Space

INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT

[Page: E423]

• Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today the Defend AmericaAct of 1996.

• Just a few short weeks ago, during consideration of the National DefenseAuthorization Act, S. 1124, I stood in this Chamber with Chairman Spenceand my colleagues on the Authorization Committee and said that Membersof this Republican controlled House would not be party to one of the mostirresponsible acts of negligence on the part of this or any administration.It is no secret to this body that I am speaking of the administration'sdecision to leave the American people defenseless against a ballistic missileattack.

• On that day, Chairman Floyd Spence and I vowed that Congresswould initiate its own legislation to make certain that ballistic missiledefense is one of our Nation's highest priorities. Today, along with SpeakerGingrich, Chairman Floyd Spence, and other leadership inthe House, we are making good on that promise. Today, we are introducingthe Defend America Act of 1996. This legislation stands in sharp contrastto the Clinton administration's philosophy. It is an unequivocal statementin favor of defending the United States from ballistic missile attack.Let me list some of the differences between the Congress and the administrationas outlined in this legislation:

• First, unlike the administration's weak, noncommittal approach, knownas, 3 plus 3, this legislation calls for a firm deployment date of 2003for a National Missile Defense [NMD] system. The administration claimsit will develop an NMD capability within 3 years. But, a decision to deploywill not be made for 3 years, in 1999, and only if a threat emerges. Myfriends, there is no need to invent a threat. An article in the New YorkTimes, January 23, 1996, records China's veiled threat to use a nuclearmissile against Los Angeles. What more do we need?

• Second, we call for an NMD system that can defend the United Statesand its terrorities. The administration's proposal leaves open the possibilitythat Alaska and Hawaii would be left defenseless. We know North Korea isalready developing a long-range missile that is capable of hitting pointsin Alaska and Hawaii. Given these facts, it is hard to image the Presidentof the United States proposing to defend only part of the Nation againstmissile attack. Yet, it seems that this is exactly what the administrationis intent on doing.

• Third, this legislation does not limit the ballistic missile architecturesimply to comply with an outdated, obsolete treaty. Rather, it permitsthe Pentagon to develop an effective National Missile Defense system thatwill be able to counter emerging threats and defend the American people.

• Ladies and gentlemen, this legislation will ensure that the next timeChina makes a veiled threat to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles,the United States has a response that does not include a massive nuclearlay down and the destruction of thousands of lives.