On the recordSeptember 6, 1995
1 month ago I rose to support the Missile Defense Act of 1995, as the Armed Services Committee reported it. It seemed to me to be just about the right response to the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic and cruise missiles. Frankly, I was a bit surprised by the vehemence with which some of my colleagues opposed the bill once it came to the floor. Many Americans are unaware that right now, America is defenseless against ballistic missiles. If that fact were better known, I think many Americans would be very angry that the Missile Defense Act of 1995 ran into so much opposition from the Clinton administration and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But the fact is that our choice--the choice of those who want to protect America from this growing threat--was between this revised amendment or no bill at all. Given the other important aspects of this bill, and given Saddam Hussein's recent revelations, we chose to work things out and to take a step toward defending America--although it is not as big a step as we wanted. Nevertheless this amendment is a step forward and, let us not forget, we will have an opportunity in conference with the House to make modifications. In any case, there can be no doubt that this bill and this amendment take concrete steps toward establishing effective theater and national missile defenses.
Source
govinfo.gov




