Tuesday, May 28, 1996 -- 1:30 p.m. . . . . . . . Q: A new subject. There was a report, I think at the end of last week, in one publication that the Clinton Administration might be arriving at some sort of compromise with congressional Republicans over the issue of how fast to deploy a missile defense, a national missile defense. Can you comment at all on whether or not there's any sort of common ground being reached there?
A: Well, first of all, the use of the word compromise, I think, was unfortunate and misleading. What's happened here is that the Republicans have been unable to so far assemble the votes needed to pass the so-called Defend America Act. That Act would require the deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003. The Clinton Administration takes very seriously the possible emerging threat of long range ballistic missiles. The threat does not exist now. We don't believe that countries beyond the declared nuclear powers have the ability to fire ICBMs towards the United States. We think that such a threat will be many years off. Nevertheless, we're actively developing a program to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack against the United States. We believe it would be best to develop that program over the next three years and then decide after it's developed whether to deploy it and not be locked into a deployment schedule now that isn't related specifically to the threat. If we develop a program now over the next three years and then stand ready to deploy after looking at the latest intelligence information, we think that we can better calibrate the program to the threat and not get stampeded into deploying a system too early. The longer we wait, of course, the more technologically sophisticated the system will be.
We think that this is not only the most sensible way to go, but it's clearly the most effective and probably the cheapest way to go and we're hoping that the Republicans will come around to our view now that they do appreciate that we're devoted to defending against a potential threat when and if one evolves. And we hope that they will agree that our approach is the best way. So, if they're willing to accept our plan, we will welcome them.
Q: President Mubarak of Egypt is quoted in one of the papers this
morning as saying that he apparently has talked Moammar Gadhafi out of
going ahead with his chemical plant. Has Mubarak expressed a similar
-- given you information to confirm this?
A: David, I saw the report in the paper today. It's an encouraging report obviously. But, my understanding is that we have not been briefed yet on the meeting between Gadhafi and President Mubarak. Based on that report, obviously we're happy to read that Mr. Gadahfi says that he doesn't plan to go ahead with the chemical facility. We think that's the right decision and we hope that his actions meet his words. We're also very pleased that President Mubarak raised this issue. As I've pointed out several times, and other people have pointed out from this podium, that it's an important regional security issue, and it's one that should be approached regionally. Also, I might add that this is -- should Libya decide not to go ahead with constructing a chemical plant there, it would be a good example of preventive defense.
Q: Did the Secretary give... When we were returning from Egypt, the Secretary said that Hosni Mubarak would be given a detailed intelligence briefing. Has that actually occurred?
A: Well, let me -- I believe it has but let me make sure that it has. Certainly, he received some information directly from the Secretary and I know that a more detailed briefing was planned. I just don't know the date of it, but I assume it has taken place. We will confirm that.
Q: Has the United States had any physical evidence from intelligence that you know of to indicate that the Libyans might have stopped work on this other than these reports?
A: I can't answer that question because I don't know the answer.
Q: Would you take the question?
A: I will take the question. I can't promise that we'll answer it. Any more questions?
Press: Thank you.
(end official transcript)