Space

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996

(Senate - August 03, 1995)

[Page: S11227]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1026, which the clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1026) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is recognized to offer an amendment on which there shall be 90 minutes for debate equally divided.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from North Dakota? The Senator from Nebraska has been attempting to make an opening statement with regard to the measure before us. I am wondering, after the Senator from North Dakota has made the presentation under the unanimous-consent agreement, if both sides would agree to the Senator from Nebraska having 10 minutes for an opening statement on the overall measure without being charged to the time under the control by the majority or the minority.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from Nebraska, I have no objection. But my understanding is that the 9 to 10:30 time period for this amendment would result in a vote at 10:30, and there are some leadership obligations that require that vote to occur at 10:30, and by unanimous consent we have limited debate to an hour and a half, 45 minutes to each side, on the amendment.

It might be the case that the Senator should give an opening presentation immediately after the vote at 10:30.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator. That does not happen to agree with the schedule of the Senator from Nebraska. But I will try again.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I might say that I have no objection. But my understanding is that the 10:30 vote must occur at 10:30 because of some leadership obligations by previous agreement.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Russell, a fellow on detail from the Department of Energy, be allowed floor privileges during the debate of S. 1026.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 2087

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 2087.

[Page: S11228]

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 32, strike out line 14 and insert in lieu thereof the following` `$9,233,148,000, of which--

`(A) not more than $357,900,000 is authorized to implement the national missile defense policy established in section 233(2);'.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have by unanimous consent a time agreement on this amendment, I understand 45 minutes to each side. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, let me begin to describe this amendment. It is painfully simple. There was $300 million added to the defense authorization bill by the Armed Services Committee for something that this country does not need and that the Secretary of Defense says he does not want. The proposal that I lay before the Senate is to take the $300 million back out.

This, it seems to me, is a very symbolic issue. The $300 million is to build a national missile defense system with instructions it be done on a priority or accelerated basis so that the deployment begins in 1999. Some said yesterday, well, this has nothing to do with star wars. And, of course, that is not true at all. This is, in fact, national missile defense, which includes a star wars component. It is the building of missiles in order to create some sort of astrodome over our country to block incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It is the revival of a proposal offered in the early 1980's by then President Ronald Reagan. Of course, times were different then. The Soviet Union existed. We had a cold war that was in full force. We had an active adversary and a real threat. Times have changed. Now we have the dismantling and destruction of intercontinental ballistic missiles in Russia. And, paradoxically, we are helping pay the bill to destroy those missiles.

It is an irony that does not escape me this morning that the same people who proposed $300 million in additional spending this year as part of what will eventually be a $48 billion new project are also saying they want to cut back on our contribution to help the Soviets dismantle and destroy their intercontinental ballistic missiles. If ever there is a disconnection, it seems to me it is in that logic.

To call this $300 million--or what eventually will be a $40 billion program--`pork' is I think unfair to pigs. Hogs carry around a little meat. This in my judgment is pure, unadulterated lard.

I want to describe this proposal in the context of what the Secretary of Defense has said. I am reading from a letter from the Secretary to Senator Nunn:

This bill will direct the development for deployment by 2003 [incidentally, the early deployment by 1999] of a multiple site system for national missile defense that, if deployed, would be a clear violation of the ABM Treaty. The bill would severely strain U.S.-Russian relations and would threaten continued Russian implementation of the START I Treaty and further Russian consideration of the START II Treaty. These two treaties will eliminate strategic launchers carrying two-thirds of the nuclear warheads that confronted the Nation during the cold war.

That is a statement of current administration policy.

S. 1026 would authorize appropriations for defense programs that exceed by approximately $7 billion the administration's FY 1996 request.

A $7 billion increase, this from folks who say they are opposed to the Federal deficit.

Here is what the committee says:

The committee recognizes that deploying a multiple site NMD system by 2003 will require significant investments in the outyears.

And, incidentally, the Congressional Budget Office says anywhere from $30 to $40 billion. But the committee avoids the issue. The committee:

. . . directs the Secretary of Defense to budget accordingly.

This is very interesting. The Armed Services Committee says we are going to build this. Here is $300 million you do not want to build something we do not need, and it is going to cost $48 billion, and we say to you, Mr. Secretary of Defense, `budget accordingly.'

It does not say where he should get the money. It does not say they are going to raise taxes to pay for it. It says to the Secretary of Defense, budget accordingly.

Well, we all understand what that means. That means that the warriors who fight so hard rhetorically to reduce the Federal budget deficit are now wallflowers who decide they want to use the taxpayers' credit card to go out and purchase a $48 billion national ballistic missile program that this country does not need and cannot afford.

It seems to me we ought to ask two questions about these kinds of proposals when they come to us. One is, do we need it? And the second is, can we afford it?

On the first question, do we need it, do we need the $300 million added to this budget, the Secretary of Defense says no.

Can we afford it? Even if we do not need it, can we afford it? Does anybody in this room, living in a country that is up to its neck in debt, with annual yearly deficits that are still alarming and a Federal debt approaching $5 trillion, believe we can afford something we do not need?

I am going to talk some about the system itself, but first I wish to talk about the irony of being here in the Chamber at a time when we are told repeatedly, week after week after week, that we do not have enough money. We are told we do not have enough money to fully fund the programs to be able to send kids to college. So we are going to budget in a way that is going to make it harder for families to send their kids to college because we have to tighten our belt. We are told that we cannot afford to provide an entitlement that a poor child should have a hot lunch at school in the middle of the day because we must tighten our belt. We are told health care is too expensive and so we must cut $270 billion from Medicare and a substantial amount from Medicaid because we must tighten our belt.

So for the American family, the message is tighten your belt on things like education, health care, nutrition. But when it comes to security, we are told it is not time to tighten our belt; let us get the wish lists out and let us get the American taxpayers' checkbook out--or the credit card more likely--and let us decide to build a project that the Secretary of Defense says he does not want money for at this point.

Let me talk about the project itself.

This bill provides research and development funds in order to accelerate the deployment of a national missile defense system. The administration requested $371 million for its ongoing research and development program. The Armed Services Committee says that is not good enough for us. The committee wants $300 million more added to the request because it wants to deploy the system in four years. The committee is telling the Defense Department to build it. They are saying that it does not matter to us what you think; it does not matter to us whether you think we need it. We insist you build it.

I come from a State where the only antiballistic missile system in the free world was built. It was built in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Less than 30 days after it was declared operational, it was mothballed. In other words, in the same month that it was declared fully operational it was also mothballed.

It is anticipated, because of our Nation's geography, that one of the sites in a multiple site national missile defense system would be in North Dakota. There would likely be one North Dakota site. And I suppose some would say, well, that means jobs in your State; you ought to support this.

I do not think it makes sense to support a defense initiative of this type especially at this time in our country's history if you measure it with the yardstick of a jobs program. Yes, this might include some jobs in North Dakota, but it also will include the commitment and the prospect of taking $40 billion from the American taxpayers to build a project we do not need, with money we do not have, at a time when we are telling a lot of Americans that we cannot make investments in human potential for the future of this country.

There is an ancient Chinese saying:

If you are planning for a year, plant rice; if you are planning for 10 years, plant trees; if you are planning for 100 years, plant men.

I take `plant men' to mean `educate your children.'

In this Chamber, we appropriately say that we have big financial problems. We are choking on debt and must do something about it. We have a lot of folks who talk a lot about it, gnash their teeth, who wring their hands, and act like warriors on deficit reduction--until it comes time for a bill like this. And then they say to us, boy, we have threats; we have threats from North Korea; we have threats from Libya; we have threats from Iraq.

What do those threats suggest we should do? What we should do is, under the aegis of reform--which is the wrong `re' word; the real `re' word is not `reform'; it is `retread'--is resurrect and dust off a proposal coming from the early 1980's, a cold war relic to build a national missile defense system to put an umbrella over America to protect against incoming missiles from some renegade country.

Far more important, in my judgment, is the threat from a suitcase bomb somewhere; you start worrying about a nuclear device hauled in the trunk of a car and parked at a dock in New York City; you start worrying about a canister 3 inches high of deadly biological weapons. That is far more likely a threat to this country than a terrorist getting ahold of an intercontinental ballistic missile and attempting to blackmail America.

Mr. President, I am most anxious to hear those who defend this kind of spending on projects that are, in my judgment, worthless. So let me at this point yield the floor and listen and then respond to some of what I hear. I hope maybe the Senate, voting on this today, will decide that it ought not spend $300 million we do not have on something the Secretary of Defense says we do not need. That would seem to me to send a powerful signal to the American people who in this body is serious about the issue of the Federal deficit.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my time.

[Page: S11229]

Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Dorgan amendment. The Armed Services Committee has taken a hard look at the ballistic missile defense programs and concluded that an increase of $300 million is warranted--indeed, badly needed. If the United States is to ever be defended against even the most limited ballistic missile threats, we must begin now.

The administration's program for national missile defense is simply inadequate. And in my view, the ballistic missile threat facing the United States is significant and growing. This threat clearly justifies an accelerated effort to develop and deploy highly effective theater and national missile defenses. In the bill now before the Senate we have done just this. The Missile Defense Act is a responsible and measured piece of legislation that responds to a growing threat to American national security.

There have been many arguments raised in opposition to the Missile Defense Act of 1995. These are either false or seriously exaggerated. Let me address three of the main objections that have been mentioned repeatedly.

First, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 does not signal a return to star wars. It advocates modest and affordable programs that are technically low risk.

Second, it does not violate or advocate violation of the ABM Treaty. The means to implement the policies and goals outlined in the Missile Defense Act of 1995 are contained in the ABM Treaty itself.

Finally, the policies and goals contained in the Missile Defense Act of 1995 will not undermine START II or other arms control agreements. Russia has repeatedly agreed in the past that deployment of a limited national missile defense system is not inconsistent with deterrence and stability. The United States must not allow critical national security programs to be held hostage to other issues when there is no substantive or logical linkage between them.

Mr. President, I therefore would conclude by urging my colleagues to oppose the amendment by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. This amendment would undermine a critical defense requirement and further perpetuate the vulnerability of the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment. I would like to begin with a quote from Secretary Perry in this general area now, that we have entered the post-cold war time. Secretary Perry is quoted as saying:

The bad news is that in this era deterrence may not provide even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We may be facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future. And they may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they may be madder than MAD.

MAD, mutually assured destruction.

Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate that there are those who seem to think that the American people should not be defended against the one military threat which holds them at risk in their homes on a daily basis. Simply stated, this amendment seeks to perpetuate what many believe is truly an American vulnerability.

Yesterday there were only five Senators who opposed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the American people should be defended against accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack. Today the Senator from North Dakota is attempting to cut $300 million from national missile defense to ensure that American cities will in effect remain undefended without this additional funding.

Senators yesterday voted in favor of defending the American people in this new era that we are in. So today all Senators will have an opportunity to demonstrate whether or not they are serious about a national defense. If you believe, as the Senator from North Dakota so honestly does, and has stated, that the United States should not be defended against this particular potential for ballistic missile attack, then support the amendment. But if you believe that the time has come to get on with national missile defense, you should oppose this amendment.

We have heard quite a bit about how there is no threat and how investment in national missile defense is a waste of money. Let us remember that more Americans died in the Persian Gulf war as a result of one missile than any other single cause. I do not imagine that the families of these victims would view missile defense investments as a waste.

The argument that there is no threat to justify the deployment of a national missile defense system I think is strategically shortsighted and technically incorrect. Even if we get started today, by the time we develop and deploy an NMD system we will almost certainly face new ballistic missile threats to the United States. Unfortunately, it will take almost 10 years to develop and deploy even a limited system.

Much has been made of the intelligence community's estimate that no new threat to the United States will develop for 10 years. But the intelligence community has confirmed that there are numerous ways for hostile countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in much less than 10 years by other than indigenous development. I would point out the same intelligence has also prepared a chart that has been displayed on the Senate floor showing the North Korean missile programs, including the Taepo Dong II ICBM, which DIA says could be operational in 5 years.

We see the size and the capability of destructive ability of these various missiles. You have got the Scud-B, the Scud-C, the No Dong, the Taepo Dong I and II. And these have not been tested. But it is very capable for them to do that, the North Koreans to do that. And it is estimated that they could go to this biggest one, which would be well over the 1,000 kilometers, in 5 years or maybe less. And in developing this system North Korea has demonstrated to the world that an ICBM capability can emerge rapidly and relatively with little notice.

Nobody knows with certainty what the range of this potential new missile would be. But we do know that it is approximately the size of the Minuteman ICBM.

Even if we knew with certainty that no new threat would materialize for 10 years there would still be a strong case for developing and deploying a national defense system. Developing an NMD system would serve to deter countries that would seek to acquire otherwise ICBM capability. A vulnerable United States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even aggression.

It has also been argued that the administration's NMD program costs less than the one proposed in the defense authorization bill. Well, I guess that is right. It usually does cost more to actually do something about a problem than nothing, which is precisely what the administration's program will do, I fear--nothing at all.

They request money. And they have requested almost $400 million this year. And yet it is not enough to actually get the job done. The administration's program has no deployment goal in sight. In effect, you know, it wastes almost $400 million per year on a program designed never to achieve a specific end. In my view, if we are not going to actually deploy something we ought to take the rest of the NMD money and spend it on something that will defend America.

The Senator from North Dakota has stated that the system we want to build will cost $40 billion. But by the administration's own charts, it states that it would cost less than $25 billion, including a full space-based sensor constellation. How does this compare to the cost of the F-22, the B-2 or other major new systems? I think it is a pretty good investment relative to virtually anything else that DOD is developing. What good does it do to be able to project power overseas with modern and sophisticated weapons if we cannot secure our families at home? Remember what we are talking about here.

It is not an insignificant amount, an additional $300 million approximately, but you are talking about the cost of three or four airplanes. You are talking about offensive weaponry, three or four airplanes. We can move toward the ability to develop and deploy this system.

One other chart I would like to refer to with regard to the national missile defense program. The Bottom-Up Review just, I guess, 2 years ago, projected the expenditures at this level for the national missile defense. The administration fiscal year 1995 request was as you see up to about, I believe it indicated about $500 million. And then in the fiscal year 1996 it dropped down, and what this bill actually does is basically a very small increase over what the administration's fiscal year 1995 request was. So, talking about just enough increase to move toward actual development and the ability to deploy within 10 years.

So this is a good-sense approach. It is one based on what the administration had projected in its Bottom-Up Review and what it asked for in 1995.

For those who argue that the Senate Armed Services Committee is throwing money at ballistic missile defense, I point out that the amount of this bill for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is $136 million lower than the Clinton administration's own Bottom-Up Review recommended for fiscal year 1996. It is also less than the administration's own budget forecast in last year's plan.

All four of the defense committees in Congress have increased funding for the national missile defense. In fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have recommended a smaller increase than the House committees have. The House has recommended an increase of $450 million.

In response to those who say the administration did not request this increase, I point out the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has made it clear on many occasions and with the administration's, I think, tacit approval, that if more money was made available for ballistic missile programs that they would want to spend $400 million on the national missile defense program.

The bottom line is simple. If you think that the American people should not be defended against ballistic missiles, then go ahead and support this amendment. If you think that the time has come to do something about an ever-increasing threat in this post-cold-war era, then vote against this amendment.

I strongly urge my colleagues to put themselves on the side of defending the American people at a very reasonable cost.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

[Page: S11230]

Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time.

I was listening intently to the Senator from Mississippi. I was glad he brought that up because the Senator from North Dakota has said over and over and over again that this is a $40 billion program for the future. I think it has to be clarified, and yet after we clarify it, I suggest the Senator from North Dakota will continue to use $40 billion. This is just not true.

The Senator from Mississippi talked about, according to the figures of the administration, it was $24.2 billion. But I suggest that includes the SMTS program, Brilliant Eyes, which is funded separately, which can be taken off. It is closer to $18 billion.

We do have an investment today in the program of $38 billion. Some people estimate it is more than that. Let us be conservative and say $38 billion in what we call the SDI program, which some people like to continue to use star wars to try to make the public of this country believe that this is some fantasy, that it is not real. It is not something we are handling today.

The SDI program, we feel, helped end the cold war by 5 years. What kind of a value can we put on that? In fact, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Vladimir Lukin, stated that if it had not been for SDI, the cold war would have gone on for 5 additional years.

The SDI program and its research led to systems, not fantasies, but systems in place today, such as the Aegis system, cruisers and destroyers, kinetic energy programs, the hit-to-kill technologies which are used in the THAAD, the PAC-3, the Navy upper-tier defense systems. These are not star wars; these are technologies. They are on line today.

All we are trying to do is say that in 5 years from now, where many in the intelligence community say we are going to be threatened by perhaps North Korea or other technology that will reach the United States--and this is something that most of the intelligence community agrees with--we want to do something today that will be within the confines of the ABM Treaty. We talked about that before. This is as much as we can do to reach the point so that 5 years from today, we are going to be able to defend the United States against missile attacks.

The Senator from North Dakota refers over and over again to the suitcase bombs, to the ships and vans that deliver weapons. And on that case, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota, I think he is right. But we are already taking care of that. We are already working on that program.

The Senator from North Dakota talks about intelligence estimates. I asked yesterday on this floor, what if we are wrong, what if those intelligence estimates he is saying where the threat is not there for 10 more years, what if we are right and it is 5 more years? What if he is wrong? Look back to 1940 and Pearl Harbor. At that time our estimates were wrong; North Korea in 1950, or more recently, Iraq in 1990. Our intelligence was wrong at that time.

The Senator relies on the cold war mutually assured destruction program embodied in the triad of missile submarines, land-based missiles and bombers, but we had all these things 5 years ago, and that did not deter Saddam Hussein from using Scud missiles.

When the Senator points out that the administration says that $300 million to defend Americans from attack is not in our interest, he ignores the fact that just 3 months ago, the director of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, with the administration's blessing, said that they could spend $500 million more. That is $200 million more than the additional amount we are trying to put on that we did put on in the Senate Armed Services Committee and our counterparts in the other body to reach a system that would defend America.

The Senator from North Dakota is also citing the administration supposedly defended our interests last year by spending $2 billion. We are doing a lot of talking now about $300 million. What about the $2 billion that we spent for humanitarian missions that, by their own admission, in the Senate Armed Services Committee, by the Secretary of Defense were really not to our vital national security interests.

I am talking about Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia and Rwanda. We are spending all this money. We are sending our troops all the way around the world to defend violations of human rights. Certainly, I am not insensitive to the ethnic cleansing that is going on and all these human rights violations. But we are spending huge amounts for that. I disagree with the foreign policy of the administration, and I do not think we should be doing it. But if we are doing it, that is $2 billion, and we are talking $300 million right now to keep this on line to be able to defend this country 5 years from now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.

[Page: S11231]

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield 2 additional minutes?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I grant him 2 more minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Mr. President, I must express my amazement with the priorities of the Senator from North Dakota. He wants to cut $300 million from the missile defense. He says we have higher domestic priorities. We heard about the nutrition programs, we heard about all these social programs that seem to, in his mind, have a higher priority.

I suggest to you that this $300 million is a relatively small amount of money. The one bomb in Oklahoma City that wiped out the Murrah Federal Building cost the taxpayers $500 million--one bomb.

I suggest if the Senator from North Dakota could have stood with me in Oklahoma City on April 19, April 20, April 21, when they are sending troops and volunteers into this building to pull out people who might be alive in there, the hope was there that more would be alive, then the fourth day came and the smell of death had enveloped the city, if you could have been there, and what was going through my mind was, this is just one building in one city, one missile could come in there and wipe out every building in the city of Oklahoma City, in the city of Sioux Falls, SD, in Bismarck, ND, in New York City, could wipe out the entire thing.

Multiply that one thing, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by 100, by 1,000. That is the threat that is out there. That is the threat that can reach, according to many in the intelligence community, this country within 5 years. We have to be ready for that. This should be the highest priority. We are elected to defend America. That is exactly what this is about today.

So, Mr. President, in the strongest of terms, I say this is the minimum that we can do to keep on force, to have a national missile defense system in place in 5 years when the threat is very real.

Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

The Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative, reported by the Armed Services Committee, puts our Nation on the right track to address the growing missile threat to our country.

In the defense appropriations bill, which was reported last week, we fully supported every element of that plan, and I congratulate Senators Thurmond, Lott, and others who worked with them on this plan.

Every intelligence assessment available to the Congress indicates that the threat posed to U.S. military forces is growing from ballistic missiles, as is the threat to the United States itself.

There can be no greater imperative, as we allocate funding for research and development for future systems, than to develop and deploy an effective national missile defense system.

This matter has special significance to every citizen of my State of Alaska. Already, North Korea is developing missiles that could attack the military installations in Alaska.

Alaska-based F-15's, F-16's, and OA-10 aircraft will be the first to respond to any attack on South Korea. On that basis, we are a target for North Korea.

The distinguished Senator from North Dakota may be confident that his State will not face that threat in coming years, and I share that confidence. Our country was lucky in the gulf war. The ingenuity and technical creativeness ensured that we had some minimal capacity to respond to the Iraqi Scud missile threat.

We cannot, and must not, rely on luck to be ready to face the risk of missile launches against my State and against the United States in total. We must make the investment now to have ready a system to deploy, if that is the decision of the President and Congress.

The additional funds proposed for authorization and appropriation for national missile defense is a reasonable and affordable start for this program.

I am here to urge all Members to support this initiative. I do so as a Senator from a State that is seriously threatened today, and I believe the funding authorized by this bill, already included in the defense appropriations bill, is the proper way to start.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume to myself.

Mr. President, statements have been made that my position is I do not want to defend America's cities against a very real threat--total nonsense; absolute nonsense.

My position is that we should not be spending money we do not have on something the Secretary of Defense says we do not need. Let me read from a letter from Secretary of Defense William Perry to Senator Nunn:

The bill's provision would add nothing to DOD's ability to pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks. The bill would require the United States to make a decision now on developing a specific national missile defense for deployment by 2003, with interim operational capability in 1999, despite the fact that a balanced strategic missile threat has not emerged. Our national missile defense program is designed to give us the capability for a deployment decision in 3 years, when we will be in a much better position to assess the threat and deploy the most technologically advanced system available, if they think it is needed.

This is not a case of somebody deciding we do not want to protect America's cities. It is a case of saying we do not want to spend $300 million that the Secretary of Defense says we do not need to spend.

Let me respond to a couple of other things that have been said. This is not about just $300 million. It is about $48 billion, according to the Congresional Budget Office. I ask all the Senators who spoke here, where are you going to get that money? You suggest that the Secretary of Defense budget for it. I ask you, are you going to charge it? And are you going to tax people for it? Where are you going to get the money? Do you want to advance a notion now that you want to build a $50 billion new system, which by the way does, indeed, include star wars, as page 59 of the bill says? I ask you, where are you going to get the money for it?

Let me say to you, as well, that when you talk about the threat from an intercontinental ballistic missile, as you have all talked about, you understand and I understand--I have some material that I will not read from on the floor, but it is material from Nobel laureates, from veterans of the Manhattan project and from physicists who are experts in this field, all of whom agree--and I think you would agree--that a threat from a renegade country is far more likely as a result of a cruise missile, which cannot be defended against by this system, than it is from an intercontinental ballistic missile. A cruise missile is easier to build and cheaper to build and more likely for them to get.

I ask you this question, if you are worried about protecting America's cities: If you finished spending $48 billion to defend against ballistic missiles, then tell me how that system defends America's cities against the far more likely threat of cruise missiles. The fact is that by building a national ballistic missile defense you have done nothing to defend against a cruise missile attack on American cities.

That is the point. The point here is that this is a weapons program with a constituency. Like all weapons programs, it does not matter what the climate is--it can be rain, snow, wind, or sleet; you can have a Soviet Union or not, and it could be 1983 or 1995--this weapons program has legs. It has jobs and it has constituencies. This is out of step, makes no sense, and yet we see on the floor of the Senate folks who come here and say, well, let us, this year, stick $300 million more in this program than was asked for and than is needed. Why? Because we want to defend America's cities. Against what? Against a threat which the Secretary of Defense says does not exist, and Nobel laureates and veterans of the Manhattan project say does not exist.

If you are so all-fired worried about threats, let us focus on the threats that the Nation will really face.

One additional thing. I think the Senator from Oklahoma makes the point that I have been trying to make this morning when he talks about the tragic bombing of Oklahoma City. It is not an intercontinental ballistic missile with all of its sophisticated targeting that is the likely way to attack against America. It is far more likely to be a rental truck, a suitcase, a glass vial, a single-engine airplane. I think the Senator from Oklahoma made the point I was trying to make.

[Page: S11232]

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. I will not yield on my time.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to respond to the Senator.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would give time, I am happy to answer questions. But we have 45 minutes equally divided.

I will at this time reserve the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that 5 minutes is not a lot of time to make the case. But I am in strong support of the Dorgan amendment for a number of reasons. First of all, I will talk policy, and then I will talk budget. There is no significant long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States now or in the immediate future. The head of the DIA stated:

We see no interest in or capability of any new country reaching the continental United States with a long-range missile for at least the next decade.

Mr. President, the national missile defense provides no defense against the most likely future attacks on the United States, which will not be delivered by missiles. We have seen that clearly in a tragic way at the World Trade Center, the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and the subway in Tokyo.

Mr. President, there are many arguments I could make about this impossible dream. But let me just put it in a slightly broader context. We have out here a bill that requests $7 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs. We have out here with star wars a request for $300 million more than the Pentagon says it wants to spend or needs to spend.

Mr. President, I think this amendment is about more than star wars. It is about priorities. And if you look at requests for Head Start, it is $3.9 billion, but the total cost of the next aircraft carrier, the CVN-78, is $4.6 billion.

If you look at requests for police officers, housing, childhood immunization, alongside star wars, the B-2, Pentagon budget, $7 billion more in this bill than requested by the Pentagon itself, of the kind of stories that are now coming out, Mr. President, about a variety of different pork projects, all across the country, we have to ask ourselves the question, what are we doing here?

I was on the floor of the Senate not too long ago, saying why are we eliminating low-income energy assistance? I was talking about the poor in the cold-weather State of Minnesota. We also could talk about cooling assistance. This was during the time where we read that 450 people died, many elderly and poor.

On the one hand, we cut low-income energy assistance, we cut education programs, we cut job programs, we cut all sorts of nutrition programs, we are not investing in our children, and we have here a bill that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs for our national defense.

Now we have--for this impossible dream, many independent people arguing it never will work anyway--a request for an additional $300 million.

Mr. President, the real national security for our country is not for star wars in space. It is to feed children and educate children and provide safety and security for people in communities, and job opportunities for people on Earth.

This is outrageous. At the very time we have some of our deficit hawks saying, `Cut this nutrition program, cut low-income energy assistance, cut legal services, cut job training, cut summer youth programs, cut education programs, cut health care programs,' we have here a budget that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon wants, and $300 million more for star wars--this impossible dream, this fantasy--than is requested by our own defense people.

This is really a test, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, this is a test case vote, as to whether or not we are serious about reducing the deficit and investing in people in our country, investing in people who live in the communities in our country. That is what this is about.

Senators, you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. Maybe you are trying to dance at three weddings at the same time. You cannot keep saying you are for deficit reduction, you cannot keep saying you are for children and education, you cannot keep saying that you are for job opportunities, you cannot keep saying you are for veterans, you cannot keep saying we will not cut Medicare, and at the same time allocating more and more money for your pork military projects, and adding to a military budget that the Pentagon itself says it does not need. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for yielding time to discuss this amendment.

Going back to basics, the amendment is to cut $300 million from the committee's request for funding for the Defense Department. The committee has a $300 million increase from what the administration had requested for this particular part of the budget. The House had increased it $400 million. The Senate increase is less than the House increase by $100 million. The Dorgan amendment is to cut $300 million from the committee's request.

The primary arguments against the committee's mark are categorized into two areas: First, the threat is not that great or that soon; second, the money could be spent on other things.

First, talking about the threat, there is a suggestion here that the threat is not imminent. The threat we are talking about is a threat to relatively soon be able to attack the continental United States, because this is the national missile defense part of the program we are talking about.

Now, we all understand that eventually we will have to have a defense against missiles that would either be accidentally or intentionally launched against U.S. territory. The question is, how soon do we need to begin preparing for that?

The Senator from North Dakota says we do not need to worry about it yet because it will be maybe 10 years before the threat emerges. There are two primary responses to it. First, it is wrong; and, second, we are not taking into account the fact that it takes a long time to develop the programs to respond to the offensive threat.

We have been working at this program for a long time. It has been 5 years yesterday, since the taking over of Kuwait by Iraq. Yet we are not very far down the road in terms of improving our ability to defend even against a missile like the Scud B that the Iraqis had. We are talking here about much longer range missiles than the Scud B. We are talking about missiles that could reach U.S. territory.

Now, at first we are talking about the State of Alaska or the Territory of Guam. I know it is of interest to the Senator from North Dakota.

In fact, we all would be very, very concerned about a threat to any U.S. citizen, whether it be in Guam or whether it be in Alaska. It does not have to be to the heartland of America.

What is the fact with regard to this threat? The person who last headed the CIA just prior to the new Director, John Deutch, the then Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Admiral William Studeman, made this point just a few months ago. He said,

[Page: S11233]

Our understanding of North Korea's earlier Scud development leads us to believe that it is unlikely Pyongyang could deploy Taepo-Dong I or Taepo-Dong II missiles before 3 to 5 years. However, if Pyongyang has foreshortened its development program, we could see these missiles earlier.

What the acting CIA Director was saying is that they probably will not have this missile that could reach the United States for 3 to 5 years.

Well, we cannot develop this system within 3 to 5 years. The bill calls for some kind of a deployment, hopefully, by 1999. That is within the timeframe that the CIA Director acknowledges the Taepo-Dong II missile could be developed.

Now, what about the current CIA director? John Deutch said last year, `If the North Koreans field that Taepo-Dong II missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.'

The point here is that North Korea, a belligerent state over whom we have virtually no negotiating control, no diplomatic control, is developing a weapon which the CIA says could potentially reach United States territory in 3 to 5 years.

If the 3 years is correct, we cannot possibly have anything deployed in time to meet that threat. Even if it is just used to blackmail us, it is a tremendous threat. For those who say that there is no threat here, the facts do not bear them out. The intelligence estimates do not bear them out.

The other side of this argument is, well, there are other threats. There could be a suitcase bomb. There is a cruise missile threat, and of course the answer is yes, that is true. We are doing everything we can to meet those threats as well.

It is a fallacy of logic to suggest that because there is some other threat that, therefore, this is not a threat. That is the logic of the Senator from North Dakota. Well, somebody might bring a suitcase bomb over.

Well, we are working that problem very hard. The last three CIA Directors have said that their primary concern is the proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that can deliver them.

As a matter of fact, there has not been a suitcase nuclear bomb explode, but there have been missiles launched against U.S. forces. As a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, fully 20 percent of our casualties in the Persian Gulf were as a result of a Scud missile. We did not have an adequate protection against the Scud missile.

We at least had the Patriot over there. We have nothing to protect the people in the United States. I think the CIA Directors are a pretty good source for the proposition that there is a potential threat out there, and we will be lucky to be able to deploy a system in time to meet that threat, if their statistics are correct.

Now, just one quick final point on the threat. The Senator from North Dakota suggests that the triad is actually adequate here, but the same Secretary of Defense that he is so fond of relying on has made it clear that mutual assured destruction, the threat that we retaliate with nuclear weapons against Iraq or some other country, is just not credible.

As Secretary Perry said on March 8 of this year,

The bad news is that in this era, deterrence may not provide even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We may be facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future, and they may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they may be madder than MAD.

And the M-A-D that he is referring to is the mutual assured destruction doctrine, which the Secretary is saying is madness today. That doctrine no longer works. We need a defense, not just the threat of massive retaliation to prevent countries from launching missiles against the United States.

Finally, let us talk about the amount here. First of all, as the Senator from Mississippi pointed out earlier, the amount that is in the Senate bill this year is less than the Clinton administration requested last year in their 5-year budget. So in the 5-year plan the administration sent up here last year, they were asking for more money for this program than the committee has asked for this year. It is a matter of timing, of when you spend the money. As I think I have pointed out, even with this amount of money we will be lucky to be able to field something that is effective by the time the threat is upon us.

Second, there is a suggestion here that the Secretary does not want this because he has not asked for it. Obviously, we are all aware of the politics within the Pentagon and the administration and not asking for it is not the same as not wanting it. You will note in the letter from the Secretary, nowhere does he say: Do not send us this $300 million, I do not want it and I will not spend it if you send it to me. As a matter of fact, his spokesman on this issue, Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, before the House committee just a few weeks ago, was asked if he could spend this money, and here is what he said:

I have reviewed the BMD program, the impact of last year's budget reductions and the schedule of several key programs in order to recommend where additional resources could be best applied.

Remember, the House is talking about $400 million in additional resources. And he says:

These funds could be effectively used in several key BMD programs to accelerate development efforts, preserve early development options for a national missile defense system, and to protect current theater missile defense system acquisition schedules.

In other words, the expert in this area, the head of the program, Gen. Mal O'Neill, made it clear to the House of Representatives if he had this extra money he could effectively use it. I understand the administration position is against this. We all understand that. But it is not common sense when you recognize the speed with which this threat could be upon us and the ability we have to develop a system that could defend us.

When I say it is not common sense, I do not mean to denigrate the Secretary of Defense. He is a fine public servant and is very concerned about the future of our country. But reasonable people can differ about the speed with which we ought to get on with this effort and the priority of spending this money. I submit the weight of evidence from the Central Intelligence Agency and from the other people who have spoken on the issue is, we better get about this task right away.

The final point with regard to the money is that while we could be spending this money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy Assistance--of course we could. But what is more important, defending American lives or summer youth programs? We have to set priorities around here. I submit, if a missile were launched against the State of Hawaii or the State of Alaska, every one of us on this floor would be denouncing the act and would be asking why that was allowed to happen? Who sat by while this threat emerged? Who allowed this threat to evolve to the point we could not defend our own citizens from a missile attack? Those would be the questions asked on this floor.

Today that question can be answered because those people who seek to cut these funds out of the committee bill will be the people responsible for us not having a system at the time that the CIA believes we are going to need to have it. That is the question before the body. Do we go along with the leadership? Do we go along with the committee, which is the body of expertise on this? Do we go along with the Central Intelligence estimates, and do we go along to fund this program to at least get us on a path to develop and deploy a system in the time we need it? Or do we take the risk and roll the dice, spend the money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy Assistance or the like?

I submit the decision today is that we should go along with the committee's request here, support the committee and vote down the Dorgan amendment which would cut the $300 million.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield a minute to myself before I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

I might say if ever there is an Olympic event called side stepping, I have seen this morning several candidates for gold medals.

Let us not be confused about what the Secretary of Defense has said. Here is a letter he sent last week. It says this:

[Page: S11234]

The bill's provisions would add nothing to DOD's ability to pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.

That is not a letter from a Secretary who is undecided about whether this is good policy or not. The Senator from Arizona says he just has not asked us. The Senator says that of course, the Secretary would like to get it this additional money.

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. This letter says he does not want it. He thinks it adds excess costs and additional security risks to this country. So let us not be confused about the message from the Secretary of Defense. He is clear on this issue.

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas. I will be happy to yield momentarily for a question.

Mr. KYL. Briefly, can the Senator point anywhere in that letter where he is referring to this $300 million? He is referring generally to this bill, not to this $300 million.

Mr. DORGAN. In fact, he specifically refers to this $300 million in this program, I say to the Senator from Arizona, in the following part of this paragraph. I read it once before and I am not going to read it again for you.

The point is, he is talking about developing specific national missile defense for interim operational capability in 1999 and for full deployment in 2003. That is exactly and specifically the program we are now debating. If the Senator is asking, was the Secretary talking about this issue, the answer is clearly, unequivocally, yes, that is exactly what the Secretary was talking about in this letter.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding, and thank him for his leadership in support of the defense of the United States of America.

I am very pleased that this amendment has been offered. I oppose it, vehemently and strongly oppose it, but I am glad it has been offered because it gives the American people a chance once and for all to see just exactly what this debate is all about and who stands for what.

The Dorgan amendment would leave the American people completely vulnerable to ballistic missile threats, completely vulnerable. It says to our constituents, it is OK to protect Israel, protect France, protect Germany, protect Italy, protect our allies, but not our folks at home. Do not protect them.

The armed services bill, on the other hand, establishes a program to defend all Americans, regardless of where they live, against a limited ballistic missile attack. For the life of me, I do not understand how anyone could use the argument it is OK to protect somebody in one area of the country and not in another area of the country. How can one do that and keep a straight face?

The Clinton program and the Dorgan amendment leaves the United States hostage, completely, to the likes of Kim Jong Il and the Pyongyang Communists. The intelligence community has suggested that North Korea may well deploy an ICBM capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii within 5 years, and some talk maybe even as far as San Francisco in a very short period of time, but the Senator from North Dakota thinks it is wrong for us to defend these American citizens?

If the Senator disagrees with this assessment, let us look at the statement of the recently confirmed Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Deutch. Dr. Deutch stated,

If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong II missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.

This is a serious, serious problem. The issue really boils down to this. Twenty nations have acquired or are acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deliver them, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, China, to name a few. That ought to put the fear of God in us--just that, just thinking about those nations. And at least 24, some of the same ones I just mentioned, have chemical weapons. And approximately 10 more are believed to have biological weapons. And at least 10 countries are reportedly interested in development of nuclear weapons.

The international export control regime is failing to prevent the spread of these technologies. They are being spread all over the world, this missile technology, biological, chemical, nuclear, and the capability to deliver them.

The Armed Services Committee, under the strong leadership of Senator Strom Thurmond, recognizes that fact. This is a far-reaching, farsighted, looking-ahead attempt to protect the United States of America and its citizens in the outyears. You have to be thinking about that today, not 50 years from now, because 50 years from now it will be too late. You think about it today, and that is what the Senator from South Carolina has done. Under his leadership we have provided, in the Armed Services Committee, the opportunity to protect our citizens.

The Dorgan amendment would say that the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, are absolutely vulnerable to these threats. The reckless leaders of North Korea, Syria, Libya, and others basically have free access to our citizens. The choice is simple, really; really simple. If you believe the American people should be protected against limited accidental or intentional missile attacks--take your choice--you should support the Armed Services Committee bill.

That is why we are on the committee. That is why we delve into these matters in great detail. That is our specialty. That is what we are there for, to understand these things and to present options to the full Senate. But if you believe the American people should not be defended and should be completely vulnerable, then you vote for the Dorgan amendment.

It is ironic--and tragically ironic, frankly--that those who oppose defending the American people hide behind the fig leaf of the cold war. The cold war is over. And the technology and the philosophy that we use to defend against it is also over. We do not have mutual assured destruction anymore. We do not have a bipolar world anymore. These people are not rational. Does anybody think Saddam Hussein is rational? Would Saddam Hussein have used a nuclear missile in the Persian Gulf war if he had the opportunity? You bet he would. He just does not have it.

We do not have the capability to protect against this. It is very interesting that focus groups have been held where we call a few people into the room and interview them. We asked them, `What would you do if somebody fired a missile at the United States?' In this group, American citizens were put together in a room and they were asked, `What would you do if someone fired a missile at the United States of America?' And every single one of those people said, `We would shoot it down.' Guess what? We do not have the capability to shoot it down, Mr. President. This amendment will make sure we do not have the capability to shoot it down until it is too late.

So I urge my colleagues to defeat this very irresponsible amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I want everyone to understand that the President's request already has $371 million in the bill for a national ballistic missile defense system. The committee added $300 million. So now we have $671 million, almost doubling what the Pentagon requested. The Senator from North Dakota very sensibly and wisely is trying to strike out the extra money. I hear people on that side of the aisle saying, `We are not trying to abrogate the ABM Treaty. This does not abrogate the ABM Treaty.' Really?

Here is what the ABM Treaty says:

Each party shall be limited at any one time to a single area out of the two provided in Article III of the treaty for deployment of antiballistic missile systems or their components. . . .

English is the mother tongue. If you speak English, you understand the word `single.' It means one. Our one site is now in North Dakota.

Here is what this bill says. Here is what the language of the bill clearly says if you speak the mother tongue.

[Page: S11235]

It is the policy of the United States--to deploy a multiple-site national ballistic missile defense system . . . .

I want to emphasize that--`a multiple-site' NBMD system.

And section 235 of the bill says:

The Secretary of Defense shall develop a national missile defense system, which will attain initial operational capability by the end of 2003 . . .

It shall include . . . ground-based interceptors deployed at multiple sites . . .

Remember, the ABM Treaty bans multiple-site systems. If that in itself is not compelling, there is more. This bill says we will decide what is a national missile defense system, and what is a theater missile defense system. We could not care less what the Russians think. Do you think people in Russia, the former Soviet Union, who crafted this treaty with us and that we ratified with, should have any say about what we are going to do in abrogating the treaty?

I read a very interesting article the other day in the Washington Post, an op-ed by someone named Sarah Roosevelt, who I do not know. She said, `Do not tweak the bear.' Russia is an economic basket case. They are a military basket case. They were a military basket case and an economic basket case when Hitler decided he could take them with one hand behind him. They did not have any choice but to allow millions of their people to be slaughtered until they could arm and beat Hitler.

If I had asked this body 10 years ago standing beside my desk, `Senators, what would you give to see the Soviet Union disappear, and to see East Germany, Hungary, Poland, all of those nations free, how much would you be willing to cut the defense budget in exchange for that?'--10 years ago--I daresay a consensus in the body, the smallest number would have been 30 percent, and a lot of people would have said 50 percent.

So what are we doing with this bill, which is the most irresponsible defense bill I have seen in my 21 years in the U.S. Senate? We say we are going to give to the Pentagon $7 billion which it doesn't even want. What kind of insanity is sweeping over this body?

We spend already, without the additional $7 billion, twice as much as our eight most likely enemies including China, Russia, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran--twice as much; and, with NATO, twice as much as the rest of the world combined. And in this bill we are putting an additional $7 billion into defense.

If this bill goes to the President's desk in its present form and he does not veto it--I am going to say publicly he is a very good friend of mine, and I want him to be reelected--if he does not veto this bill, I am going to be terribly disappointed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, there is an old song that says: `You keep coming back like a song.'

Mr. President, in spite of the end of the cold war, in spite of the fact that the Russians are dismantling their nuclear weapons and we are buying the plutonium and the enriched uranium, in spite of the fact that there is no longer a threat from intercontinental ballistic missiles to the United States, no longer targeted at this country, this same issue, this military-industrial complex that the Defense Department does not want, keeps `coming back like a song.'

Mr. President, I have had amendments on this I guess four or five times over the past few years; more than I think $25 billion ago. And we have won it sometimes on the floor only to see it reversed by one vote or by two votes. But, Mr. President, this really at this time in our history is madness.

The biggest threat to this country right now is not from Russian ICBM's and certainly not from Saddam Hussein, who is no conceivable threat to the continental United States. Rather, the real threat to the United States is from this kind of spending, which would start a new cold war, which would hurt the economy of the United States and weaken this country.

If you are really worried about nuclear weapons, I can tell you where the threat would come. It is from a terrorist nuclear weapon which could be easily brought into the United States in a suitcase.

Look, if they can smuggle bales of marijuana into this country easily, they can easily smuggle into this country a suitcase bomb which can be put into something the size of a briefcase. And so why are we spending billions of dollars, even going into space-based lasers? Do you know what it takes to drive a space-based laser? A nuclear bomb. That is what it takes; otherwise, they do not have enough power.

That is what we are spending all this money for? What is the threat, Mr. President? It is absolute madness. It is what President Eisenhower warned against--the military industrial complex--which gets this enthusiasm, gets it going; we have jobs out there in the economy. That is what this thing is about. It is not about defending the United States.

We really ought to go further than the Dorgan amendment. We ought to do away with any thought of deploying any ballistic missile defense in the continental United States. Do some research but do away with this deployment. It makes no sense today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about our ballistic missile defense program and the ABM Treaty with an eye toward dismantling several myths about our missile defense program and the scope of the ABM treaty. Unfortunately, many of the opponents of a deployable national missile defense system, including the President, confuse the central issues at hand in this debate through the perpetuation of two central myths about national missile defense.

They maintain consistently that one, deploying a national missile defense system is a return to star wars and two, that such a deployment is an abrogation of the ABM Treaty. Neither of these claims has any grounding in fact.

First, the opponents of a deployable NMD system would have the Senate believe that in supporting NMD deployment we are committing ourselves to a long-term research program that would cost this Nation tens of billions of dollars.

In addition, they would have the Senate think that this system is a space-based system modeled along the lines of the star wars program of the 1980's. The deployed NMD system called for in this bill is neither a distant technological dream, a space-based system, nor an overly expensive investment for the American taxpayer. This legislation calls for a deployable, multiple site, ground-based interceptor system by the year 2003. Let me repeat--a ground-based interceptor system.

The current GBI configuration of a national missile defense system builds off our current advances in theater missile defense--advances that proceed from the concept of ground-based antiballistic missiles. Such a system builds upon existing ground-based interception technology--technology that is currently deployed or is being validated through successful flight tests.

The only current limitation on rapid EKV development and deployment is the funding strangulation placed on our NMD program by the current administration. The centerpiece of this system, the Exoatmospheric kill vehicle or EKV, has been in development for 5 years and has demonstrated outstanding technological progress and achievements. The EKV is a real piece of hardware designed to perform a mission that is well within our current intercept capabilities. As opposed to tens of billions dollars in outlays to develop and deploy a ground-based NMD system, a deployable system will require a scant percentage of the funding provided for space-based research in 1980's. In fact, this year's authorization and appropriations bill call for an increase of only $300 million for national missile defense--an amount that is roughly a third of the cost of one destroyer

The opponents of national missile defense also claim that the national missile defense provisions in this authorization bill would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. While the ultimate goal of multiple site deployment of an NMD system will require modifications to the ABM Treaty, nothing in the range of the coming year's research and development efforts will in fact, violate the constraints of the treaty. Therefore, the committee has, wisely, asked only for a Senate study on the application and relevance of the ABM Treaty to the current missile defense needs of this country. The ABM Treaty is over two decades old. It is based upon a doctrine of deterrence commonly known as mutually assured destruction. While this doctrine was absolutely applicable to the realities of the cold war, it has little place in a nonbipolar world of rogue regimes and proliferating ballistic missile technology. Unfortunately, the current administration continues to adhere not only to a belief that the parameters of the treaty remain valid in today's world, but seem determined to apply unilateral interpretations to the treaty that limit not only our national missile defense program, but also our theater missile defense systems--limitations beyond those expressly contained in the treaty. Therefore, the committee has recommended a provision that would codify TMD speed and range standards for treaty compliance--standards derived from the administration's own November 1993 proposal. Make no mistake, Mr. President, the global political situation and the nature of the ballistic missile threat has changed dramatically from the time of the ABM Treaty's ratification. North Korea is nearing long-range ballistic missile capability. Just 2 months ago, the Chinese fired a truck-launched ICBM, demonstrating just how easy it will be for rogue states to develop and launch ICBM's on the cheap. Mr. President, the threat to the United States from long-range ballistic missiles from rogue regimes will exist by 2003, if such capabilities do not already exist.

It is absurd and irresponsible to continue to deny our citizens protections from a real threat, especially if that protection can be provided for limited cost and is based upon technology which is near fruition. I strongly urge my colleagues to see through the myths regarding national missile defense and resist any attempts to weaken the commitment of this act to deploying an NMD system.

[Page: S11236]

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment offered by my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, to strike the $300 million that was added to the bill by the majority of the Armed Services Committee for national missile defense [NMD].

The President had requested $371 million for NMD--and the committee is proposing virtually to double that amount.

I do not believe that sensitive national security and diplomatic issues should be allowed to sink into the unruly pit of partisan politics. There have been appropriate lines drawn over the many years of this Republic by the various political parties, and I think most of us would have to agree that politics should stop at the water's edge when it comes the most sensitive issues of our national defense and security.

The language on national missile defense in the bill and the committee report, however, vaults over this line in a manner that infringes upon the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive in foreign policy, drains our Treasury, makes our country less secure, and ultimately increases international strategic instability.

After having to listen to the litany of complaints by the current majority party about tax-and-spend members of my own party, I find it ironic to see the majority party has now embraced this same tax-and-spend doctrine as the Rosetta Stone of that party's entire approach to strategic defense.

This is all the more ironic given that the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry--whose words can surely be taken as nonpartisan on this issue--has stated quite clearly that, `* * * a valid strategic missile threat has not emerged.' [Letter of Sen. Nunn, July 28, 1995] These words echo the sentiments of our intelligence community. Gen. James Clapper, the DIA Director, testified before the Armed Services Committee on January 17, 1995, that `* * * we see no interest in or capability, of any new country reaching the continental United States with a long range missile for at least the next decade.'

The ABM Treaty authorizes its parties to have a limited national missile defense capability, but the terms of the treaty are quite clear about what is permissible and what is not permissible. The committee majority seems determined to plus-up those programs that will inevitably drive us out of that treaty--a result that they earnestly believe will serve the national security.

Yet will it truly serve our security to spend a fortune to erect high-tech Maginot line defenses of dubious reliability against nonexistent threats, while we continue to underfund efforts to address clear and present dangers? I am speaking particularly of the challenges we should be facing to prevent proliferation from occurring, as opposed to just trying to cope with it after it is a fact of life as the majority evidently prefers to do. Proponents of the current bill seem more eager to prevent Qadhafi from launching a blizzard of nuclear-tipped ICBM's at Chicago than in keeping Qadhafi from obtaining the nuclear materials he will need to manufacture such warheads in the first place. Let me say, it would be a much more efficient use of our resources to focus our efforts on the latter type of problem. By the way, if Qadhafi finally gets enough of that material, he will not need to--and probably will prefer not to--attach the United States using ballistic missiles. There are plenty of other ways to get the job done.

Will it serve our security to place in jeopardy the progress that has been made in recent years in the START process to cut the size of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals? If we march forward blindly into the future and eventually abrogate the ABM Treaty, does anybody seriously believe that such an action will have no effect on Russia's readiness to proceed with such cuts in its nuclear stockpile?

Will it serve our security to drain some $48 billion out of our Treasury to build a national missile defense system? That is what the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost to build a complex that covered Grand Forks, ND, and five other States. To this we must add billions more for theater missile defense--which these days is getting to look more and more like strategic missile defense. And the costs just keep adding up. We must not forget the long-term costs of operating and maintaining such facilities. The legacy we will leave to future generations from this investment will not be a more secure country, but a less secure world, and a towering pile of budgetary IOU's.

Will it serve our security, in deploying an extensive national strategic missile defense network, to drive China, Britain, and France out of international negotiations aimed at further nuclear reductions?

Will it serve our security to jeopardize the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was just extended indefinitely on the basis of solemn commitments by the nuclear-weapon states both to conclude an early comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests and new progress on nuclear arms control and disarmament?

These are just some of my reasons for supporting the Dorgan amendment today. We are standing on a slippery slope leading to the demise of the ABM Treaty. The Dorgan amendment merely seeks to remove one large banana peel from that slope. I urge all my colleagues in joining me in endorsing his responsible proposal.

That was to do the basic research. And somehow we come along now and want to say we are going to double that amount; we are going to put another $300 million in here. And for what? I do not understand the rationale of this whole thing except it seems to me we have reversed parties here almost. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, that is what we have heard leveled at the Democratic Party all these years. Now, here we are with something that is not even needed and we are going to tax and spend, and now it is the Republican tax and spend. I think that is a valid charge back at the Republicans on this.

Tax and spend for what? The Secretary of Defense says that a balanced strategic missile threat has not emerged. General Clapper, DIA director, testified before the Armed Services Committee, and I quote him:

[Page: S11237]

We see no interest in or capability of any new country reaching the continental United States with a long-range missile for at least the next decade.

At the same time we are going to endanger the ABM Treaty, which authorizes its parties to have a limited national missile defense capability--limited. But the terms are quite clear about what is permissible and what is not permissible.

I do not know why the majority is determined to plus up these programs with something that will take a chance of eventually driving us out of that treaty. I think it is ridiculous. Will it really serve our security to place in jeopardy the progress that has been made in recent years in the START process to cut the size of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals? If we march forward blindly into the future and eventually abrogate the ABM Treaty, does anybody seriously believe such an action will have no effect on Russia's readiness to proceed with such cuts in its nuclear stockpile?

I just do not see how it is going to serve our security to drain $48 billion--$48 billion--out of our Treasury to build a national missile defense system that is not needed. And that is not my figure. That is what the Congressional Budget Office estimated it will cost to build a complex that covers Grand Forks, ND, and five other States. That is $48 billion, and it does not even cover the whole country. That does not even cover the theater missile defense, which I support.

I think it moves in the wrong direction. I do not see that it serves our security in deploying an expensive national missile defense network to drive China, Britain, and France out of the international negotiations aimed at further nuclear reductions.

I am not sure either exactly what kind of system this is. Is this to be an SDI system? The President provided research, and yet we do not know what this system is. At best, it is going to be a $48 billion operation just to cover five States. It literally makes no sense whatsoever to take a chance of driving us out of the ABM Treaty when we have no international intercontinental missile defense necessity for this country at this time.

Let us do the research the President wanted. Let us continue on down the road with that research, which I favor, voted for it, support fully, and if we see a threat developing, we will have time to go to what this provides prematurely.

I know my time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Who yields time?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, three quick rebuttals. First, to my distinguished colleague from Ohio where he quotes General Clapper. There are two fallacies in that argument I say. One, it is predicated on a startup within a country to build it all the way up. But there are open bids on the free market in this world today from many countries, primarily Iran, Iraq, and others, that would buy a Chinese system which could hit the United States within that lesser period than 10 years. Also, it will take us 10 years to build the very system we are debating here at this point in time. So there is a convergence, Mr. President, in time and need for this system.

Shifting to another argument from the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, who said it is madness. Well, let me tell you, Mr. President, a little story of madness. The distinguished Senator from Georgia; myself; the distinguished Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye]; and the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] were in Tel Aviv on February 18, 1991. I remember it very well. It happened, coincidentally, to have been my birthday. We were there in the Defense Ministry when a Scud alert was sounded and in a very calm way we participated with the others in putting on our gas masks. The Scud fell some 2 or 3 miles away. We were not in danger.

May I say to my colleagues, when we went out the next morning to visit the community that was struck and to talk to the people, that was madness. That was madness, to see in their faces the attack by Saddam Hussein for no military reason whatsoever, strictly to use that type of weapon as a terrorist weapon, a single strike. Coincidentally, it was the last to fall on Tel Aviv.

And I say, Mr. President, that same problem could happen, a single one as a terrorist weapon to fall on this country, and we have an obligation to the people of this country to invest this comparatively small, modest sum to ensure against that.

Mr. NUNN. Would the Senator yield for a brief observation?

I remember that evening very well. And I do not want to say this with much humor. There is not much humorous about anything regarding a Scud missile attack. The Senator said we were not in danger. If the Senator would amend that by saying we were not in danger because the target was where we were, the Ministry of Defense, and the Scud missiles are notoriously inaccurate. So we were probably in a safe place. But the target was the Ministry of Defense, we found out.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I acknowledge that. I recall, if we want to close off on a note of humor, the distinguished Senator from Georgia said to me, `Saddam Hussein just sent you a birthday present.'

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DORGAN. How much time do I have left?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes, thirty seconds. The Senator from South Carolina has 2 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator from Ohio.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. GLENN. I want to respond very briefly to my distinguished friend from Virginia. He is talking about theater missile defense. I am all for theater missile defense.

What we are talking about here is starting down a track that if we go this route and violate the ABM Treaty, we have got the Russians at that point of probably putting the coordinates back into their missiles or ICBM's. We have plenty of time, according to the people that do the estimates on these things, for Qadhafi and people like that before they develop true intercontinental capability. I am all for the theater missile defense that would have taken care of the situation that he is talking about that he was in. But I think when we go down this track of taking a chance of knocking out the ABM Treaty, which this does, if we go ahead with this whole process, then I think we just--the greatest likelihood is we are going to encourage the former Soviets, the Russians, to go back on the track of missile activation again. I see that as a real threat. That is an active threat. And I think this is folly to go down that course.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Who yields time?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE. I will make this real quick.

After my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota made a couple of comments. Let me respond to him. First of all, he said we do not have any cruise missile defense in this bill. That is a greater threat. Let me suggest to you if you read page 119, we have $140 million in here for cruise missile defense. And I hope that no one believes that we think that the missile threat is the only threat to America. There are many other threats that are being addressed.

Now, the other thing is that the two Senators from Wisconsin and North Dakota know very well that the defense budget is not causing the deficit. We always hear about from the big spenders over there, `Well, we've got to do something about defense.' The last 11 years our defense budget has declined. And for that period of time for every $1 of defense cuts, we have had $2 of increase in domestic spending. To be specific, in using 1995 dollars, in fiscal year 1985 the defense budget was $402 billion. Today we are considering one that is $265 billion.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator's time has expired.

Who yields time?

[Page: S11238]

Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the way I see this, I do not intend to vote for this amendment. I believe the money that is added here, the $300 million, which puts this budget back on national missile defense, about where it was when President Bush left office, I think the money is consistent with a limited thin defense but an effective defense against limited attack against accidental launch or against third countries that may develop a limited capability against the United States. What is inconsistent with that is the language in this bill which will be the subject for the next amendment which puts us in a position of anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty, will be read like that in Russia, with no reason to be in breach because we do not have any programs in the next fiscal year that would in any way contravene that treaty. So we are going to be paying a huge price for nothing because of the language in this bill. So I will not favor the money striking because the money is needed.

I will favor though the amendments that will try to correct this language. If this language goes forward as it is, we are going to pay a big price, probably not only in the failure of ratification of START II but also in the Russians not complying or continuing to comply with START I. So we are buying ourselves perhaps 6,000 or 8,000 warheads pointed at America by the language in this bill. And I hope people recognize that when we get to the next amendment. But I do not believe the answer is to strike the money which everybody agrees at some point we are going to need some kind of limited defense. The administration agrees with that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is expired.

Mr. NUNN. Could I get another minute?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina does not have any time.

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Nebraska.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Dorgan's amendment to eliminate the Armed Services Committee add-on of $300 million for the national missile defense system. If I am not already listed, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

The committee funded increase of $300 million is an initial downpayment on what the committee majority advertises as a multisite, multilayered missile defense system designed to protect against a large and sophisticated missile attack. The missile defense language in the authorization bill makes clear that the system desired is one that will violate the ABM Treaty and intercept a Soviet-type missile attack. The $300 million plus-up in the bill is the first installment of a bill that could grow to a staggering $48 billion cost according to a March 1995, CBO report. This $48 billion is in addition to the $35 billion we have already spent on missile defense. Let no one misunderstand the significance of this vote. This is the first of many expensive installments to resurrect the Star Wars concept.

This vote is on a question of priorities. At a time when we are significantly slashing domestic spending and making tough, painful budgetary choices, it would be irresponsible to add $300 million into a system concept designed to defend against a threat that does not exist today and will not exist by the operational deployment date of 1999.

I believe we should send a powerful signal to the American public by approving the Dorgan amendment and putting the Senate on record that the domestic welfare of our citizens will not be sacrificed on the gold plated alter of star wars. This vote is on a question of priorities. We can ill-afford to shrug our shoulders and say `what is $300 million' at a time when we are asking all Americans to tighten their belts. As I said earlier, a vote for this $300 million installment is only part of a lengthy payment plan that will eventually drain our treasury by another $40 to $50 billion. To buy into such a payment plan would be the height of fiscal folly. I urge my colleagues to support the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment which would severely reduce the funding needed to develop missile defenses. In light of our experiences in the Persian Gulf war, and the advanced weapon development programs of hostile countries such as Korea, this amendment should be soundly rejected by the Senate.

The dangers of leaving our own country unprotected cannot be ignored. Perhaps some Senators have forgotten that we had a demonstration of the dangers of a ballistic missile attack just a few years ago. The picture of an unprotected Israel being hit by Scud missiles chilled the hearts of all Americans, but that incident would pale in comparison to the consequences of a nuclear missile strike. It was reported in the news a year ago that the North Koreans vowed to launch missiles at Tokyo should armed conflict occur with South Korea. While their capability to launch such an attack is questionable, the threat cannot be ignored.

It is my understanding that in reaction to this, Japan has approached the Department of Defense to discuss the purchase of our THAAD missile system. Unfortunately, THAAD will not be ready for deployment until the turn of the century. I am sure that if Japan could have anticipated the threat they now face, they would have invested in some type of missile defense system much sooner. As it is, Japan will be vulnerable to North Korean blackmail for years to come. They can only hope that North Korea never carries out its threat.

Mr. President, we cannot allow the United States to be put in such a vulnerable position. I firmly believe, however, that the present crisis with North Korea clearly demonstrates that need to continue the development of a national missile defense system. The cost of being unprepared to defend ourselves is too great to be ignored.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in defeating this unwise amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield the remaining time to myself.

Mr. President, this has been a most unusual debate. I see a couple in this chamber who are parents who have no doubt read their children the Berenstain Bears books. One of the Berenstain Bear books talks about the `give me's.' Talks about `give me, give me, give me, give me this, give me that, give me this.' You know, it is interesting to me as I read to my children and describe the Berenstain Bears books about `give me,' it reminds me a bit of the folks who come to this floor with every conceivable project, every conceivable program in national defense that is proposed by someone and says--they say, `We have got to build this. We have got to fund it. In fact, we cannot wait. We have got to do it right now.'

I asked the question an hour and a half ago, where are you going to get the money? Where is the money? The Congressional Budget Office says this will cost $48 billion. I ask, where is the money? Are you going to charge it? Are you going to tax people for it? Where are you going to get the money? I have not heard one response in an hour and a half. And I know why, because they do not have the foggiest notion where they are going to get the money. They just have an appetite to spend it and build this program.

Let me end where I began. This is $300 million the Secretary of Defense says he does not want, and we do not need, that folks who say they are opposed to the Federal deficit are now insisting we spend. To describe this as pork is to give hogs a bad name. At least hogs carry around a little meat. This is in my judgment pure lard to pay for a program this country does not need and cannot afford.

Now let me respond to a couple of the things that have been said. During this debate it has been said that this national defense program does not violate the ABM Treaty. Supposedly, this does not violate the ABM Treaty. How can anyone possibly say that? Of course it violates the ABM Treaty. To understand that is only to be able to read. This bill calls for many sites. The ABM Treaty only allows one. This bill calls for more than 100 interceptors. The ABM Treaty limits this Nation to less than 100 interceptors. This bill on page 59 calls for weapons in space. The ABM Treaty forbids weapons in space. Of course this bill violates the ABM Treaty. Let us not debate this issue with that kind of representation.

This leaves us vulnerable, one speaker said. That what folks want to do is defend France and Israel and leave us vulnerable. There is $371 million in this bill for ballistic missile defense. I am not touching that.

[Page: S11239]

Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. THURMOND. Has the time expired on both sides?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time left.

The Senator from North Dakota has 2 minutes, 45 seconds. The Senator from South Carolina has no time left.

The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are told by some speakers that our intention is to leave American cities vulnerable while at the same time we defend Israel and France and Egypt and others.

Total nonsense. There is $371 million in this bill for a ballistic missile defense system. All we want to do is take out the extra $300 million that was added that the Secretary of Defense says he does not want and that we do not need. That is all we are trying to do.

I do not need to hear from folks about the threat to this country. North Dakota has been ground zero for 40 years. If we seceded from the Union, we would be the third most powerful country in the world--300 intercontinental ballistic missiles with Mark-12 warheads, a B-52 base, we had a B-1 base. We understand about ground zero. They built an ABM system in North Dakota, in fact, the only site in the free world. Spent billions. Within 30 days after it was declared operational, it was mothballed. Tell that to the taxpayers.

We understand about missiles and bombers and national defense, and we understand about ground zero. But we also understand about Government waste. We understand it when people say we cannot afford to send kids to school; we are going to make it harder for parents to send their kids to college; we cannot afford money for the elderly for health care; we simply cannot afford money for nutrition programs; we have to tighten our belts.

And then the same folks say that it is our priority to add money to a system that the administration does not need. The Senator from Louisiana said this is madness. He is absolutely correct. This makes no sense at all. We ought to decide as a Senate what our priorities are. The Senator from Ohio, a decorated combat veteran in service to this country, stood up and said it the way that it is. Let us build things that are necessary for the defense of this country.

I am for a strong defense, but I am not for wasting the taxpayers money on boondoggles that we do not need and boondoggles that will not work. Let us decide for a change that we mean what we say when we talk about reducing the Federal budget deficit. Let us decide we cannot at this point embark on a new venture, to spend $48 billion on a ballistic missile program, a national defense missile system--yes, Star Wars, because part of it will be based in space--at a time when we are up to our neck in $5 trillion of debt, and when this year we will run a $170 billion deficit.

If we have some courage and common sense in this body, we will, in this case, say, `You can't add $300 million for something this country doesn't need and for something the Secretary of Defense doesn't want. To do so makes no sense.'

That is the ultimate threat to this country: That debt, this deficit, this kind of mindless spending. That is the threat to America, and let us decide to stand up and finally stop it.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All time has now expired.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table amendment No. 2087. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.