Space

NEED FOR NATIONAL BALLISTIC DEFENSE SYSTEM
SENATOR JESSE HELMS (R-NC)
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

Mr. Helms: Today's hearing is the first of a series, all of which will be focused on the threat of ballistic missile attacks on the United States, the urgent need for missile defenses, and the absolute necessity that the United States withdraw in a timely and complete fashion from an obsolete arms control agreement -- the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

This morning's distinguished witness is an expert in arms control and proliferation -- the Honorable James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence during the Clinton Administration.

Director Woolsey, we appreciate your coming here this morning. At the outset, let me note that the greatest emerging threat to America's national security lies in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile technology. On February 22, 1996, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. General Patrick Hughes, testified that approximately 24 countries "remain actively engaged in the development of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons" and that many of these countries are seeking to put warheads of mass destruction on their longer range missiles.

General Hughes further testified that "approximately 10 cuntries worldwide have operational ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 500 km" and that by the year 2010, that number could grow to 15. Many of these nations -- e.g., Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea -- are clearly hostile to the United States. It is not merely highly possible, it is very probable that in the not-too-distant future a hostile tyrant will possess ballistic missiles capable of reaching major population centers in the United States.

I myself have watched unclassified assessments of the range of the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile grow from 2,000 to 3,000 to 4,000 kilometers. Last year The Washington Times reported that the Defense Intelligence Agency believes that the missile, using a smaller warhead, could reach over 10,000 kilometers, meaning that it could be used to strike cities such as Denver or Minneapolis in the heartland of America.

Obviously, with such an ominous threat emerging, one would assume that the United States would be actively developing defensive technology to protect the American people against this danger. One would assume that the Clinton Administration surely is working, in cooperation with a bipartisan majority in Congress, to make certain that the United States is never, never exposed to the threat of ballistic missiles attack by a terrorist regime.

Well, such assumptions are wrong. The Clinton Administration in fact has aggressively blocked every effort by the Republican Congress to implement a national missile defense system to protect the American people from this very real threat. The Clinton Administration appears to be ready to leave the American people strategically naked as hostile nations rush forward in their relentless pursuit of nuclear, chemical, and biological-tipped missiles. Indeed, in their zeal to stop the bipartisan majority led by Senator Dole, they proved their willingness to say or do anything to argue that the ballistic missile threat does not exist.

I was appalled by the politicization of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which was put forward to support the Administration's position in this regard, declaring that no country other than the "declared nuclear powers" would threaten the "continental United States" with a ballistic missile for 15 years.

First, I shake my head in astonishment that the Clinton Administration has somehow managed to write off completely two of the 50 states of the Union -- Alaska and Hawaii. How can anyone, in good conscience, draw a distinction between the ballistic missile threat to the "United States" and the ballistic missile threat to the "continental United States"? Nearly 2 million U.S. citizens live in Alaska and Hawaii. Are they less deserving of protection than people living in Arkansas or Tennessee? I think not.

Second, it boggles the mind that this Administration can make decisions about the ballistic missile threat to this country while explicitly ignoring the arsenals of declared nuclear powers. Red China, for example, has dozens of ballistic missiles along with several modernization initiatives ongoing, including development of MIRV-technology. Red China is the same regime, remember, that has just flexed its military might by conducting live missile firing exercises in the Straight of Taiwan (and threatening the United States of America with its nuclear arsenal). Indeed, on February 28, 1996, the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Richard Cooper, started "Many of China's long-range systems are probably aimed at the United States."

This winter, when I introduced legislation to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, I wondered how the Clinton Administration could possibly make a decision to veto the missile defense provisions in the Defense Authorization Act while at the same time acknowledging that China continues to threaten the entire United States with ballistic missiles.

Well, I, for one, cannot regard the Red Chinese menace in such cavalier fashion. The decision to veto the Defense Authorization bill, to filibuster Senator Dole's comprehensive missile defense legislation (The Defend America Act), and to revise and expand the ABM Treaty (rather than withdraw from it) all were made at the peril of the lives of U.S. citizens.

No policy reformulation sophistry can change the plain truth that the United States is vulnerable to nuclear-tipped missiles. This perilous deficiency requires leadership and action. It requires bipartisan legislation to deploy an effective defense against a limited nuclear attack, such as one that might be mounted by China, or North Korea.

And it requires a new President in the White House -- one who is committed to the defense of the American people.

Ambassador Woolsey, we look forward to your insights on this matter.