Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today the Defend America
Act of 1996.
Just a few short weeks ago, during consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act, S. 1124, I stood in this Chamber with Chairman Spence
and my colleagues on the Authorization Committee and said that Members
of this Republican controlled House would not be party to one of the most
irresponsible 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's
decision to leave the American people defenseless against a ballistic missile
attack.
On that day, Chairman Floyd Spence and I vowed that Congress
would initiate its own legislation to make certain that ballistic missile
defense is one of our Nation's highest priorities. Today, along with Speaker
Gingrich, Chairman Floyd Spence, and other leadership in
the House, we are making good on that promise. Today, we are introducing
the Defend America Act of 1996. This legislation stands in sharp contrast
to the Clinton administration's philosophy. It is an unequivocal statement
in favor of defending the United States from ballistic missile attack.
Let me list some of the differences between the Congress and the administration
as outlined in this legislation:
First, unlike the administration's weak, noncommittal approach, known
as, 3 plus 3, this legislation calls for a firm deployment date of 2003
for a National Missile Defense [NMD] system. The administration claims
it will develop an NMD capability within 3 years. But, a decision to deploy
will not be made for 3 years, in 1999, and only if a threat emerges. My
friends, there is no need to invent a threat. An article in the New York
Times, January 23, 1996, records China's veiled threat to use a nuclear
missile against Los Angeles. What more do we need?
Second, we call for an NMD system that can defend the United States
and its terrorities. The administration's proposal leaves open the possibility
that Alaska and Hawaii would be left defenseless. We know North Korea is
already developing a long-range missile that is capable of hitting points
in Alaska and Hawaii. Given these facts, it is hard to image the President
of the United States proposing to defend only part of the Nation against
missile attack. Yet, it seems that this is exactly what the administration
is intent on doing.
Third, this legislation does not limit the ballistic missile architecture
simply to comply with an outdated, obsolete treaty. Rather, it permits
the Pentagon to develop an effective National Missile Defense system that
will be able to counter emerging threats and defend the American people.
Ladies and gentlemen, this legislation will ensure that the next time
China makes a veiled threat to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles,
the United States has a response that does not include a massive nuclear
lay down and the destruction of thousands of lives.
