[Page: S1744]
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wish that I could say that Congress and the President of the United States are doing everything possible to protect the American people and preserve the values that we hold dear. But that is not the case.
At this time, the United States is defenseless against a ballistic missile attack. Clearly, that is an unacceptable state of affairs. Recent events demand the United States move forward and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective National Missile Defense (NMD) system which can defend U.S. territory against any limited ballistic missile attack, whether from an accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate launch.
It is my sincere hope that President Clinton's recent decision to request $6.6 billion over 6 years for missile defense research in his budget reflects a new commitment to deploy the most extensive, effective national missile defense system in the shortest amount of time. I am pleased the President finally understands the need for a missile defense system and hope he will continue that commitment. Any President sworn to protect our Nation must support the deployment of a system that would protect Americans from annihilation.
We know that the threat of a missile attack is growing stronger as more emerging powers, such as North Korea and Iran are developing long-range ballistic missiles that could reach the United States. As recent events have shown, we cannot rely on the intelligence estimates this administration has been using as a security blanket. Remember, our intelligence community projected that Iran could not field its medium-range ballistic missile (the 800-940 mile range Shahab-3) until 2003, but Iran flight-tested this system 6 months ago. We were also surprised by North Korea's test firing of a two-stage missile over Japan last August. It is simply not reasonable to assume that the United States will get 3 years' advance warning, thus allowing 3 years to deploy a limited defense under the Clinton administration's `3+3 deployment readiness program.'
As the congressionally mandated bipartisan Rumsfeld commission noted, Iran has acquired and is seeking advanced missile components that can be combined to produce ballistic missiles with sufficient range to strike all the way to St. Paul, Minnesota. As the Senator from Minnesota, I must say that I take that threat to heart. In addition, North Korea is close to testing a new missile that will have sufficient range to strike the continental United States. When that occurs, the threat to the United States could increase exponentially, because North Korea has announced that it had and would continue to sell ballistic missiles and production technology to any interested buyer.
We live in a very dangerous world that is growing more and more volatile--a world where rogue regimes and terrorist groups are developing and purchasing the means to attack our Nation. We have to make a choice. We can rely on leaders like Saddam Hussein to show restraint, which seems unlikely--or we can develop a national missile defense that will provide the United States with means to counter a ballistic missile attack.
America can no longer afford to hide behind the outdated ABM Treaty. It does not offer any protection from the threats emerging at the end of this century. It was negotiated and ratified to address the cold war era when the Soviet Union was our major threat. At present, rogue states consider ballistic missiles valuable instruments to intimidate countries that are unable or unwilling to defend themselves. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who supports a strong leadership role for the United States in the global arena, I am concerned that the U.S. vulnerability to missile attack could undermine our Nation's capacity to defend our national security interests abroad. For the sake of our Nation's security, I hope this administration will move forward to embrace the most effective national defense system possible. The future of our great nation literally depends on it.
[Page: S1745]
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have been given some 10 minutes in morning business, but I am coming up against an 11 o'clock scheduled floor debate. If the manager of the bill is not on the floor, I would like to proceed with my 10 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
END
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
