remembers from Desert Storm 5 years ago are not capable of stopping a long-range missile. In fact, they can only defend very small areas against short-range missiles. The Patriot is a point-defense system that we send along with our troops when they go into harm's way.

But here at home we have no defenses against long-range missiles based in China, in Russia, or in North Korea. We have no defenses against the missiles that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are so vigorously seeking to acquire. That is the truth. That is a fact. And that is unacceptable.

When told of this situation, the vast majority of Americans become enraged. They cannot understand why their elected Representatives would leave them defenseless against the likes of Saddam Hussein, Mu'ammar Qadhafi, or Kim Jong-Il. They cannot understand why the tax dollars that they contribute for national defense are not being used to protect them.

Frankly, they have every right to be upset. There is simply no excuse.

The Congress agrees with the American people and took action last year to defend all Americans against ballistic missiles, whatever their source. In the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996, Congress established a program to develop and deploy a national missile defense system for the United States. This program was not some elaborate star wars concept, but rather, a very modest yet capable ground-based system that would provide a limited defense of America against accidental, unauthorized, or hostile missile attacks.

But President Clinton vetoed the Defense bill specifically because of the requirement to defend America. In fact, in his statement of administration policy, the President called national missile defense quote `unwarranted and unnecessary.'

Mr. President, that is a very insightful quote, and it gets right to the heart of the differences between President Clinton, Presidential candidate Bob Dole, and the Republican Congress. To President Clinton, providing for the common defense is `unwarranted and unnecessary.' To the Congress and Senator Dole, it is the most fundamental of our constitutional responsibilities.

Simply put, this is a defining issue. It is an issue that defines our Nation's character and commitment to its people. It is an issue that defines the two parties. It is an issue that defines the very basic difference between two men who are seeking the Presidency. It is an issue that history will undoubtedly look back and pass judgment upon and, for better or worse, it is an issue that will define our generation.

Mr. President, if we fail to take action to defend America now, while we still have the chance, we will certainly regret it. At some point in the very near future, we will have waited too long. The theoretical threat of a hostile ballistic missile launch will have become a reality. And we will have no defense against it.

What will it take for President Clinton to recognize this threat? Must a ballistic missile equipped with a chemical, biological, or nuclear warhead rain down upon citizens before he will act? Must tens of thousands of Americans perish before he corrects this terrible vulnerability.

To those of us who are cosponsoring this legislation, the answer is, `No.' The time to act is now, not tomorrow. Our Nation is in jeopardy. Ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are spreading throughout the world and we cannot stop them. In fact, some 30 nations currently possess, or are actively acquiring, weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.

Just yesterday, the United Nations admitted that Iraq is covertly storing up to 16 ballistic missiles armed with chemical or biological warheads. Iraq is the most inspected and thoroughly monitored country in the world. If we cannot find these missiles in the deserts of Iraq, how can we expect to track them in the mountains and valleys of China, North Korea, Iran, or Syria?

The answer is, We can't, and even if we could, we have no system to counter them. The only solution is to develop missile defenses. This bill does just that, and would require that our Nation deploy a national missile defense system capable of protecting all Americans by the year 2003.

Mr. President, this is not about politics. It is not about partisanship. It is about national security and keeping faith with those who elected us and those who depend upon us to safeguard their lives and property. If we ignore this obligation, we will have failed in our most fundamental constitutional responsibility. To me that is unacceptable. It runs against every principle that I stand for, and as long as I have a breath in my body, I will fight to prevent that from happening.

Mr. President, I want to again thank the distinguished majority leader for bringing this issue before the Senate. He does our Nation a profound service by highlighting the missile defense issue, and I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

[Page: S2655]