DEFEND AMERICA ACT (Senate - May 23, 1996)
[Page: S5631]
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to turn to the legislation at hand which was addressed by the distinguished chairman of the committee.
I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting this crucial legislation to protect the American people from the very real threat of long-range ballistic missile attack. I find it curious that the day after President Clinton made headlines by claiming that he supports a National Missile Defense System, the Democrats in the Senate are preventing the Senate, as the distinguished chairman stated, from even debating and considering a bill that would provide for such a system.
It was timely, in my judgment, for this debate because the interest of the American people have been drawn to the fact that we do not have a defense against an accidental or unintentional firing of a long-range strategic ballistic missile. That, I think, is agreed on by all.
During his speech yesterday at the Coast Guard Academy, President Clinton made a series of points on national missile defense. Let us examine carefully his assertions.
The President begins by talking about theater missile defense: `Our first priority is to defend against existing or near-term threats, like short-and medium-range missile attacks on our troops in the field or our allies.' So far, I concur. This is also the priority that Republicans established years ago, in the wake of the Persian Gulf war. On trips to that theatre during that war I saw the destruction of Iraq's use of the scud. I experienced with other Senators, a scud attack on Tel Aviv on February 18, 1991. It impacted a considerable distance from where we were at the Defense Ministry Building.
The President then continues, `And we are, with upgraded Patriot missiles, the Navy Lower and Upper Tier and the Army THAAD.' What are the facts? The facts are that the administration's recent BMD Program Update Review shifted the focus of TMD efforts to point defense systems (Patriot PAC-3 and Navy Lower Tier) at the expense of the more promising and capable area wide systems (THAAD and Navy Upper Tier). As a result of this review, $2 billion was stripped from the THAAD program over the FYDP; and the Navy Upper Tier program remains little more than a science project--with no acquisition or deployment strategy. These actions were taken despite last year's clear legal requirements to accelerate both programs. Once again, the Armed Services Committee has had to come to restore both of these programs--adding almost $500 million to the administration's inadequate request in the Senate bill.
Next, the President addresses the threat: `The possibility of a long-range intercontinental missile attack on American soil by a rogue state is more than a decade away.' I say wrong Mr. President. The President and many of our Democrat colleagues are relying on a recent intelligence community assessment which reportedly claims that the threat of ballistic missile attack against the United States is 15 years away. Several important qualifications must be highlighted. First, that intelligence assessment was carefully crafted to consider only threats to the continental United States--not Alaska and Hawaii. The threat to Alaska, in particular, from a long-range ballistic missile currently under development by North Korea is real and near-term. Also, that 15-year scenario is based on the assumption that rogue nations will develop their missiles indigenously--without foreign help. We all know that these nations are receiving substantial foreign assistance for their weapons development programs. Such assistance will substantially accelerate the threat.
We should not be lulled into a sense of complacency by such reports. Remember the assessments we received just prior to the Gulf War--Iraq was supposed to be least 5 years away from a nuclear weapons capability. After Desert Storm, and the U.N. inspections, we were shocked to learn the true extent of the advancements in the Iraqi nuclear program
A focus on the threat from rogue nations also ignores the substantial military capabilities both Russia and China--both nations with intercontinental missiles capable of reaching our shores. We all know of the threats the Chinese made during the recent stand-off with Taiwan. They correctly know that the United States is currently defenseless against ICBM attack. And the President may take comfort in the Russian promise that they are no longer targeting the United States. But we all know that--even if this representation is true--retargeting is a relatively quick and easy thing to change. I would prefer us to rely on limited U.S. defenses, rather than Russian promises, for our security.
In criticizing the Defend America Act, the President claims that `They have a plan that Congress will take up this week that would force us to choose now a costly missile defense system that could be obsolete tomorrow. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this cost will be between $30 and $60 billion.' The facts? The Defend America Act does not specify a particular architecture for a national missile defense system--it simply says that the United States should have a highly effective system to defend against limited, accidental or unauthorized ballistic missile attacks. There is nothing new here. This is technology that we have been investing in--to the tune of $38 billion--since the early 1980s. We are simply saying that the time for `science projects' is over, the time has arrived to turn this technology into a deployed system that will protect Americans.
Weapons development programs--on average--take a decade from start to finish. As technology advances, those advancements are incorporated into the weapons. Why should NMD be any different--why does the President think that an NMD system would be `obsolete' by the time it is deployed in the year 2003? There is no basis for such a claim.
Concerning the CBO cost study, the $30 to $60 billion range the President refers to represents the high end of the CBO's conclusions. According to the study, a NMD system capable of protecting the United States could be developed and deployed for less than $14 billion over the next 13 years--or about a billion dollars a year. This is a relatively smaller cost--less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the DoD budget--to protect the United States from attack.
I should also point out that other cost estimates--these coming from the administration--are much lower than CBO's. For example, the Air Force has said that it would cost only $2.5 billion to deploy such a system; and the Army estimates a cost of $5 billion.
The President states: `Those who want us to deploy this system before we know the details and the dimensions of the threat we face I believe are wrong. I think we should not leap before we look.' This is not a surprising statement from a President who is a recent `convert' to the need for a national missile defense system. Republicans have been following `the details and dimensions of the threat' for over a decade. What more do we have to wait for before committing to defend the United States? The threat is not diminishing. Approximately 30 countries currently have ballistic missiles, with varying ranges, and many of these nations either have or are actively seeking to acquire war heads of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical or biological. There is no lack of appetite in the world for such `status symbols.' Weapons of terror, intimidation. I submit that the only thing inevitable about the missile threat we face is that the threat will continue to increase. The President seems to believe that we have the luxury of time to sit around and discuss and contemplate the threat--all the while with Americans remain unprotected against an unintentional or terrorist firing of one or more missiles. I say it is time to act to protect our Nation before it is too late.
One of my favorite lines in the President's speech is: `It is (Defend America Act) would weaken our defenses by taking money away from things we know we need right now.' This from a President who submitted a budget request that was $18.6 billion below the FY96 level for defense; and the same President who recently threatened to veto the FY97 Defense Authorization Bill passed by the House because it contains $12 billion more than he requested. A President who has a history for inadequately funding our military.
Finally, the President claims that: `It is (Defend America Act) would violate the arms control agreements that we have made and these agreements make us more secure.' Again, the facts. There is nothing in the defend America Act which would violate the ABM Treaty. The Act calls on the President to negotiate changes to that Treaty to allow for the deployment of an effective NMD system. I should point out to my colleagues that the ABM Treaty--a 25-year old agreement with the Soviet Union--was never intended to be a static agreement. The Treaty itself includes provisions for amendments--and, in fact, the Treaty has been amended over the years. Why, all of a sudden, is the Treaty now not amendable?
I firmly believe that Americans here at home and U.S. troops deployed overseas should be protected by highly effective missile defenses as soon as is technologically possible.
[Page: S5632]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
