NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(Senate - August 03, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S11227-S11321]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of
S. 1026, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (
S. 1026) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is recognized to offer an amendment on which
there shall be 90 minutes for debate equally divided.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from North
Dakota? The Senator from Nebraska has been attempting to make an
opening statement with regard to the measure before us. I am wondering,
after the Senator from North Dakota has made the presentation under the
unanimous-consent agreement, if both sides would agree to the Senator
from Nebraska having 10 minutes for an opening statement on the overall
measure without being charged to the time under the control by the
majority or the minority.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from
Nebraska, I have no objection. But my understanding is that the 9 to
10:30 time period for this amendment would result in a vote at 10:30,
and there are some leadership obligations that require that vote to
occur at 10:30, and by unanimous consent we have limited debate to an
hour and a half, 45 minutes to each side, on the amendment.
It might be the case that the Senator should give an opening
presentation immediately after the vote at 10:30.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator. That does not happen to agree with the
schedule of the Senator from Nebraska. But I will try again.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I might say that I have no objection. But
my understanding is that the 10:30 vote must occur at 10:30 because of
some leadership obligations by previous agreement.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert
Russell, a fellow on detail from the Department of Energy, be allowed
floor privileges during the debate of
S. 1026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2087
(Purpose: To reduce the amount authorized to be appropriated under
Title II for national missile defense)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
Mr. Bradley, Mr. Leahy,
[[Page
S 11228]]
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment
numbered 2087.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 32, strike out line 14 and insert in lieu thereof
the following` ``$9,233,148,000, of which--
``(A) not more than $357,900,000 is authorized to implement
the national missile defense policy established in section
233(2);''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have by unanimous consent a time
agreement on this amendment, I understand 45 minutes to each side. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, let me begin to describe this amendment. It is
painfully simple. There was $300 million added to the defense
authorization bill by the Armed Services Committee for something that
this country does not need and that the Secretary of Defense says he
does not want. The proposal that I lay before the Senate is to take the
$300 million back out.
This, it seems to me, is a very symbolic issue. The $300 million is
to build a national missile defense system with instructions it be done
on a priority or accelerated basis so that the deployment begins in
1999. Some said yesterday, well, this has nothing to do with star wars.
And, of course, that is not true at all. This is, in fact, national
missile defense, which includes a star wars component. It is the
building of missiles in order to create some sort of astrodome over our
country to block incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.
It is the revival of a proposal offered in the early 1980's by then
President Ronald Reagan. Of course, times were different then. The
Soviet Union existed. We had a cold war that was in full force. We had
an active adversary and a real threat. Times have changed. Now we have
the dismantling and destruction of intercontinental ballistic missiles
in Russia. And, paradoxically, we are helping pay the bill to destroy
those missiles.
It is an irony that does not escape me this morning that the same
people who proposed $300 million in additional spending this year as
part of what will eventually be a $48 billion new project are also
saying they want to cut back on our contribution to help the Soviets
dismantle and destroy their intercontinental ballistic missiles. If
ever there is a disconnection, it seems to me it is in that logic.
To call this $300 million--or what eventually will be a $40 billion
program--``pork'' is I think unfair to pigs. Hogs carry around a little
meat. This in my judgment is pure, unadulterated lard.
I want to describe this proposal in the context of what the Secretary
of Defense has said. I am reading from a letter from the Secretary to
Senator Nunn:
This bill will direct the development for deployment by
2003 [incidentally, the early deployment by 1999] of a
multiple site system for national missile defense that, if
deployed, would be a clear violation of the ABM Treaty. The
bill would severely strain U.S.-Russian relations and would
threaten continued Russian implementation of the START I
Treaty and further Russian consideration of the START II
Treaty. These two treaties will eliminate strategic launchers
carrying two-thirds of the nuclear warheads that confronted
the Nation during the cold war.
That is a statement of current administration policy.
S. 1026 would authorize appropriations for defense programs
that exceed by approximately $7 billion the administration's
FY 1996 request.
A $7 billion increase, this from folks who say they are opposed to
the Federal deficit.
Here is what the committee says:
The committee recognizes that deploying a multiple site NMD
system by 2003 will require significant investments in the
outyears.
And, incidentally, the Congressional Budget Office says anywhere from
$30 to $40 billion. But the committee avoids the issue. The committee:
. . . directs the Secretary of Defense to budget
accordingly.
This is very interesting. The Armed Services Committee says we are
going to build this. Here is $300 million you do not want to build
something we do not need, and it is going to cost $48 billion, and we
say to you, Mr. Secretary of Defense, ``budget accordingly.''
It does not say where he should get the money. It does not say they
are going to raise taxes to pay for it. It says to the Secretary of
Defense, budget accordingly.
Well, we all understand what that means. That means that the warriors
who fight so hard rhetorically to reduce the Federal budget deficit are
now wallflowers who decide they want to use the taxpayers' credit card
to go out and purchase a $48 billion national ballistic missile program
that this country does not need and cannot afford.
It seems to me we ought to ask two questions about these kinds of
proposals when they come to us. One is, do we need it? And the second
is, can we afford it?
On the first question, do we need it, do we need the $300 million
added to this budget, the Secretary of Defense says no.
Can we afford it? Even if we do not need it, can we afford it? Does
anybody in this room, living in a country that is up to its neck in
debt, with annual yearly deficits that are still alarming and a Federal
debt approaching $5 trillion, believe we can afford something we do not
need?
I am going to talk some about the system itself, but first I wish to
talk about the irony of being here in the Chamber at a time when we are
told repeatedly, week after week after week, that we do not have enough
money. We are told we do not have enough money to fully fund the
programs to be able to send kids to college. So we are going to budget
in a way that is going to make it harder for families to send their
kids to college because we have to tighten our belt. We are told that
we cannot afford to provide an entitlement that a poor child should
have a hot lunch at school in the middle of the day because we must
tighten our belt. We are told health care is too expensive and so we
must cut $270 billion from Medicare and a substantial amount from
Medicaid because we must tighten our belt.
So for the American family, the message is tighten your belt on
things like education, health care, nutrition. But when it comes to
security, we are told it is not time to tighten our belt; let us get
the wish lists out and let us get the American taxpayers' checkbook
out--or the credit card more likely--and let us decide to build a
project that the Secretary of Defense says he does not want money for
at this point.
Let me talk about the project itself.
This bill provides research and development funds in order to
accelerate the deployment of a national missile defense system. The
administration requested $371 million for its ongoing research and
development program. The Armed Services Committee says that is not good
enough for us. The committee wants $300 million more added to the
request because it wants to deploy the system in four years. The
committee is telling the Defense Department to build it. They are
saying that it does not matter to us what you think; it does not matter
to us whether you think we need it. We insist you build it.
I come from a State where the only antiballistic missile system in
the free world was built. It was built in the late 1960's and early
1970's. Less than 30 days after it was declared operational, it was
mothballed. In other words, in the same month that it was declared
fully operational it was also mothballed.
It is anticipated, because of our Nation's geography, that one of the
sites in a multiple site national missile defense system would be in
North Dakota. There would likely be one North Dakota site. And I
suppose some would say, well, that means jobs in your State; you ought
to support this.
I do not think it makes sense to support a defense initiative of this
type especially at this time in our country's history if you measure it
with the yardstick of a jobs program. Yes, this might include some jobs
in North Dakota, but it also will include the commitment and the
prospect of taking $40 billion from the American taxpayers to build a
project we do not need, with money we do not have, at a time when we
are telling a lot of Americans that we cannot make investments in human
potential for the future of this country.
There is an ancient Chinese saying:
If you are planning for a year, plant rice; if you are
planning for 10 years, plant trees; if you are planning for
100 years, plant men.
[[Page
S 11229]]
I take ``plant men'' to mean ``educate your children.''
In this Chamber, we appropriately say that we have big financial
problems. We are choking on debt and must do something about it. We
have a lot of folks who talk a lot about it, gnash their teeth, who
wring their hands, and act like warriors on deficit reduction--until it
comes time for a bill like this. And then they say to us, boy, we have
threats; we have threats from North Korea; we have threats from Libya;
we have threats from Iraq.
What do those threats suggest we should do? What we should do is,
under the aegis of reform--which is the wrong ``re'' word; the real
``re'' word is not ``reform''; it is ``retread''--is resurrect and dust
off a proposal coming from the early 1980's, a cold war relic to build
a national missile defense system to put an umbrella over America to
protect against incoming missiles from some renegade country. Far more
important, in my judgment, is the threat from a suitcase bomb
somewhere; you start worrying about a nuclear device hauled in the
trunk of a car and parked at a dock in New York City; you start
worrying about a canister 3 inches high of deadly biological weapons.
That is far more likely a threat to this country than a terrorist
getting ahold of an intercontinental ballistic missile and attempting
to blackmail America.
Mr. President, I am most anxious to hear those who defend this kind
of spending on projects that are, in my judgment, worthless. So let me
at this point yield the floor and listen and then respond to some of
what I hear. I hope maybe the Senate, voting on this today, will decide
that it ought not spend $300 million we do not have on something the
Secretary of Defense says we do not need. That would seem to me to send
a powerful signal to the American people who in this body is serious
about the issue of the Federal deficit.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my time.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Dorgan amendment. The Armed Services Committee has taken a hard look at
the ballistic missile defense programs and concluded that an increase
of $300 million is warranted--indeed, badly needed. If the United
States is to ever be defended against even the most limited ballistic
missile threats, we must begin now.
The administration's program for national missile defense is simply
inadequate. And in my view, the ballistic missile threat facing the
United States is significant and growing. This threat clearly justifies
an accelerated effort to develop and deploy highly effective theater
and national missile defenses. In the bill now before the Senate we
have done just this. The Missile Defense Act is a responsible and
measured piece of legislation that responds to a growing threat to
American national security.
There have been many arguments raised in opposition to the Missile
Defense Act of 1995. These are either false or seriously exaggerated.
Let me address three of the main objections that have been mentioned
repeatedly.
First, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 does not signal a return to
star wars. It advocates modest and affordable programs that are
technically low risk.
Second, it does not violate or advocate violation of the ABM Treaty.
The means to implement the policies and goals outlined in the Missile
Defense Act of 1995 are contained in the ABM Treaty itself.
Finally, the policies and goals contained in the Missile Defense Act
of 1995 will not undermine START II or other arms control agreements.
Russia has repeatedly agreed in the past that deployment of a limited
national missile defense system is not inconsistent with deterrence and
stability. The United States must not allow critical national security
programs to be held hostage to other issues when there is no
substantive or logical linkage between them.
Mr. President, I therefore would conclude by urging my colleagues to
oppose the amendment by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
This amendment would undermine a critical defense requirement and
further perpetuate the vulnerability of the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment.
I would like to begin with a quote from Secretary Perry in this general
area now, that we have entered the post-cold war time. Secretary Perry
is quoted as saying:
The bad news is that in this era deterrence may not provide
even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We may be
facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic missiles
and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future. And they
may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they may be
madder than MAD.
MAD, mutually assured destruction.
Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate that there are those who
seem to think that the American people should not be defended against
the one military threat which holds them at risk in their homes on a
daily basis. Simply stated, this amendment seeks to perpetuate what
many believe is truly an American vulnerability.
Yesterday there were only five Senators who opposed a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that the American people should be defended against
accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack. Today the
Senator from North Dakota is attempting to cut $300 million from
national missile defense to ensure that American cities will in effect
remain undefended without this additional funding.
Senators yesterday voted in favor of defending the American people in
this new era that we are in. So today all Senators will have an
opportunity to demonstrate whether or not they are serious about a
national defense. If you believe, as the Senator from North Dakota so
honestly does, and has stated, that the United States should not be
defended against this particular potential for ballistic missile
attack, then support the amendment. But if you believe that the time
has come to get on with national missile defense, you should oppose
this amendment.
We have heard quite a bit about how there is no threat and how
investment in national missile defense is a waste of money. Let us
remember that more Americans died in the Persian Gulf war as a result
of one missile than any other single cause. I do not imagine that the
families of these victims would view missile defense investments as a
waste.
The argument that there is no threat to justify the deployment of a
national missile defense system I think is strategically shortsighted
and technically incorrect. Even if we get started today, by the time we
develop and deploy an NMD system we will almost certainly face new
ballistic missile threats to the United States. Unfortunately, it will
take almost 10 years to develop and deploy even a limited system.
Much has been made of the intelligence community's estimate that no
new threat to the United States will develop for 10 years. But the
intelligence community has confirmed that there are numerous ways for
hostile countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in
much less than 10 years by other than indigenous development. I would
point out the same intelligence has also prepared a chart that has been
displayed on the Senate floor showing the North Korean missile
programs, including the Taepo Dong II ICBM, which DIA says could be
operational in 5 years.
We see the size and the capability of destructive ability of these
various missiles. You have got the Scud-B, the Scud-C, the No Dong, the
Taepo Dong I and II. And these have not been tested. But it is very
capable for them to do that, the North Koreans to do that. And it is
estimated that they could go to this biggest one, which would be well
over the 1,000 kilometers, in 5 years or maybe less. And in developing
this system North Korea has demonstrated to the world that an ICBM
capability can emerge rapidly and relatively with little notice.
Nobody knows with certainty what the range of this potential new
missile would be. But we do know that it is approximately the size of
the Minuteman ICBM.
Even if we knew with certainty that no new threat would materialize
for 10 years there would still be a strong case for developing and
deploying a national
[[Page
S 11230]]
defense system. Developing an NMD system would serve to deter countries
that would seek to acquire otherwise ICBM capability. A vulnerable
United States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even
aggression.
It has also been argued that the administration's NMD program costs
less than the one proposed in the defense authorization bill. Well, I
guess that is right. It usually does cost more to actually do something
about a problem than nothing, which is precisely what the
administration's program will do, I fear--nothing at all. They request
money. And they have requested almost $400 million this year. And yet
it is not enough to actually get the job done. The administration's
program has no deployment goal in sight. In effect, you know, it wastes
almost $400 million per year on a program designed never to achieve a
specific end. In my view, if we are not going to actually deploy
something we ought to take the rest of the NMD money and spend it on
something that will defend America.
The Senator from North Dakota has stated that the system we want to
build will cost $40 billion. But by the administration's own charts, it
states that it would cost less than $25 billion, including a full
space-based sensor constellation. How does this compare to the cost of
the F-22, the B-2 or other major new systems? I think it is a pretty
good investment relative to virtually anything else that DOD is
developing. What good does it do to be able to project power overseas
with modern and sophisticated weapons if we cannot secure our families
at home? Remember what we are talking about here.
It is not an insignificant amount, an additional $300 million
approximately, but you are talking about the cost of three or four
airplanes. You are talking about offensive weaponry, three or four
airplanes. We can move toward the ability to develop and deploy this
system.
One other chart I would like to refer to with regard to the national
missile defense program. The Bottom-Up Review just, I guess, 2 years
ago, projected the expenditures at this level for the national missile
defense. The administration fiscal year 1995 request was as you see up
to about, I believe it indicated about $500 million. And then in the
fiscal year 1996 it dropped down, and what this bill actually does is
basically a very small increase over what the administration's fiscal
year 1995 request was. So, talking about just enough increase to move
toward actual development and the ability to deploy within 10 years.
So this is a good-sense approach. It is one based on what the
administration had projected in its Bottom-Up Review and what it asked
for in 1995.
For those who argue that the Senate Armed Services Committee is
throwing money at ballistic missile defense, I point out that the
amount of this bill for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is
$136 million lower than the Clinton administration's own Bottom-Up
Review recommended for fiscal year 1996. It is also less than the
administration's own budget forecast in last year's plan.
All four of the defense committees in Congress have increased funding
for the national missile defense. In fact, the Senate Armed Services
Committee and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have
recommended a smaller increase than the House committees have. The
House has recommended an increase of $450 million.
In response to those who say the administration did not request this
increase, I point out the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has
made it clear on many occasions and with the administration's, I think,
tacit approval, that if more money was made available for ballistic
missile programs that they would want to spend $400 million on the
national missile defense program.
The bottom line is simple. If you think that the American people
should not be defended against ballistic missiles, then go ahead and
support this amendment. If you think that the time has come to do
something about an ever-increasing threat in this post-cold-war era,
then vote against this amendment.
I strongly urge my colleagues to put themselves on the side of
defending the American people at a very reasonable cost.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time.
I was listening intently to the Senator from Mississippi. I was glad
he brought that up because the Senator from North Dakota has said over
and over and over again that this is a $40 billion program for the
future. I think it has to be clarified, and yet after we clarify it, I
suggest the Senator from North Dakota will continue to use $40 billion.
This is just not true.
The Senator from Mississippi talked about, according to the figures
of the administration, it was $24.2 billion. But I suggest that
includes the SMTS program, Brilliant Eyes, which is funded separately,
which can be taken off. It is closer to $18 billion.
We do have an investment today in the program of $38 billion. Some
people estimate it is more than that. Let us be conservative and say
$38 billion in what we call the SDI program, which some people like to
continue to use star wars to try to make the public of this country
believe that this is some fantasy, that it is not real. It is not
something we are handling today.
The SDI program, we feel, helped end the cold war by 5 years. What
kind of a value can we put on that? In fact, the Russian Ambassador to
the United States, Vladimir Lukin, stated that if it had not been for
SDI, the cold war would have gone on for 5 additional years.
The SDI program and its research led to systems, not fantasies, but
systems in place today, such as the Aegis system, cruisers and
destroyers, kinetic energy programs, the hit-to-kill technologies which
are used in the THAAD, the PAC-3, the Navy upper-tier defense systems.
These are not star wars; these are technologies. They are on line
today.
All we are trying to do is say that in 5 years from now, where many
in the intelligence community say we are going to be threatened by
perhaps North Korea or other technology that will reach the United
States--and this is something that most of the intelligence community
agrees with--we want to do something today that will be within the
confines of the ABM Treaty. We talked about that before. This is as
much as we can do to reach the point so that 5 years from today, we are
going to be able to defend the United States against missile attacks.
The Senator from North Dakota refers over and over again to the
suitcase bombs, to the ships and vans that deliver weapons. And on that
case, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota, I think he is right.
But we are already taking care of that. We are already working on that
program.
The Senator from North Dakota talks about intelligence estimates. I
asked yesterday on this floor, what if we are wrong, what if those
intelligence estimates he is saying where the threat is not there for
10 more years, what if we are right and it i
s 5 more years? What if he
is wrong? Look back to 1940 and Pearl Harbor. At that time our
estimates were wrong; North Korea in 1950, or more recently, Iraq in
1990. Our intelligence was wrong at that time.
The Senator relies on the cold war mutually assured destruction
program embodied in the triad of missile submarines, land-based
missiles and bombers, but we had all these thing
s 5 years ago, and that
did not deter Saddam Hussein from using Scud missiles.
When the Senator points out that the administration says that $300
million to defend Americans from attack is not in our interest, he
ignores the fact that just 3 months ago, the director of the Pentagon's
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, with the administration's
blessing, said that they could spend $500 million more. That is $200
million more than the additional amount we are trying to put on that we
did put on in the Senate Armed Services Committee and our counterparts
in the other body to reach a system that would defend America.
The Senator from North Dakota is also citing the administration
supposedly defended our interests last year by spending $2 billion. We
are doing a lot of talking now about $300
[[Page
S 11231]]
million. What about the $2 billion that we spent for humanitarian
missions that, by their own admission, in the Senate Armed Services
Committee, by the Secretary of Defense were really not to our vital
national security interests.
I am talking about Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia and Rwanda. We are
spending all this money. We are sending our troops all the way around
the world to defend violations of human rights. Certainly, I am not
insensitive to the ethnic cleansing that is going on and all these
human rights violations. But we are spending huge amounts for that. I
disagree with the foreign policy of the administration, and I do not
think we should be doing it. But if we are doing it, that is $2
billion, and we are talking $300 million right now to keep this on line
to be able to defend this country 5 years from now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator'
s 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield 2
additional minutes?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I grant him 2 more minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Mr. President, I must express my amazement with
the priorities of the Senator from North Dakota. He wants to cut $300
million from the missile defense. He says we have higher domestic
priorities. We heard about the nutrition programs, we heard about all
these social programs that seem to, in his mind, have a higher
priority.
I suggest to you that this $300 million is a relatively small amount
of money. The one bomb in Oklahoma City that wiped out the Murrah
Federal Building cost the taxpayers $500 million--one bomb.
I suggest if the Senator from North Dakota could have stood with me
in Oklahoma City on April 19, April 20, April 21, when they are sending
troops and volunteers into this building to pull out people who might
be alive in there, the hope was there that more would be alive, then
the fourth day came and the smell of death had enveloped the city, if
you could have been there, and what was going through my mind was, this
is just one building in one city, one missile could come in there and
wipe out every building in the city of Oklahoma City, in the city of
Sioux Falls, SD, in Bismarck, ND, in New York City, could wipe out the
entire thing.
Multiply that one thing, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
by 100, by 1,000. That is the threat that is out there. That is the
threat that can reach, according to many in the intelligence community,
this country within 5 years. We have to be ready for that. This should
be the highest priority. We are elected to defend America. That is
exactly what this is about today.
So, Mr. President, in the strongest of terms, I say this is the
minimum that we can do to keep on force, to have a national missile
defense system in place in 5 years when the threat is very real.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative, reported by the Armed
Services Committee, puts our Nation on the right track to address the
growing missile threat to our country.
In the defense appropriations bill, which was reported last week, we
fully supported every element of that plan, and I congratulate Senators
Thurmond, Lott, and others who worked with them on this plan.
Every intelligence assessment available to the Congress indicates
that the threat posed to U.S. military forces is growing from ballistic
missiles, as is the threat to the United States itself.
There can be no greater imperative, as we allocate funding for
research and development for future systems, than to develop and deploy
an effective national missile defense system.
This matter has special significance to every citizen of my State of
Alaska. Already, North Korea is developing missiles that could attack
the military installations in Alaska.
Alaska-based F-15's, F-16's, and OA-10 aircraft will be the first to
respond to any attack on South Korea. On that basis, we are a target
for North Korea.
The distinguished Senator from North Dakota may be confident that his
State will not face that threat in coming years, and I share that
confidence. Our country was lucky in the gulf war. The ingenuity and
technical creativeness ensured that we had some minimal capacity to
respond to the Iraqi Scud missile threat.
We cannot, and must not, rely on luck to be ready to face the risk of
missile launches against my State and against the United States in
total. We must make the investment now to have ready a system to
deploy, if that is the decision of the President and Congress.
The additional funds proposed for authorization and appropriation for
national missile defense is a reasonable and affordable start for this
program.
I am here to urge all Members to support this initiative. I do so as
a Senator from a State that is seriously threatened today, and I
believe the funding authorized by this bill, already included in the
defense appropriations bill, is the proper way to start.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume to
myself.
Mr. President, statements have been made that my position is I do not
want to defend America's cities against a very real threat--total
nonsense; absolute nonsense.
My position is that we should not be spending money we do not have on
something the Secretary of Defense says we do not need. Let me read
from a letter from Secretary of Defense William Perry to Senator Nunn:
The bill's provision would add nothing to DOD's ability to
pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly
cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.
The bill would require the United States to make a decision
now on developing a specific national missile defense for
deployment by 2003, with interim operational capability in
1999, despite the fact that a balanced strategic missile
threat has not emerged. Our national missile defense program
is designed to give us the capability for a deployment
decision in 3 years, when we will be in a much better
position to assess the threat and deploy the most
technologically advanced system available, if they think it
is needed.
This is not a case of somebody deciding we do not want to protect
America's cities. It is a case of saying we do not want to spend $300
million that the Secretary of Defense says we do not need to spend.
Let me respond to a couple of other things that have been said. This
is not about just $300 million. It is about $48 billion, according to
the Congresional Budget Office. I ask all the Senators who spoke here,
where are you going to get that money? You suggest that the Secretary
of Defense budget for it. I ask you, are you going to charge it? And
are you going to tax people for it? Where are you going to get the
money? Do you want to advance a notion now that you want to build a $50
billion new system, which by the way does, indeed, include star wars,
as page 59 of the bill says? I ask you, where are you going to get the
money for it?
Let me say to you, as well, that when you talk about the threat from
an intercontinental ballistic missile, as you have all talked about,
you understand and I understand--I have some material that I will not
read from on the floor, but it is material from Nobel laureates, from
veterans of the Manhattan project and from physicists who are experts
in this field, all of whom agree--and I think you would agree--that a
threat from a renegade country is far more likely as a result of a
cruise missile, which cannot be defended against by this system, than
it is from an intercontinental ballistic missile. A cruise missile is
easier to build and cheaper to build and more likely for them to get.
I ask you this question, if you are worried about protecting
America's cities: If you finished spending $48 billion to defend
against ballistic missiles, then tell me how that system defends
America's cities against the far more likely threat of cruise missiles.
The fact is that by building a national ballistic missile defense you
have done nothing to defend against a cruise missile attack on American
cities.
That is the point. The point here is that this is a weapons program
with a constituency. Like all weapons programs, it does not matter what
the climate is--it can be rain, snow, wind, or
[[Page
S 11232]]
sleet; you can have a Soviet Union or not, and it could be 1983 or
1995--this weapons program has legs. It has jobs and it has
constituencies. This is out of step, makes no sense, and yet we see on
the floor of the Senate folks who come here and say, well, let us, this
year, stick $300 million more in this program than was asked for and
than is needed. Why? Because we want to defend America's cities.
Against what? Against a threat which the Secretary of Defense says does
not exist, and Nobel laureates and veterans of the Manhattan project
say does not exist.
If you are so all-fired worried about threats, let us focus on the
threats that the Nation will really face.
One additional thing. I think the Senator from Oklahoma makes the
point that I have been trying to make this morning when he talks about
the tragic bombing of Oklahoma City. It is not an intercontinental
ballistic missile with all of its sophisticated targeting that is the
likely way to attack against America. It is far more likely to be a
rental truck, a suitcase, a glass vial, a single-engine airplane. I
think the Senator from Oklahoma made the point I was trying to make.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I will not yield on my time.
Mr. INHOFE. I would like to respond to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would give time, I am happy to answer
questions. But we have 45 minutes equally divided.
I will at this time reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that 5
minutes is not a lot of time to make the case. But I am in strong
support of the Dorgan amendment for a number of reasons. First of all,
I will talk policy, and then I will talk budget. There is no
significant long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States
now or in the immediate future. The head of the DIA stated:
We see no interest in or capability of any new country
reaching the continental United States with a long-range
missile for at least the next decade.
Mr. President, the national missile defense provides no defense
against the most likely future attacks on the United States, which will
not be delivered by missiles. We have seen that clearly in a tragic way
at the World Trade Center, the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and
the subway in Tokyo.
Mr. President, there are many arguments I could make about this
impossible dream. But let me just put it in a slightly broader context.
We have out here a bill that requests $7 billion more than the Pentagon
says it needs. We have out here with star wars a request for $300
million more than the Pentagon says it wants to spend or needs to
spend.
Mr. President, I think this amendment is about more than star wars.
It is about priorities. And if you look at requests for Head Start, it
is $3.9 billion, but the total cost of the next aircraft carrier, the
CVN-78, is $4.6 billion.
If you look at requests for police officers, housing, childhood
immunization, alongside star wars, the B-2, Pentagon budget, $7 billion
more in this bill than requested by the Pentagon itself, of the kind of
stories that are now coming out, Mr. President, about a variety of
different pork projects, all across the country, we have to ask
ourselves the question, what are we doing here?
I was on the floor of the Senate not too long ago, saying why are we
eliminating low-income energy assistance? I was talking about the poor
in the cold-weather State of Minnesota. We also could talk about
cooling assistance. This was during the time where we read that 450
people died, many elderly and poor.
On the one hand, we cut low-income energy assistance, we cut
education programs, we cut job programs, we cut all sorts of nutrition
programs, we are not investing in our children, and we have here a bill
that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs for our
national defense.
Now we have--for this impossible dream, many independent people
arguing it never will work anyway--a request for an additional $300
million.
Mr. President, the real national security for our country is not for
star wars in space. It is to feed children and educate children and
provide safety and security for people in communities, and job
opportunities for people on Earth.
This is outrageous. At the very time we have some of our deficit
hawks saying, ``Cut this nutrition program, cut low-income energy
assistance, cut legal services, cut job training, cut summer youth
programs, cut education programs, cut health care programs,'' we have
here a budget that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon wants,
and $300 million more for star wars--this impossible dream, this
fantasy--than is requested by our own defense people.
This is really a test, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, this
is a test case vote, as to whether or not we are serious about reducing
the deficit and investing in people in our country, investing in people
who live in the communities in our country. That is what this is about.
Senators, you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. Maybe
you are trying to dance at three weddings at the same time. You cannot
keep saying you are for deficit reduction, you cannot keep saying you
are for children and education, you cannot keep saying that you are for
job opportunities, you cannot keep saying you are for veterans, you
cannot keep saying we will not cut Medicare, and at the same time
allocating more and more money for your pork military projects, and
adding to a military budget that the Pentagon itself says it does not
need. I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee for yielding time to discuss this amendment.
Going back to basics, the amendment is to cut $300 million from the
committee's request for funding for the Defense Department. The
committee has a $300 million increase from what the administration had
requested for this particular part of the budget. The House had
increased it $400 million. The Senate increase is less than the House
increase by $100 million. The Dorgan amendment is to cut $300 million
from the committee's request.
The primary arguments against the committee's mark are categorized
into two areas: First, the threat is not that great or that soon;
second, the money could be spent on other things.
First, talking about the threat, there is a suggestion here that the
threat is not imminent. The threat we are talking about is a threat to
relatively soon be able to attack the continental United States,
because this is the national missile defense part of the program we are
talking about.
Now, we all understand that eventually we will have to have a defense
against missiles that would either be accidentally or intentionally
launched against U.S. territory. The question is, how soon do we need
to begin preparing for that?
The Senator from North Dakota says we do not need to worry about it
yet because it will be maybe 10 years before the threat emerges. There
are two primary responses to it. First, it is wrong; and, second, we
are not taking into account the fact that it takes a long time to
develop the programs to respond to the offensive threat.
We have been working at this program for a long time. It has been 5
years yesterday, since the taking over of Kuwait by Iraq. Yet we are
not very far down the road in terms of improving our ability to defend
even against a missile like the Scud B that the Iraqis had. We are
talking here about much longer range missiles than the Scud B. We are
talking about missiles that could reach U.S. territory.
Now, at first we are talking about the State of Alaska or the
Territory of Guam. I know it is of interest to the Senator from North
Dakota.
In fact, we all would be very, very concerned about a threat to any
U.S. citizen, whether it be in Guam or whether it be in Alaska. It does
not have to be to the heartland of America.
What is the fact with regard to this threat? The person who last
headed the CIA just prior to the new Director, John Deutch, the then
Acting Director
[[Page
S 11233]]
of the Central Intelligence Agency, Admiral William Studeman, made this
point just a few months ago. He said,
Our understanding of North Korea's earlier Scud development
leads us to believe that it is unlikely Pyongyang could
deploy Taepo-Dong I or Taepo-Dong II missiles before 3 to 5
years. However, if Pyongyang has foreshortened its
development program, we could see these missiles earlier.
What the acting CIA Director was saying is that they probably will
not have this missile that could reach the United States for 3 to 5
years.
Well, we cannot develop this system within 3 to 5 years. The bill
calls for some kind of a deployment, hopefully, by 1999. That is within
the timeframe that the CIA Director acknowledges the Taepo-Dong II
missile could be developed.
Now, what about the current CIA director? John Deutch said last year,
``If the North Koreans field that Taepo-Dong II missile, Guam, Alaska,
and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.''
The point here is that North Korea, a belligerent state over whom we
have virtually no negotiating control, no diplomatic control, is
developing a weapon which the CIA says could potentially reach United
States territory in 3 to 5 years.
If the 3 years is correct, we cannot possibly have anything deployed
in time to meet that threat. Even if it is just used to blackmail us,
it is a tremendous threat. For those who say that there is no threat
here, the facts do not bear them out. The intelligence estimates do not
bear them out.
The other side of this argument is, well, there are other threats.
There could be a suitcase bomb. There is a cruise missile threat, and
of course the answer is yes, that is true. We are doing everything we
can to meet those threats as well.
It is a fallacy of logic to suggest that because there is some other
threat that, therefore, this is not a threat. That is the logic of the
Senator from North Dakota. Well, somebody might bring a suitcase bomb
over.
Well, we are working that problem very hard. The last three CIA
Directors have said that their primary concern is the proliferation of
these weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that can deliver
them.
As a matter of fact, there has not been a suitcase nuclear bomb
explode, but there have been missiles launched against U.S. forces. As
a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, fully 20 percent of our
casualties in the Persian Gulf were as a result of a Scud missile. We
did not have an adequate protection against the Scud missile.
We at least had the Patriot over there. We have nothing to protect
the people in the United States. I think the CIA Directors are a pretty
good source for the proposition that there is a potential threat out
there, and we will be lucky to be able to deploy a system in time to
meet that threat, if their statistics are correct.
Now, just one quick final point on the threat. The Senator from North
Dakota suggests that the triad is actually adequate here, but the same
Secretary of Defense that he is so fond of relying on has made it clear
that mutual assured destruction, the threat that we retaliate with
nuclear weapons against Iraq or some other country, is just not
credible.
As Secretary Perry said on March 8 of this year,
The bad news is that in this era, deterrence may not
provide even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We
may be facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic
missiles and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future,
and they may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they
may be madder than MAD.
And the M-A-D that he is referring to is the mutual assured
destruction doctrine, which the Secretary is saying is madness today.
That doctrine no longer works. We need a defense, not just the threat
of massive retaliation to prevent countries from launching missiles
against the United States.
Finally, let us talk about the amount here. First of all, as the
Senator from Mississippi pointed out earlier, the amount that is in the
Senate bill this year is less than the Clinton administration requested
last year in their 5-year budget. So in the 5-year plan the
administration sent up here last year, they were asking for more money
for this program than the committee has asked for this year. It is a
matter of timing, of when you spend the money. As I think I have
pointed out, even with this amount of money we will be lucky to be able
to field something that is effective by the time the threat is upon us.
Second, there is a suggestion here that the Secretary does not want
this because he has not asked for it. Obviously, we are all aware of
the politics within the Pentagon and the administration and not asking
for it is not the same as not wanting it. You will note in the letter
from the Secretary, nowhere does he say: Do not send us this $300
million, I do not want it and I will not spend it if you send it to me.
As a matter of fact, his spokesman on this issue, Gen. Malcolm O'Neill,
before the House committee just a few weeks ago, was asked if he could
spend this money, and here is what he said:
I have reviewed the BMD program, the impact of last year's
budget reductions and the schedule of several key programs in
order to recommend where additional resources could be best
applied.
Remember, the House is talking about $400 million in additional
resources. And he says:
These funds could be effectively used in several key BMD
programs to accelerate development efforts, preserve early
development options for a national missile defense system,
and to protect current theater missile defense system
acquisition schedules.
In other words, the expert in this area, the head of the program,
Gen. Mal O'Neill, made it clear to the House of Representatives if he
had this extra money he could effectively use it. I understand the
administration position is against this. We all understand that. But it
is not common sense when you recognize the speed with which this threat
could be upon us and the ability we have to develop a system that could
defend us.
When I say it is not common sense, I do not mean to denigrate the
Secretary of Defense. He is a fine public servant and is very concerned
about the future of our country. But reasonable people can differ about
the speed with which we ought to get on with this effort and the
priority of spending this money. I submit the weight of evidence from
the Central Intelligence Agency and from the other people who have
spoken on the issue is, we better get about this task right away.
The final point with regard to the money is that while we could be
spending this money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy
Assistance--of course we could. But what is more important, defending
American lives or summer youth programs? We have to set priorities
around here. I submit, if a missile were launched against the State of
Hawaii or the State of Alaska, every one of us on this floor would be
denouncing the act and would be asking why that was allowed to happen?
Who sat by while this threat emerged? Who allowed this threat to evolve
to the point we could not defend our own citizens from a missile
attack? Those would be the questions asked on this floor.
Today that question can be answered because those people who seek to
cut these funds out of the committee bill will be the people
responsible for us not having a system at the time that the CIA
believes we are going to need to have it. That is the question before
the body. Do we go along with the leadership? Do we go along with the
committee, which is the body of expertise on this? Do we go along with
the Central Intelligence estimates, and do we go along to fund this
program to at least get us on a path to develop and deploy a system in
the time we need it? Or do we take the risk and roll the dice, spend
the money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy Assistance
or the like?
I submit the decision today is that we should go along with the
committee's request here, support the committee and vote down the
Dorgan amendment which would cut the $300 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield a minute to myself before I
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
I might say if ever there is an Olympic event called side stepping, I
have seen this morning several candidates for gold medals.
Let us not be confused about what the Secretary of Defense has said.
Here is a letter he sent last week. It says this:
[[Page
S 11234]]
The bill's provisions would add nothing to DOD's ability to
pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly
cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.
That is not a letter from a Secretary who is undecided about whether
this is good policy or not. The Senator from Arizona says he just has
not asked us. The Senator says that of course, the Secretary would like
to get it this additional money.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. This letter says he does not want it. He thinks it adds
excess costs and additional security risks to this country. So let us
not be confused about the message from the Secretary of Defense. He is
clear on this issue.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas. I will be
happy to yield momentarily for a question.
Mr. KYL. Briefly, can the Senator point anywhere in that letter where
he is referring to this $300 million? He is referring generally to this
bill, not to this $300 million.
Mr. DORGAN. In fact, he specifically refers to this $300 million in
this program, I say to the Senator from Arizona, in the following part
of this paragraph. I read it once before and I am not going to read it
again for you.
The point is, he is talking about developing specific national
missile defense for interim operational capability in 1999 and for full
deployment in 2003. That is exactly and specifically the program we are
now debating. If the Senator is asking, was the Secretary talking about
this issue, the answer is clearly, unequivocally, yes, that is exactly
what the Secretary was talking about in this letter.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding, and
thank him for his leadership in support of the defense of the United
States of America.
I am very pleased that this amendment has been offered. I oppose it,
vehemently and strongly oppose it, but I am glad it has been offered
because it gives the American people a chance once and for all to see
just exactly what this debate is all about and who stands for what.
The Dorgan amendment would leave the American people completely
vulnerable to ballistic missile threats, completely vulnerable. It says
to our constituents, it is OK to protect Israel, protect France,
protect Germany, protect Italy, protect our allies, but not our folks
at home. Do not protect them.
The armed services bill, on the other hand, establishes a program to
defend all Americans, regardless of where they live, against a limited
ballistic missile attack. For the life of me, I do not understand how
anyone could use the argument it is OK to protect somebody in one area
of the country and not in another area of the country. How can one do
that and keep a straight face?
The Clinton program and the Dorgan amendment leaves the United States
hostage, completely, to the likes of Kim Jong Il and the Pyongyang
Communists. The intelligence community has suggested that North Korea
may well deploy an ICBM capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii within 5
years, and some talk maybe even as far as San Francisco in a very short
period of time, but the Senator from North Dakota thinks it is wrong
for us to defend these American citizens?
If the Senator disagrees with this assessment, let us look at the
statement of the recently confirmed Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, John Deutch. Dr. Deutch stated,
If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong II missile, Guam,
Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.
This is a serious, serious problem. The issue really boils down to
this. Twenty nations have acquired or are acquiring weapons of mass
destruction and the capability to deliver them, Iran, Syria, North
Korea, Libya, China, to name a few. That ought to put the fear of God
in us--just that, just thinking about those nations. And at least 24,
some of the same ones I just mentioned, have chemical weapons. And
approximately 10 more are believed to have biological weapons. And at
least 10 countries are reportedly interested in development of nuclear
weapons.
The international export control regime is failing to prevent the
spread of these technologies. They are being spread all over the world,
this missile technology, biological, chemical, nuclear, and the
capability to deliver them.
The Armed Services Committee, under the strong leadership of Senator
Strom Thurmond, recognizes that fact. This is a far-reaching,
farsighted, looking-ahead attempt to protect the United States of
America and its citizens in the outyears. You have to be thinking about
that today, not 50 years from now, because 50 years from now it will be
too late. You think about it today, and that is what the Senator from
South Carolina has done. Under his leadership we have provided, in the
Armed Services Committee, the opportunity to protect our citizens.
The Dorgan amendment would say that the continental United States,
Alaska, and Hawaii, are absolutely vulnerable to these threats. The
reckless leaders of North Korea, Syria, Libya, and others basically
have free access to our citizens. The choice is simple, really; really
simple. If you believe the American people should be protected against
limited accidental or intentional missile attacks--take your choice--
you should support the Armed Services Committee bill.
That is why we are on the committee. That is why we delve into these
matters in great detail. That is our specialty. That is what we are
there for, to understand these things and to present options to the
full Senate. But if you believe the American people should not be
defended and should be completely vulnerable, then you vote for the
Dorgan amendment.
It is ironic--and tragically ironic, frankly--that those who oppose
defending the American people hide behind the fig leaf of the cold war.
The cold war is over. And the technology and the philosophy that we use
to defend against it is also over. We do not have mutual assured
destruction anymore. We do not have a bipolar world anymore. These
people are not rational. Does anybody think Saddam Hussein is rational?
Would Saddam Hussein have used a nuclear missile in the Persian Gulf
war if he had the opportunity? You bet he would. He just does not have
it.
We do not have the capability to protect against this. It is very
interesting that focus groups have been held where we call a few people
into the room and interview them. We asked them, ``What would you do if
somebody fired a missile at the United States?'' In this group,
American citizens were put together in a room and they were asked,
``What would you do if someone fired a missile at the United States of
America?'' And every single one of those people said, ``We would shoot
it down.'' Guess what? We do not have the capability to shoot it down,
Mr. President. This amendment will make sure we do not have the
capability to shoot it down until it is too late.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat this very irresponsible amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I want everyone to
understand that the President's request already has $371 million in the
bill for a national ballistic missile defense system. The committee
added $300 million. So now we have $671 million, almost doubling what
the Pentagon requested. The Senator from North Dakota very sensibly and
wisely is trying to strike out the extra money. I hear people on that
side of the aisle saying, ``We are not trying to abrogate the ABM
Treaty. This does not abrogate the ABM Treaty.'' Really?
Here is what the ABM Treaty says:
Each party shall be limited at any one time to a single
area out of the two provided in Article III of the treaty for
deployment of antiballistic missile systems or their
components. . . .
English is the mother tongue. If you speak English, you understand
the word ``single.'' It means one. Our one site is now in North Dakota.
[[Page
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(Senate - August 03, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S11227-S11321]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of
S. 1026, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (
S. 1026) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is recognized to offer an amendment on which
there shall be 90 minutes for debate equally divided.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from North
Dakota? The Senator from Nebraska has been attempting to make an
opening statement with regard to the measure before us. I am wondering,
after the Senator from North Dakota has made the presentation under the
unanimous-consent agreement, if both sides would agree to the Senator
from Nebraska having 10 minutes for an opening statement on the overall
measure without being charged to the time under the control by the
majority or the minority.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from
Nebraska, I have no objection. But my understanding is that the 9 to
10:30 time period for this amendment would result in a vote at 10:30,
and there are some leadership obligations that require that vote to
occur at 10:30, and by unanimous consent we have limited debate to an
hour and a half, 45 minutes to each side, on the amendment.
It might be the case that the Senator should give an opening
presentation immediately after the vote at 10:30.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator. That does not happen to agree with the
schedule of the Senator from Nebraska. But I will try again.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I might say that I have no objection. But
my understanding is that the 10:30 vote must occur at 10:30 because of
some leadership obligations by previous agreement.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert
Russell, a fellow on detail from the Department of Energy, be allowed
floor privileges during the debate of
S. 1026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2087
(Purpose: To reduce the amount authorized to be appropriated under
Title II for national missile defense)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
Mr. Bradley, Mr. Leahy,
[[Page
S 11228]]
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment
numbered 2087.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 32, strike out line 14 and insert in lieu thereof
the following` ``$9,233,148,000, of which--
``(A) not more than $357,900,000 is authorized to implement
the national missile defense policy established in section
233(2);''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have by unanimous consent a time
agreement on this amendment, I understand 45 minutes to each side. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, let me begin to describe this amendment. It is
painfully simple. There was $300 million added to the defense
authorization bill by the Armed Services Committee for something that
this country does not need and that the Secretary of Defense says he
does not want. The proposal that I lay before the Senate is to take the
$300 million back out.
This, it seems to me, is a very symbolic issue. The $300 million is
to build a national missile defense system with instructions it be done
on a priority or accelerated basis so that the deployment begins in
1999. Some said yesterday, well, this has nothing to do with star wars.
And, of course, that is not true at all. This is, in fact, national
missile defense, which includes a star wars component. It is the
building of missiles in order to create some sort of astrodome over our
country to block incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.
It is the revival of a proposal offered in the early 1980's by then
President Ronald Reagan. Of course, times were different then. The
Soviet Union existed. We had a cold war that was in full force. We had
an active adversary and a real threat. Times have changed. Now we have
the dismantling and destruction of intercontinental ballistic missiles
in Russia. And, paradoxically, we are helping pay the bill to destroy
those missiles.
It is an irony that does not escape me this morning that the same
people who proposed $300 million in additional spending this year as
part of what will eventually be a $48 billion new project are also
saying they want to cut back on our contribution to help the Soviets
dismantle and destroy their intercontinental ballistic missiles. If
ever there is a disconnection, it seems to me it is in that logic.
To call this $300 million--or what eventually will be a $40 billion
program--``pork'' is I think unfair to pigs. Hogs carry around a little
meat. This in my judgment is pure, unadulterated lard.
I want to describe this proposal in the context of what the Secretary
of Defense has said. I am reading from a letter from the Secretary to
Senator Nunn:
This bill will direct the development for deployment by
2003 [incidentally, the early deployment by 1999] of a
multiple site system for national missile defense that, if
deployed, would be a clear violation of the ABM Treaty. The
bill would severely strain U.S.-Russian relations and would
threaten continued Russian implementation of the START I
Treaty and further Russian consideration of the START II
Treaty. These two treaties will eliminate strategic launchers
carrying two-thirds of the nuclear warheads that confronted
the Nation during the cold war.
That is a statement of current administration policy.
S. 1026 would authorize appropriations for defense programs
that exceed by approximately $7 billion the administration's
FY 1996 request.
A $7 billion increase, this from folks who say they are opposed to
the Federal deficit.
Here is what the committee says:
The committee recognizes that deploying a multiple site NMD
system by 2003 will require significant investments in the
outyears.
And, incidentally, the Congressional Budget Office says anywhere from
$30 to $40 billion. But the committee avoids the issue. The committee:
. . . directs the Secretary of Defense to budget
accordingly.
This is very interesting. The Armed Services Committee says we are
going to build this. Here is $300 million you do not want to build
something we do not need, and it is going to cost $48 billion, and we
say to you, Mr. Secretary of Defense, ``budget accordingly.''
It does not say where he should get the money. It does not say they
are going to raise taxes to pay for it. It says to the Secretary of
Defense, budget accordingly.
Well, we all understand what that means. That means that the warriors
who fight so hard rhetorically to reduce the Federal budget deficit are
now wallflowers who decide they want to use the taxpayers' credit card
to go out and purchase a $48 billion national ballistic missile program
that this country does not need and cannot afford.
It seems to me we ought to ask two questions about these kinds of
proposals when they come to us. One is, do we need it? And the second
is, can we afford it?
On the first question, do we need it, do we need the $300 million
added to this budget, the Secretary of Defense says no.
Can we afford it? Even if we do not need it, can we afford it? Does
anybody in this room, living in a country that is up to its neck in
debt, with annual yearly deficits that are still alarming and a Federal
debt approaching $5 trillion, believe we can afford something we do not
need?
I am going to talk some about the system itself, but first I wish to
talk about the irony of being here in the Chamber at a time when we are
told repeatedly, week after week after week, that we do not have enough
money. We are told we do not have enough money to fully fund the
programs to be able to send kids to college. So we are going to budget
in a way that is going to make it harder for families to send their
kids to college because we have to tighten our belt. We are told that
we cannot afford to provide an entitlement that a poor child should
have a hot lunch at school in the middle of the day because we must
tighten our belt. We are told health care is too expensive and so we
must cut $270 billion from Medicare and a substantial amount from
Medicaid because we must tighten our belt.
So for the American family, the message is tighten your belt on
things like education, health care, nutrition. But when it comes to
security, we are told it is not time to tighten our belt; let us get
the wish lists out and let us get the American taxpayers' checkbook
out--or the credit card more likely--and let us decide to build a
project that the Secretary of Defense says he does not want money for
at this point.
Let me talk about the project itself.
This bill provides research and development funds in order to
accelerate the deployment of a national missile defense system. The
administration requested $371 million for its ongoing research and
development program. The Armed Services Committee says that is not good
enough for us. The committee wants $300 million more added to the
request because it wants to deploy the system in four years. The
committee is telling the Defense Department to build it. They are
saying that it does not matter to us what you think; it does not matter
to us whether you think we need it. We insist you build it.
I come from a State where the only antiballistic missile system in
the free world was built. It was built in the late 1960's and early
1970's. Less than 30 days after it was declared operational, it was
mothballed. In other words, in the same month that it was declared
fully operational it was also mothballed.
It is anticipated, because of our Nation's geography, that one of the
sites in a multiple site national missile defense system would be in
North Dakota. There would likely be one North Dakota site. And I
suppose some would say, well, that means jobs in your State; you ought
to support this.
I do not think it makes sense to support a defense initiative of this
type especially at this time in our country's history if you measure it
with the yardstick of a jobs program. Yes, this might include some jobs
in North Dakota, but it also will include the commitment and the
prospect of taking $40 billion from the American taxpayers to build a
project we do not need, with money we do not have, at a time when we
are telling a lot of Americans that we cannot make investments in human
potential for the future of this country.
There is an ancient Chinese saying:
If you are planning for a year, plant rice; if you are
planning for 10 years, plant trees; if you are planning for
100 years, plant men.
[[Page
S 11229]]
I take ``plant men'' to mean ``educate your children.''
In this Chamber, we appropriately say that we have big financial
problems. We are choking on debt and must do something about it. We
have a lot of folks who talk a lot about it, gnash their teeth, who
wring their hands, and act like warriors on deficit reduction--until it
comes time for a bill like this. And then they say to us, boy, we have
threats; we have threats from North Korea; we have threats from Libya;
we have threats from Iraq.
What do those threats suggest we should do? What we should do is,
under the aegis of reform--which is the wrong ``re'' word; the real
``re'' word is not ``reform''; it is ``retread''--is resurrect and dust
off a proposal coming from the early 1980's, a cold war relic to build
a national missile defense system to put an umbrella over America to
protect against incoming missiles from some renegade country. Far more
important, in my judgment, is the threat from a suitcase bomb
somewhere; you start worrying about a nuclear device hauled in the
trunk of a car and parked at a dock in New York City; you start
worrying about a canister 3 inches high of deadly biological weapons.
That is far more likely a threat to this country than a terrorist
getting ahold of an intercontinental ballistic missile and attempting
to blackmail America.
Mr. President, I am most anxious to hear those who defend this kind
of spending on projects that are, in my judgment, worthless. So let me
at this point yield the floor and listen and then respond to some of
what I hear. I hope maybe the Senate, voting on this today, will decide
that it ought not spend $300 million we do not have on something the
Secretary of Defense says we do not need. That would seem to me to send
a powerful signal to the American people who in this body is serious
about the issue of the Federal deficit.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my time.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Dorgan amendment. The Armed Services Committee has taken a hard look at
the ballistic missile defense programs and concluded that an increase
of $300 million is warranted--indeed, badly needed. If the United
States is to ever be defended against even the most limited ballistic
missile threats, we must begin now.
The administration's program for national missile defense is simply
inadequate. And in my view, the ballistic missile threat facing the
United States is significant and growing. This threat clearly justifies
an accelerated effort to develop and deploy highly effective theater
and national missile defenses. In the bill now before the Senate we
have done just this. The Missile Defense Act is a responsible and
measured piece of legislation that responds to a growing threat to
American national security.
There have been many arguments raised in opposition to the Missile
Defense Act of 1995. These are either false or seriously exaggerated.
Let me address three of the main objections that have been mentioned
repeatedly.
First, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 does not signal a return to
star wars. It advocates modest and affordable programs that are
technically low risk.
Second, it does not violate or advocate violation of the ABM Treaty.
The means to implement the policies and goals outlined in the Missile
Defense Act of 1995 are contained in the ABM Treaty itself.
Finally, the policies and goals contained in the Missile Defense Act
of 1995 will not undermine START II or other arms control agreements.
Russia has repeatedly agreed in the past that deployment of a limited
national missile defense system is not inconsistent with deterrence and
stability. The United States must not allow critical national security
programs to be held hostage to other issues when there is no
substantive or logical linkage between them.
Mr. President, I therefore would conclude by urging my colleagues to
oppose the amendment by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
This amendment would undermine a critical defense requirement and
further perpetuate the vulnerability of the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment.
I would like to begin with a quote from Secretary Perry in this general
area now, that we have entered the post-cold war time. Secretary Perry
is quoted as saying:
The bad news is that in this era deterrence may not provide
even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We may be
facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic missiles
and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future. And they
may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they may be
madder than MAD.
MAD, mutually assured destruction.
Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate that there are those who
seem to think that the American people should not be defended against
the one military threat which holds them at risk in their homes on a
daily basis. Simply stated, this amendment seeks to perpetuate what
many believe is truly an American vulnerability.
Yesterday there were only five Senators who opposed a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that the American people should be defended against
accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack. Today the
Senator from North Dakota is attempting to cut $300 million from
national missile defense to ensure that American cities will in effect
remain undefended without this additional funding.
Senators yesterday voted in favor of defending the American people in
this new era that we are in. So today all Senators will have an
opportunity to demonstrate whether or not they are serious about a
national defense. If you believe, as the Senator from North Dakota so
honestly does, and has stated, that the United States should not be
defended against this particular potential for ballistic missile
attack, then support the amendment. But if you believe that the time
has come to get on with national missile defense, you should oppose
this amendment.
We have heard quite a bit about how there is no threat and how
investment in national missile defense is a waste of money. Let us
remember that more Americans died in the Persian Gulf war as a result
of one missile than any other single cause. I do not imagine that the
families of these victims would view missile defense investments as a
waste.
The argument that there is no threat to justify the deployment of a
national missile defense system I think is strategically shortsighted
and technically incorrect. Even if we get started today, by the time we
develop and deploy an NMD system we will almost certainly face new
ballistic missile threats to the United States. Unfortunately, it will
take almost 10 years to develop and deploy even a limited system.
Much has been made of the intelligence community's estimate that no
new threat to the United States will develop for 10 years. But the
intelligence community has confirmed that there are numerous ways for
hostile countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in
much less than 10 years by other than indigenous development. I would
point out the same intelligence has also prepared a chart that has been
displayed on the Senate floor showing the North Korean missile
programs, including the Taepo Dong II ICBM, which DIA says could be
operational in 5 years.
We see the size and the capability of destructive ability of these
various missiles. You have got the Scud-B, the Scud-C, the No Dong, the
Taepo Dong I and II. And these have not been tested. But it is very
capable for them to do that, the North Koreans to do that. And it is
estimated that they could go to this biggest one, which would be well
over the 1,000 kilometers, in 5 years or maybe less. And in developing
this system North Korea has demonstrated to the world that an ICBM
capability can emerge rapidly and relatively with little notice.
Nobody knows with certainty what the range of this potential new
missile would be. But we do know that it is approximately the size of
the Minuteman ICBM.
Even if we knew with certainty that no new threat would materialize
for 10 years there would still be a strong case for developing and
deploying a national
[[Page
S 11230]]
defense system. Developing an NMD system would serve to deter countries
that would seek to acquire otherwise ICBM capability. A vulnerable
United States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even
aggression.
It has also been argued that the administration's NMD program costs
less than the one proposed in the defense authorization bill. Well, I
guess that is right. It usually does cost more to actually do something
about a problem than nothing, which is precisely what the
administration's program will do, I fear--nothing at all. They request
money. And they have requested almost $400 million this year. And yet
it is not enough to actually get the job done. The administration's
program has no deployment goal in sight. In effect, you know, it wastes
almost $400 million per year on a program designed never to achieve a
specific end. In my view, if we are not going to actually deploy
something we ought to take the rest of the NMD money and spend it on
something that will defend America.
The Senator from North Dakota has stated that the system we want to
build will cost $40 billion. But by the administration's own charts, it
states that it would cost less than $25 billion, including a full
space-based sensor constellation. How does this compare to the cost of
the F-22, the B-2 or other major new systems? I think it is a pretty
good investment relative to virtually anything else that DOD is
developing. What good does it do to be able to project power overseas
with modern and sophisticated weapons if we cannot secure our families
at home? Remember what we are talking about here.
It is not an insignificant amount, an additional $300 million
approximately, but you are talking about the cost of three or four
airplanes. You are talking about offensive weaponry, three or four
airplanes. We can move toward the ability to develop and deploy this
system.
One other chart I would like to refer to with regard to the national
missile defense program. The Bottom-Up Review just, I guess, 2 years
ago, projected the expenditures at this level for the national missile
defense. The administration fiscal year 1995 request was as you see up
to about, I believe it indicated about $500 million. And then in the
fiscal year 1996 it dropped down, and what this bill actually does is
basically a very small increase over what the administration's fiscal
year 1995 request was. So, talking about just enough increase to move
toward actual development and the ability to deploy within 10 years.
So this is a good-sense approach. It is one based on what the
administration had projected in its Bottom-Up Review and what it asked
for in 1995.
For those who argue that the Senate Armed Services Committee is
throwing money at ballistic missile defense, I point out that the
amount of this bill for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is
$136 million lower than the Clinton administration's own Bottom-Up
Review recommended for fiscal year 1996. It is also less than the
administration's own budget forecast in last year's plan.
All four of the defense committees in Congress have increased funding
for the national missile defense. In fact, the Senate Armed Services
Committee and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have
recommended a smaller increase than the House committees have. The
House has recommended an increase of $450 million.
In response to those who say the administration did not request this
increase, I point out the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has
made it clear on many occasions and with the administration's, I think,
tacit approval, that if more money was made available for ballistic
missile programs that they would want to spend $400 million on the
national missile defense program.
The bottom line is simple. If you think that the American people
should not be defended against ballistic missiles, then go ahead and
support this amendment. If you think that the time has come to do
something about an ever-increasing threat in this post-cold-war era,
then vote against this amendment.
I strongly urge my colleagues to put themselves on the side of
defending the American people at a very reasonable cost.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time.
I was listening intently to the Senator from Mississippi. I was glad
he brought that up because the Senator from North Dakota has said over
and over and over again that this is a $40 billion program for the
future. I think it has to be clarified, and yet after we clarify it, I
suggest the Senator from North Dakota will continue to use $40 billion.
This is just not true.
The Senator from Mississippi talked about, according to the figures
of the administration, it was $24.2 billion. But I suggest that
includes the SMTS program, Brilliant Eyes, which is funded separately,
which can be taken off. It is closer to $18 billion.
We do have an investment today in the program of $38 billion. Some
people estimate it is more than that. Let us be conservative and say
$38 billion in what we call the SDI program, which some people like to
continue to use star wars to try to make the public of this country
believe that this is some fantasy, that it is not real. It is not
something we are handling today.
The SDI program, we feel, helped end the cold war by 5 years. What
kind of a value can we put on that? In fact, the Russian Ambassador to
the United States, Vladimir Lukin, stated that if it had not been for
SDI, the cold war would have gone on for 5 additional years.
The SDI program and its research led to systems, not fantasies, but
systems in place today, such as the Aegis system, cruisers and
destroyers, kinetic energy programs, the hit-to-kill technologies which
are used in the THAAD, the PAC-3, the Navy upper-tier defense systems.
These are not star wars; these are technologies. They are on line
today.
All we are trying to do is say that in 5 years from now, where many
in the intelligence community say we are going to be threatened by
perhaps North Korea or other technology that will reach the United
States--and this is something that most of the intelligence community
agrees with--we want to do something today that will be within the
confines of the ABM Treaty. We talked about that before. This is as
much as we can do to reach the point so that 5 years from today, we are
going to be able to defend the United States against missile attacks.
The Senator from North Dakota refers over and over again to the
suitcase bombs, to the ships and vans that deliver weapons. And on that
case, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota, I think he is right.
But we are already taking care of that. We are already working on that
program.
The Senator from North Dakota talks about intelligence estimates. I
asked yesterday on this floor, what if we are wrong, what if those
intelligence estimates he is saying where the threat is not there for
10 more years, what if we are right and it i
s 5 more years? What if he
is wrong? Look back to 1940 and Pearl Harbor. At that time our
estimates were wrong; North Korea in 1950, or more recently, Iraq in
1990. Our intelligence was wrong at that time.
The Senator relies on the cold war mutually assured destruction
program embodied in the triad of missile submarines, land-based
missiles and bombers, but we had all these thing
s 5 years ago, and that
did not deter Saddam Hussein from using Scud missiles.
When the Senator points out that the administration says that $300
million to defend Americans from attack is not in our interest, he
ignores the fact that just 3 months ago, the director of the Pentagon's
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, with the administration's
blessing, said that they could spend $500 million more. That is $200
million more than the additional amount we are trying to put on that we
did put on in the Senate Armed Services Committee and our counterparts
in the other body to reach a system that would defend America.
The Senator from North Dakota is also citing the administration
supposedly defended our interests last year by spending $2 billion. We
are doing a lot of talking now about $300
[[Page
S 11231]]
million. What about the $2 billion that we spent for humanitarian
missions that, by their own admission, in the Senate Armed Services
Committee, by the Secretary of Defense were really not to our vital
national security interests.
I am talking about Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia and Rwanda. We are
spending all this money. We are sending our troops all the way around
the world to defend violations of human rights. Certainly, I am not
insensitive to the ethnic cleansing that is going on and all these
human rights violations. But we are spending huge amounts for that. I
disagree with the foreign policy of the administration, and I do not
think we should be doing it. But if we are doing it, that is $2
billion, and we are talking $300 million right now to keep this on line
to be able to defend this country 5 years from now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator'
s 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield 2
additional minutes?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I grant him 2 more minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Mr. President, I must express my amazement with
the priorities of the Senator from North Dakota. He wants to cut $300
million from the missile defense. He says we have higher domestic
priorities. We heard about the nutrition programs, we heard about all
these social programs that seem to, in his mind, have a higher
priority.
I suggest to you that this $300 million is a relatively small amount
of money. The one bomb in Oklahoma City that wiped out the Murrah
Federal Building cost the taxpayers $500 million--one bomb.
I suggest if the Senator from North Dakota could have stood with me
in Oklahoma City on April 19, April 20, April 21, when they are sending
troops and volunteers into this building to pull out people who might
be alive in there, the hope was there that more would be alive, then
the fourth day came and the smell of death had enveloped the city, if
you could have been there, and what was going through my mind was, this
is just one building in one city, one missile could come in there and
wipe out every building in the city of Oklahoma City, in the city of
Sioux Falls, SD, in Bismarck, ND, in New York City, could wipe out the
entire thing.
Multiply that one thing, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
by 100, by 1,000. That is the threat that is out there. That is the
threat that can reach, according to many in the intelligence community,
this country within 5 years. We have to be ready for that. This should
be the highest priority. We are elected to defend America. That is
exactly what this is about today.
So, Mr. President, in the strongest of terms, I say this is the
minimum that we can do to keep on force, to have a national missile
defense system in place in 5 years when the threat is very real.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative, reported by the Armed
Services Committee, puts our Nation on the right track to address the
growing missile threat to our country.
In the defense appropriations bill, which was reported last week, we
fully supported every element of that plan, and I congratulate Senators
Thurmond, Lott, and others who worked with them on this plan.
Every intelligence assessment available to the Congress indicates
that the threat posed to U.S. military forces is growing from ballistic
missiles, as is the threat to the United States itself.
There can be no greater imperative, as we allocate funding for
research and development for future systems, than to develop and deploy
an effective national missile defense system.
This matter has special significance to every citizen of my State of
Alaska. Already, North Korea is developing missiles that could attack
the military installations in Alaska.
Alaska-based F-15's, F-16's, and OA-10 aircraft will be the first to
respond to any attack on South Korea. On that basis, we are a target
for North Korea.
The distinguished Senator from North Dakota may be confident that his
State will not face that threat in coming years, and I share that
confidence. Our country was lucky in the gulf war. The ingenuity and
technical creativeness ensured that we had some minimal capacity to
respond to the Iraqi Scud missile threat.
We cannot, and must not, rely on luck to be ready to face the risk of
missile launches against my State and against the United States in
total. We must make the investment now to have ready a system to
deploy, if that is the decision of the President and Congress.
The additional funds proposed for authorization and appropriation for
national missile defense is a reasonable and affordable start for this
program.
I am here to urge all Members to support this initiative. I do so as
a Senator from a State that is seriously threatened today, and I
believe the funding authorized by this bill, already included in the
defense appropriations bill, is the proper way to start.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume to
myself.
Mr. President, statements have been made that my position is I do not
want to defend America's cities against a very real threat--total
nonsense; absolute nonsense.
My position is that we should not be spending money we do not have on
something the Secretary of Defense says we do not need. Let me read
from a letter from Secretary of Defense William Perry to Senator Nunn:
The bill's provision would add nothing to DOD's ability to
pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly
cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.
The bill would require the United States to make a decision
now on developing a specific national missile defense for
deployment by 2003, with interim operational capability in
1999, despite the fact that a balanced strategic missile
threat has not emerged. Our national missile defense program
is designed to give us the capability for a deployment
decision in 3 years, when we will be in a much better
position to assess the threat and deploy the most
technologically advanced system available, if they think it
is needed.
This is not a case of somebody deciding we do not want to protect
America's cities. It is a case of saying we do not want to spend $300
million that the Secretary of Defense says we do not need to spend.
Let me respond to a couple of other things that have been said. This
is not about just $300 million. It is about $48 billion, according to
the Congresional Budget Office. I ask all the Senators who spoke here,
where are you going to get that money? You suggest that the Secretary
of Defense budget for it. I ask you, are you going to charge it? And
are you going to tax people for it? Where are you going to get the
money? Do you want to advance a notion now that you want to build a $50
billion new system, which by the way does, indeed, include star wars,
as page 59 of the bill says? I ask you, where are you going to get the
money for it?
Let me say to you, as well, that when you talk about the threat from
an intercontinental ballistic missile, as you have all talked about,
you understand and I understand--I have some material that I will not
read from on the floor, but it is material from Nobel laureates, from
veterans of the Manhattan project and from physicists who are experts
in this field, all of whom agree--and I think you would agree--that a
threat from a renegade country is far more likely as a result of a
cruise missile, which cannot be defended against by this system, than
it is from an intercontinental ballistic missile. A cruise missile is
easier to build and cheaper to build and more likely for them to get.
I ask you this question, if you are worried about protecting
America's cities: If you finished spending $48 billion to defend
against ballistic missiles, then tell me how that system defends
America's cities against the far more likely threat of cruise missiles.
The fact is that by building a national ballistic missile defense you
have done nothing to defend against a cruise missile attack on American
cities.
That is the point. The point here is that this is a weapons program
with a constituency. Like all weapons programs, it does not matter what
the climate is--it can be rain, snow, wind, or
[[Page
S 11232]]
sleet; you can have a Soviet Union or not, and it could be 1983 or
1995--this weapons program has legs. It has jobs and it has
constituencies. This is out of step, makes no sense, and yet we see on
the floor of the Senate folks who come here and say, well, let us, this
year, stick $300 million more in this program than was asked for and
than is needed. Why? Because we want to defend America's cities.
Against what? Against a threat which the Secretary of Defense says does
not exist, and Nobel laureates and veterans of the Manhattan project
say does not exist.
If you are so all-fired worried about threats, let us focus on the
threats that the Nation will really face.
One additional thing. I think the Senator from Oklahoma makes the
point that I have been trying to make this morning when he talks about
the tragic bombing of Oklahoma City. It is not an intercontinental
ballistic missile with all of its sophisticated targeting that is the
likely way to attack against America. It is far more likely to be a
rental truck, a suitcase, a glass vial, a single-engine airplane. I
think the Senator from Oklahoma made the point I was trying to make.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I will not yield on my time.
Mr. INHOFE. I would like to respond to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would give time, I am happy to answer
questions. But we have 45 minutes equally divided.
I will at this time reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that 5
minutes is not a lot of time to make the case. But I am in strong
support of the Dorgan amendment for a number of reasons. First of all,
I will talk policy, and then I will talk budget. There is no
significant long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States
now or in the immediate future. The head of the DIA stated:
We see no interest in or capability of any new country
reaching the continental United States with a long-range
missile for at least the next decade.
Mr. President, the national missile defense provides no defense
against the most likely future attacks on the United States, which will
not be delivered by missiles. We have seen that clearly in a tragic way
at the World Trade Center, the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and
the subway in Tokyo.
Mr. President, there are many arguments I could make about this
impossible dream. But let me just put it in a slightly broader context.
We have out here a bill that requests $7 billion more than the Pentagon
says it needs. We have out here with star wars a request for $300
million more than the Pentagon says it wants to spend or needs to
spend.
Mr. President, I think this amendment is about more than star wars.
It is about priorities. And if you look at requests for Head Start, it
is $3.9 billion, but the total cost of the next aircraft carrier, the
CVN-78, is $4.6 billion.
If you look at requests for police officers, housing, childhood
immunization, alongside star wars, the B-2, Pentagon budget, $7 billion
more in this bill than requested by the Pentagon itself, of the kind of
stories that are now coming out, Mr. President, about a variety of
different pork projects, all across the country, we have to ask
ourselves the question, what are we doing here?
I was on the floor of the Senate not too long ago, saying why are we
eliminating low-income energy assistance? I was talking about the poor
in the cold-weather State of Minnesota. We also could talk about
cooling assistance. This was during the time where we read that 450
people died, many elderly and poor.
On the one hand, we cut low-income energy assistance, we cut
education programs, we cut job programs, we cut all sorts of nutrition
programs, we are not investing in our children, and we have here a bill
that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs for our
national defense.
Now we have--for this impossible dream, many independent people
arguing it never will work anyway--a request for an additional $300
million.
Mr. President, the real national security for our country is not for
star wars in space. It is to feed children and educate children and
provide safety and security for people in communities, and job
opportunities for people on Earth.
This is outrageous. At the very time we have some of our deficit
hawks saying, ``Cut this nutrition program, cut low-income energy
assistance, cut legal services, cut job training, cut summer youth
programs, cut education programs, cut health care programs,'' we have
here a budget that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon wants,
and $300 million more for star wars--this impossible dream, this
fantasy--than is requested by our own defense people.
This is really a test, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, this
is a test case vote, as to whether or not we are serious about reducing
the deficit and investing in people in our country, investing in people
who live in the communities in our country. That is what this is about.
Senators, you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. Maybe
you are trying to dance at three weddings at the same time. You cannot
keep saying you are for deficit reduction, you cannot keep saying you
are for children and education, you cannot keep saying that you are for
job opportunities, you cannot keep saying you are for veterans, you
cannot keep saying we will not cut Medicare, and at the same time
allocating more and more money for your pork military projects, and
adding to a military budget that the Pentagon itself says it does not
need. I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee for yielding time to discuss this amendment.
Going back to basics, the amendment is to cut $300 million from the
committee's request for funding for the Defense Department. The
committee has a $300 million increase from what the administration had
requested for this particular part of the budget. The House had
increased it $400 million. The Senate increase is less than the House
increase by $100 million. The Dorgan amendment is to cut $300 million
from the committee's request.
The primary arguments against the committee's mark are categorized
into two areas: First, the threat is not that great or that soon;
second, the money could be spent on other things.
First, talking about the threat, there is a suggestion here that the
threat is not imminent. The threat we are talking about is a threat to
relatively soon be able to attack the continental United States,
because this is the national missile defense part of the program we are
talking about.
Now, we all understand that eventually we will have to have a defense
against missiles that would either be accidentally or intentionally
launched against U.S. territory. The question is, how soon do we need
to begin preparing for that?
The Senator from North Dakota says we do not need to worry about it
yet because it will be maybe 10 years before the threat emerges. There
are two primary responses to it. First, it is wrong; and, second, we
are not taking into account the fact that it takes a long time to
develop the programs to respond to the offensive threat.
We have been working at this program for a long time. It has been 5
years yesterday, since the taking over of Kuwait by Iraq. Yet we are
not very far down the road in terms of improving our ability to defend
even against a missile like the Scud B that the Iraqis had. We are
talking here about much longer range missiles than the Scud B. We are
talking about missiles that could reach U.S. territory.
Now, at first we are talking about the State of Alaska or the
Territory of Guam. I know it is of interest to the Senator from North
Dakota.
In fact, we all would be very, very concerned about a threat to any
U.S. citizen, whether it be in Guam or whether it be in Alaska. It does
not have to be to the heartland of America.
What is the fact with regard to this threat? The person who last
headed the CIA just prior to the new Director, John Deutch, the then
Acting Director
[[Page
S 11233]]
of the Central Intelligence Agency, Admiral William Studeman, made this
point just a few months ago. He said,
Our understanding of North Korea's earlier Scud development
leads us to believe that it is unlikely Pyongyang could
deploy Taepo-Dong I or Taepo-Dong II missiles before 3 to 5
years. However, if Pyongyang has foreshortened its
development program, we could see these missiles earlier.
What the acting CIA Director was saying is that they probably will
not have this missile that could reach the United States for 3 to 5
years.
Well, we cannot develop this system within 3 to 5 years. The bill
calls for some kind of a deployment, hopefully, by 1999. That is within
the timeframe that the CIA Director acknowledges the Taepo-Dong II
missile could be developed.
Now, what about the current CIA director? John Deutch said last year,
``If the North Koreans field that Taepo-Dong II missile, Guam, Alaska,
and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.''
The point here is that North Korea, a belligerent state over whom we
have virtually no negotiating control, no diplomatic control, is
developing a weapon which the CIA says could potentially reach United
States territory in 3 to 5 years.
If the 3 years is correct, we cannot possibly have anything deployed
in time to meet that threat. Even if it is just used to blackmail us,
it is a tremendous threat. For those who say that there is no threat
here, the facts do not bear them out. The intelligence estimates do not
bear them out.
The other side of this argument is, well, there are other threats.
There could be a suitcase bomb. There is a cruise missile threat, and
of course the answer is yes, that is true. We are doing everything we
can to meet those threats as well.
It is a fallacy of logic to suggest that because there is some other
threat that, therefore, this is not a threat. That is the logic of the
Senator from North Dakota. Well, somebody might bring a suitcase bomb
over.
Well, we are working that problem very hard. The last three CIA
Directors have said that their primary concern is the proliferation of
these weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that can deliver
them.
As a matter of fact, there has not been a suitcase nuclear bomb
explode, but there have been missiles launched against U.S. forces. As
a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, fully 20 percent of our
casualties in the Persian Gulf were as a result of a Scud missile. We
did not have an adequate protection against the Scud missile.
We at least had the Patriot over there. We have nothing to protect
the people in the United States. I think the CIA Directors are a pretty
good source for the proposition that there is a potential threat out
there, and we will be lucky to be able to deploy a system in time to
meet that threat, if their statistics are correct.
Now, just one quick final point on the threat. The Senator from North
Dakota suggests that the triad is actually adequate here, but the same
Secretary of Defense that he is so fond of relying on has made it clear
that mutual assured destruction, the threat that we retaliate with
nuclear weapons against Iraq or some other country, is just not
credible.
As Secretary Perry said on March 8 of this year,
The bad news is that in this era, deterrence may not
provide even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We
may be facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic
missiles and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future,
and they may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they
may be madder than MAD.
And the M-A-D that he is referring to is the mutual assured
destruction doctrine, which the Secretary is saying is madness today.
That doctrine no longer works. We need a defense, not just the threat
of massive retaliation to prevent countries from launching missiles
against the United States.
Finally, let us talk about the amount here. First of all, as the
Senator from Mississippi pointed out earlier, the amount that is in the
Senate bill this year is less than the Clinton administration requested
last year in their 5-year budget. So in the 5-year plan the
administration sent up here last year, they were asking for more money
for this program than the committee has asked for this year. It is a
matter of timing, of when you spend the money. As I think I have
pointed out, even with this amount of money we will be lucky to be able
to field something that is effective by the time the threat is upon us.
Second, there is a suggestion here that the Secretary does not want
this because he has not asked for it. Obviously, we are all aware of
the politics within the Pentagon and the administration and not asking
for it is not the same as not wanting it. You will note in the letter
from the Secretary, nowhere does he say: Do not send us this $300
million, I do not want it and I will not spend it if you send it to me.
As a matter of fact, his spokesman on this issue, Gen. Malcolm O'Neill,
before the House committee just a few weeks ago, was asked if he could
spend this money, and here is what he said:
I have reviewed the BMD program, the impact of last year's
budget reductions and the schedule of several key programs in
order to recommend where additional resources could be best
applied.
Remember, the House is talking about $400 million in additional
resources. And he says:
These funds could be effectively used in several key BMD
programs to accelerate development efforts, preserve early
development options for a national missile defense system,
and to protect current theater missile defense system
acquisition schedules.
In other words, the expert in this area, the head of the program,
Gen. Mal O'Neill, made it clear to the House of Representatives if he
had this extra money he could effectively use it. I understand the
administration position is against this. We all understand that. But it
is not common sense when you recognize the speed with which this threat
could be upon us and the ability we have to develop a system that could
defend us.
When I say it is not common sense, I do not mean to denigrate the
Secretary of Defense. He is a fine public servant and is very concerned
about the future of our country. But reasonable people can differ about
the speed with which we ought to get on with this effort and the
priority of spending this money. I submit the weight of evidence from
the Central Intelligence Agency and from the other people who have
spoken on the issue is, we better get about this task right away.
The final point with regard to the money is that while we could be
spending this money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy
Assistance--of course we could. But what is more important, defending
American lives or summer youth programs? We have to set priorities
around here. I submit, if a missile were launched against the State of
Hawaii or the State of Alaska, every one of us on this floor would be
denouncing the act and would be asking why that was allowed to happen?
Who sat by while this threat emerged? Who allowed this threat to evolve
to the point we could not defend our own citizens from a missile
attack? Those would be the questions asked on this floor.
Today that question can be answered because those people who seek to
cut these funds out of the committee bill will be the people
responsible for us not having a system at the time that the CIA
believes we are going to need to have it. That is the question before
the body. Do we go along with the leadership? Do we go along with the
committee, which is the body of expertise on this? Do we go along with
the Central Intelligence estimates, and do we go along to fund this
program to at least get us on a path to develop and deploy a system in
the time we need it? Or do we take the risk and roll the dice, spend
the money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy Assistance
or the like?
I submit the decision today is that we should go along with the
committee's request here, support the committee and vote down the
Dorgan amendment which would cut the $300 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield a minute to myself before I
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
I might say if ever there is an Olympic event called side stepping, I
have seen this morning several candidates for gold medals.
Let us not be confused about what the Secretary of Defense has said.
Here is a letter he sent last week. It says this:
[[Page
S 11234]]
The bill's provisions would add nothing to DOD's ability to
pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly
cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.
That is not a letter from a Secretary who is undecided about whether
this is good policy or not. The Senator from Arizona says he just has
not asked us. The Senator says that of course, the Secretary would like
to get it this additional money.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. This letter says he does not want it. He thinks it adds
excess costs and additional security risks to this country. So let us
not be confused about the message from the Secretary of Defense. He is
clear on this issue.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas. I will be
happy to yield momentarily for a question.
Mr. KYL. Briefly, can the Senator point anywhere in that letter where
he is referring to this $300 million? He is referring generally to this
bill, not to this $300 million.
Mr. DORGAN. In fact, he specifically refers to this $300 million in
this program, I say to the Senator from Arizona, in the following part
of this paragraph. I read it once before and I am not going to read it
again for you.
The point is, he is talking about developing specific national
missile defense for interim operational capability in 1999 and for full
deployment in 2003. That is exactly and specifically the program we are
now debating. If the Senator is asking, was the Secretary talking about
this issue, the answer is clearly, unequivocally, yes, that is exactly
what the Secretary was talking about in this letter.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding, and
thank him for his leadership in support of the defense of the United
States of America.
I am very pleased that this amendment has been offered. I oppose it,
vehemently and strongly oppose it, but I am glad it has been offered
because it gives the American people a chance once and for all to see
just exactly what this debate is all about and who stands for what.
The Dorgan amendment would leave the American people completely
vulnerable to ballistic missile threats, completely vulnerable. It says
to our constituents, it is OK to protect Israel, protect France,
protect Germany, protect Italy, protect our allies, but not our folks
at home. Do not protect them.
The armed services bill, on the other hand, establishes a program to
defend all Americans, regardless of where they live, against a limited
ballistic missile attack. For the life of me, I do not understand how
anyone could use the argument it is OK to protect somebody in one area
of the country and not in another area of the country. How can one do
that and keep a straight face?
The Clinton program and the Dorgan amendment leaves the United States
hostage, completely, to the likes of Kim Jong Il and the Pyongyang
Communists. The intelligence community has suggested that North Korea
may well deploy an ICBM capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii within 5
years, and some talk maybe even as far as San Francisco in a very short
period of time, but the Senator from North Dakota thinks it is wrong
for us to defend these American citizens?
If the Senator disagrees with this assessment, let us look at the
statement of the recently confirmed Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, John Deutch. Dr. Deutch stated,
If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong II missile, Guam,
Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.
This is a serious, serious problem. The issue really boils down to
this. Twenty nations have acquired or are acquiring weapons of mass
destruction and the capability to deliver them, Iran, Syria, North
Korea, Libya, China, to name a few. That ought to put the fear of God
in us--just that, just thinking about those nations. And at least 24,
some of the same ones I just mentioned, have chemical weapons. And
approximately 10 more are believed to have biological weapons. And at
least 10 countries are reportedly interested in development of nuclear
weapons.
The international export control regime is failing to prevent the
spread of these technologies. They are being spread all over the world,
this missile technology, biological, chemical, nuclear, and the
capability to deliver them.
The Armed Services Committee, under the strong leadership of Senator
Strom Thurmond, recognizes that fact. This is a far-reaching,
farsighted, looking-ahead attempt to protect the United States of
America and its citizens in the outyears. You have to be thinking about
that today, not 50 years from now, because 50 years from now it will be
too late. You think about it today, and that is what the Senator from
South Carolina has done. Under his leadership we have provided, in the
Armed Services Committee, the opportunity to protect our citizens.
The Dorgan amendment would say that the continental United States,
Alaska, and Hawaii, are absolutely vulnerable to these threats. The
reckless leaders of North Korea, Syria, Libya, and others basically
have free access to our citizens. The choice is simple, really; really
simple. If you believe the American people should be protected against
limited accidental or intentional missile attacks--take your choice--
you should support the Armed Services Committee bill.
That is why we are on the committee. That is why we delve into these
matters in great detail. That is our specialty. That is what we are
there for, to understand these things and to present options to the
full Senate. But if you believe the American people should not be
defended and should be completely vulnerable, then you vote for the
Dorgan amendment.
It is ironic--and tragically ironic, frankly--that those who oppose
defending the American people hide behind the fig leaf of the cold war.
The cold war is over. And the technology and the philosophy that we use
to defend against it is also over. We do not have mutual assured
destruction anymore. We do not have a bipolar world anymore. These
people are not rational. Does anybody think Saddam Hussein is rational?
Would Saddam Hussein have used a nuclear missile in the Persian Gulf
war if he had the opportunity? You bet he would. He just does not have
it.
We do not have the capability to protect against this. It is very
interesting that focus groups have been held where we call a few people
into the room and interview them. We asked them, ``What would you do if
somebody fired a missile at the United States?'' In this group,
American citizens were put together in a room and they were asked,
``What would you do if someone fired a missile at the United States of
America?'' And every single one of those people said, ``We would shoot
it down.'' Guess what? We do not have the capability to shoot it down,
Mr. President. This amendment will make sure we do not have the
capability to shoot it down until it is too late.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat this very irresponsible amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I want everyone to
understand that the President's request already has $371 million in the
bill for a national ballistic missile defense system. The committee
added $300 million. So now we have $671 million, almost doubling what
the Pentagon requested. The Senator from North Dakota very sensibly and
wisely is trying to strike out the extra money. I hear people on that
side of the aisle saying, ``We are not trying to abrogate the ABM
Treaty. This does not abrogate the ABM Treaty.'' Really?
Here is what the ABM Treaty says:
Each party shall be limited at any one time to a single
area out of the two provided in Article III of the treaty for
deployment of antiballistic missile systems or their
components. . . .
English is the mother tongue. If you speak English, you understand
the word ``single.'' It means one. Our one site is now in North Dakota.
[[Page
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(Senate - August 03, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S11227-S11321]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of
S. 1026, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (
S. 1026) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is recognized to offer an amendment on which
there shall be 90 minutes for debate equally divided.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from North
Dakota? The Senator from Nebraska has been attempting to make an
opening statement with regard to the measure before us. I am wondering,
after the Senator from North Dakota has made the presentation under the
unanimous-consent agreement, if both sides would agree to the Senator
from Nebraska having 10 minutes for an opening statement on the overall
measure without being charged to the time under the control by the
majority or the minority.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from
Nebraska, I have no objection. But my understanding is that the 9 to
10:30 time period for this amendment would result in a vote at 10:30,
and there are some leadership obligations that require that vote to
occur at 10:30, and by unanimous consent we have limited debate to an
hour and a half, 45 minutes to each side, on the amendment.
It might be the case that the Senator should give an opening
presentation immediately after the vote at 10:30.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator. That does not happen to agree with the
schedule of the Senator from Nebraska. But I will try again.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I might say that I have no objection. But
my understanding is that the 10:30 vote must occur at 10:30 because of
some leadership obligations by previous agreement.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert
Russell, a fellow on detail from the Department of Energy, be allowed
floor privileges during the debate of
S. 1026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2087
(Purpose: To reduce the amount authorized to be appropriated under
Title II for national missile defense)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
Mr. Bradley, Mr. Leahy,
[[Page
S 11228]]
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment
numbered 2087.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 32, strike out line 14 and insert in lieu thereof
the following` ``$9,233,148,000, of which--
``(A) not more than $357,900,000 is authorized to implement
the national missile defense policy established in section
233(2);''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have by unanimous consent a time
agreement on this amendment, I understand 45 minutes to each side. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, let me begin to describe this amendment. It is
painfully simple. There was $300 million added to the defense
authorization bill by the Armed Services Committee for something that
this country does not need and that the Secretary of Defense says he
does not want. The proposal that I lay before the Senate is to take the
$300 million back out.
This, it seems to me, is a very symbolic issue. The $300 million is
to build a national missile defense system with instructions it be done
on a priority or accelerated basis so that the deployment begins in
1999. Some said yesterday, well, this has nothing to do with star wars.
And, of course, that is not true at all. This is, in fact, national
missile defense, which includes a star wars component. It is the
building of missiles in order to create some sort of astrodome over our
country to block incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.
It is the revival of a proposal offered in the early 1980's by then
President Ronald Reagan. Of course, times were different then. The
Soviet Union existed. We had a cold war that was in full force. We had
an active adversary and a real threat. Times have changed. Now we have
the dismantling and destruction of intercontinental ballistic missiles
in Russia. And, paradoxically, we are helping pay the bill to destroy
those missiles.
It is an irony that does not escape me this morning that the same
people who proposed $300 million in additional spending this year as
part of what will eventually be a $48 billion new project are also
saying they want to cut back on our contribution to help the Soviets
dismantle and destroy their intercontinental ballistic missiles. If
ever there is a disconnection, it seems to me it is in that logic.
To call this $300 million--or what eventually will be a $40 billion
program--``pork'' is I think unfair to pigs. Hogs carry around a little
meat. This in my judgment is pure, unadulterated lard.
I want to describe this proposal in the context of what the Secretary
of Defense has said. I am reading from a letter from the Secretary to
Senator Nunn:
This bill will direct the development for deployment by
2003 [incidentally, the early deployment by 1999] of a
multiple site system for national missile defense that, if
deployed, would be a clear violation of the ABM Treaty. The
bill would severely strain U.S.-Russian relations and would
threaten continued Russian implementation of the START I
Treaty and further Russian consideration of the START II
Treaty. These two treaties will eliminate strategic launchers
carrying two-thirds of the nuclear warheads that confronted
the Nation during the cold war.
That is a statement of current administration policy.
S. 1026 would authorize appropriations for defense programs
that exceed by approximately $7 billion the administration's
FY 1996 request.
A $7 billion increase, this from folks who say they are opposed to
the Federal deficit.
Here is what the committee says:
The committee recognizes that deploying a multiple site NMD
system by 2003 will require significant investments in the
outyears.
And, incidentally, the Congressional Budget Office says anywhere from
$30 to $40 billion. But the committee avoids the issue. The committee:
. . . directs the Secretary of Defense to budget
accordingly.
This is very interesting. The Armed Services Committee says we are
going to build this. Here is $300 million you do not want to build
something we do not need, and it is going to cost $48 billion, and we
say to you, Mr. Secretary of Defense, ``budget accordingly.''
It does not say where he should get the money. It does not say they
are going to raise taxes to pay for it. It says to the Secretary of
Defense, budget accordingly.
Well, we all understand what that means. That means that the warriors
who fight so hard rhetorically to reduce the Federal budget deficit are
now wallflowers who decide they want to use the taxpayers' credit card
to go out and purchase a $48 billion national ballistic missile program
that this country does not need and cannot afford.
It seems to me we ought to ask two questions about these kinds of
proposals when they come to us. One is, do we need it? And the second
is, can we afford it?
On the first question, do we need it, do we need the $300 million
added to this budget, the Secretary of Defense says no.
Can we afford it? Even if we do not need it, can we afford it? Does
anybody in this room, living in a country that is up to its neck in
debt, with annual yearly deficits that are still alarming and a Federal
debt approaching $5 trillion, believe we can afford something we do not
need?
I am going to talk some about the system itself, but first I wish to
talk about the irony of being here in the Chamber at a time when we are
told repeatedly, week after week after week, that we do not have enough
money. We are told we do not have enough money to fully fund the
programs to be able to send kids to college. So we are going to budget
in a way that is going to make it harder for families to send their
kids to college because we have to tighten our belt. We are told that
we cannot afford to provide an entitlement that a poor child should
have a hot lunch at school in the middle of the day because we must
tighten our belt. We are told health care is too expensive and so we
must cut $270 billion from Medicare and a substantial amount from
Medicaid because we must tighten our belt.
So for the American family, the message is tighten your belt on
things like education, health care, nutrition. But when it comes to
security, we are told it is not time to tighten our belt; let us get
the wish lists out and let us get the American taxpayers' checkbook
out--or the credit card more likely--and let us decide to build a
project that the Secretary of Defense says he does not want money for
at this point.
Let me talk about the project itself.
This bill provides research and development funds in order to
accelerate the deployment of a national missile defense system. The
administration requested $371 million for its ongoing research and
development program. The Armed Services Committee says that is not good
enough for us. The committee wants $300 million more added to the
request because it wants to deploy the system in four years. The
committee is telling the Defense Department to build it. They are
saying that it does not matter to us what you think; it does not matter
to us whether you think we need it. We insist you build it.
I come from a State where the only antiballistic missile system in
the free world was built. It was built in the late 1960's and early
1970's. Less than 30 days after it was declared operational, it was
mothballed. In other words, in the same month that it was declared
fully operational it was also mothballed.
It is anticipated, because of our Nation's geography, that one of the
sites in a multiple site national missile defense system would be in
North Dakota. There would likely be one North Dakota site. And I
suppose some would say, well, that means jobs in your State; you ought
to support this.
I do not think it makes sense to support a defense initiative of this
type especially at this time in our country's history if you measure it
with the yardstick of a jobs program. Yes, this might include some jobs
in North Dakota, but it also will include the commitment and the
prospect of taking $40 billion from the American taxpayers to build a
project we do not need, with money we do not have, at a time when we
are telling a lot of Americans that we cannot make investments in human
potential for the future of this country.
There is an ancient Chinese saying:
If you are planning for a year, plant rice; if you are
planning for 10 years, plant trees; if you are planning for
100 years, plant men.
[[Page
S 11229]]
I take ``plant men'' to mean ``educate your children.''
In this Chamber, we appropriately say that we have big financial
problems. We are choking on debt and must do something about it. We
have a lot of folks who talk a lot about it, gnash their teeth, who
wring their hands, and act like warriors on deficit reduction--until it
comes time for a bill like this. And then they say to us, boy, we have
threats; we have threats from North Korea; we have threats from Libya;
we have threats from Iraq.
What do those threats suggest we should do? What we should do is,
under the aegis of reform--which is the wrong ``re'' word; the real
``re'' word is not ``reform''; it is ``retread''--is resurrect and dust
off a proposal coming from the early 1980's, a cold war relic to build
a national missile defense system to put an umbrella over America to
protect against incoming missiles from some renegade country. Far more
important, in my judgment, is the threat from a suitcase bomb
somewhere; you start worrying about a nuclear device hauled in the
trunk of a car and parked at a dock in New York City; you start
worrying about a canister 3 inches high of deadly biological weapons.
That is far more likely a threat to this country than a terrorist
getting ahold of an intercontinental ballistic missile and attempting
to blackmail America.
Mr. President, I am most anxious to hear those who defend this kind
of spending on projects that are, in my judgment, worthless. So let me
at this point yield the floor and listen and then respond to some of
what I hear. I hope maybe the Senate, voting on this today, will decide
that it ought not spend $300 million we do not have on something the
Secretary of Defense says we do not need. That would seem to me to send
a powerful signal to the American people who in this body is serious
about the issue of the Federal deficit.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my time.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Dorgan amendment. The Armed Services Committee has taken a hard look at
the ballistic missile defense programs and concluded that an increase
of $300 million is warranted--indeed, badly needed. If the United
States is to ever be defended against even the most limited ballistic
missile threats, we must begin now.
The administration's program for national missile defense is simply
inadequate. And in my view, the ballistic missile threat facing the
United States is significant and growing. This threat clearly justifies
an accelerated effort to develop and deploy highly effective theater
and national missile defenses. In the bill now before the Senate we
have done just this. The Missile Defense Act is a responsible and
measured piece of legislation that responds to a growing threat to
American national security.
There have been many arguments raised in opposition to the Missile
Defense Act of 1995. These are either false or seriously exaggerated.
Let me address three of the main objections that have been mentioned
repeatedly.
First, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 does not signal a return to
star wars. It advocates modest and affordable programs that are
technically low risk.
Second, it does not violate or advocate violation of the ABM Treaty.
The means to implement the policies and goals outlined in the Missile
Defense Act of 1995 are contained in the ABM Treaty itself.
Finally, the policies and goals contained in the Missile Defense Act
of 1995 will not undermine START II or other arms control agreements.
Russia has repeatedly agreed in the past that deployment of a limited
national missile defense system is not inconsistent with deterrence and
stability. The United States must not allow critical national security
programs to be held hostage to other issues when there is no
substantive or logical linkage between them.
Mr. President, I therefore would conclude by urging my colleagues to
oppose the amendment by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
This amendment would undermine a critical defense requirement and
further perpetuate the vulnerability of the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment.
I would like to begin with a quote from Secretary Perry in this general
area now, that we have entered the post-cold war time. Secretary Perry
is quoted as saying:
The bad news is that in this era deterrence may not provide
even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We may be
facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic missiles
and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future. And they
may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they may be
madder than MAD.
MAD, mutually assured destruction.
Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate that there are those who
seem to think that the American people should not be defended against
the one military threat which holds them at risk in their homes on a
daily basis. Simply stated, this amendment seeks to perpetuate what
many believe is truly an American vulnerability.
Yesterday there were only five Senators who opposed a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that the American people should be defended against
accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack. Today the
Senator from North Dakota is attempting to cut $300 million from
national missile defense to ensure that American cities will in effect
remain undefended without this additional funding.
Senators yesterday voted in favor of defending the American people in
this new era that we are in. So today all Senators will have an
opportunity to demonstrate whether or not they are serious about a
national defense. If you believe, as the Senator from North Dakota so
honestly does, and has stated, that the United States should not be
defended against this particular potential for ballistic missile
attack, then support the amendment. But if you believe that the time
has come to get on with national missile defense, you should oppose
this amendment.
We have heard quite a bit about how there is no threat and how
investment in national missile defense is a waste of money. Let us
remember that more Americans died in the Persian Gulf war as a result
of one missile than any other single cause. I do not imagine that the
families of these victims would view missile defense investments as a
waste.
The argument that there is no threat to justify the deployment of a
national missile defense system I think is strategically shortsighted
and technically incorrect. Even if we get started today, by the time we
develop and deploy an NMD system we will almost certainly face new
ballistic missile threats to the United States. Unfortunately, it will
take almost 10 years to develop and deploy even a limited system.
Much has been made of the intelligence community's estimate that no
new threat to the United States will develop for 10 years. But the
intelligence community has confirmed that there are numerous ways for
hostile countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in
much less than 10 years by other than indigenous development. I would
point out the same intelligence has also prepared a chart that has been
displayed on the Senate floor showing the North Korean missile
programs, including the Taepo Dong II ICBM, which DIA says could be
operational in 5 years.
We see the size and the capability of destructive ability of these
various missiles. You have got the Scud-B, the Scud-C, the No Dong, the
Taepo Dong I and II. And these have not been tested. But it is very
capable for them to do that, the North Koreans to do that. And it is
estimated that they could go to this biggest one, which would be well
over the 1,000 kilometers, in 5 years or maybe less. And in developing
this system North Korea has demonstrated to the world that an ICBM
capability can emerge rapidly and relatively with little notice.
Nobody knows with certainty what the range of this potential new
missile would be. But we do know that it is approximately the size of
the Minuteman ICBM.
Even if we knew with certainty that no new threat would materialize
for 10 years there would still be a strong case for developing and
deploying a national
[[Page
S 11230]]
defense system. Developing an NMD system would serve to deter countries
that would seek to acquire otherwise ICBM capability. A vulnerable
United States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even
aggression.
It has also been argued that the administration's NMD program costs
less than the one proposed in the defense authorization bill. Well, I
guess that is right. It usually does cost more to actually do something
about a problem than nothing, which is precisely what the
administration's program will do, I fear--nothing at all. They request
money. And they have requested almost $400 million this year. And yet
it is not enough to actually get the job done. The administration's
program has no deployment goal in sight. In effect, you know, it wastes
almost $400 million per year on a program designed never to achieve a
specific end. In my view, if we are not going to actually deploy
something we ought to take the rest of the NMD money and spend it on
something that will defend America.
The Senator from North Dakota has stated that the system we want to
build will cost $40 billion. But by the administration's own charts, it
states that it would cost less than $25 billion, including a full
space-based sensor constellation. How does this compare to the cost of
the F-22, the B-2 or other major new systems? I think it is a pretty
good investment relative to virtually anything else that DOD is
developing. What good does it do to be able to project power overseas
with modern and sophisticated weapons if we cannot secure our families
at home? Remember what we are talking about here.
It is not an insignificant amount, an additional $300 million
approximately, but you are talking about the cost of three or four
airplanes. You are talking about offensive weaponry, three or four
airplanes. We can move toward the ability to develop and deploy this
system.
One other chart I would like to refer to with regard to the national
missile defense program. The Bottom-Up Review just, I guess, 2 years
ago, projected the expenditures at this level for the national missile
defense. The administration fiscal year 1995 request was as you see up
to about, I believe it indicated about $500 million. And then in the
fiscal year 1996 it dropped down, and what this bill actually does is
basically a very small increase over what the administration's fiscal
year 1995 request was. So, talking about just enough increase to move
toward actual development and the ability to deploy within 10 years.
So this is a good-sense approach. It is one based on what the
administration had projected in its Bottom-Up Review and what it asked
for in 1995.
For those who argue that the Senate Armed Services Committee is
throwing money at ballistic missile defense, I point out that the
amount of this bill for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is
$136 million lower than the Clinton administration's own Bottom-Up
Review recommended for fiscal year 1996. It is also less than the
administration's own budget forecast in last year's plan.
All four of the defense committees in Congress have increased funding
for the national missile defense. In fact, the Senate Armed Services
Committee and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have
recommended a smaller increase than the House committees have. The
House has recommended an increase of $450 million.
In response to those who say the administration did not request this
increase, I point out the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has
made it clear on many occasions and with the administration's, I think,
tacit approval, that if more money was made available for ballistic
missile programs that they would want to spend $400 million on the
national missile defense program.
The bottom line is simple. If you think that the American people
should not be defended against ballistic missiles, then go ahead and
support this amendment. If you think that the time has come to do
something about an ever-increasing threat in this post-cold-war era,
then vote against this amendment.
I strongly urge my colleagues to put themselves on the side of
defending the American people at a very reasonable cost.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time.
I was listening intently to the Senator from Mississippi. I was glad
he brought that up because the Senator from North Dakota has said over
and over and over again that this is a $40 billion program for the
future. I think it has to be clarified, and yet after we clarify it, I
suggest the Senator from North Dakota will continue to use $40 billion.
This is just not true.
The Senator from Mississippi talked about, according to the figures
of the administration, it was $24.2 billion. But I suggest that
includes the SMTS program, Brilliant Eyes, which is funded separately,
which can be taken off. It is closer to $18 billion.
We do have an investment today in the program of $38 billion. Some
people estimate it is more than that. Let us be conservative and say
$38 billion in what we call the SDI program, which some people like to
continue to use star wars to try to make the public of this country
believe that this is some fantasy, that it is not real. It is not
something we are handling today.
The SDI program, we feel, helped end the cold war by 5 years. What
kind of a value can we put on that? In fact, the Russian Ambassador to
the United States, Vladimir Lukin, stated that if it had not been for
SDI, the cold war would have gone on for 5 additional years.
The SDI program and its research led to systems, not fantasies, but
systems in place today, such as the Aegis system, cruisers and
destroyers, kinetic energy programs, the hit-to-kill technologies which
are used in the THAAD, the PAC-3, the Navy upper-tier defense systems.
These are not star wars; these are technologies. They are on line
today.
All we are trying to do is say that in 5 years from now, where many
in the intelligence community say we are going to be threatened by
perhaps North Korea or other technology that will reach the United
States--and this is something that most of the intelligence community
agrees with--we want to do something today that will be within the
confines of the ABM Treaty. We talked about that before. This is as
much as we can do to reach the point so that 5 years from today, we are
going to be able to defend the United States against missile attacks.
The Senator from North Dakota refers over and over again to the
suitcase bombs, to the ships and vans that deliver weapons. And on that
case, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota, I think he is right.
But we are already taking care of that. We are already working on that
program.
The Senator from North Dakota talks about intelligence estimates. I
asked yesterday on this floor, what if we are wrong, what if those
intelligence estimates he is saying where the threat is not there for
10 more years, what if we are right and it i
s 5 more years? What if he
is wrong? Look back to 1940 and Pearl Harbor. At that time our
estimates were wrong; North Korea in 1950, or more recently, Iraq in
1990. Our intelligence was wrong at that time.
The Senator relies on the cold war mutually assured destruction
program embodied in the triad of missile submarines, land-based
missiles and bombers, but we had all these thing
s 5 years ago, and that
did not deter Saddam Hussein from using Scud missiles.
When the Senator points out that the administration says that $300
million to defend Americans from attack is not in our interest, he
ignores the fact that just 3 months ago, the director of the Pentagon's
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, with the administration's
blessing, said that they could spend $500 million more. That is $200
million more than the additional amount we are trying to put on that we
did put on in the Senate Armed Services Committee and our counterparts
in the other body to reach a system that would defend America.
The Senator from North Dakota is also citing the administration
supposedly defended our interests last year by spending $2 billion. We
are doing a lot of talking now about $300
[[Page
S 11231]]
million. What about the $2 billion that we spent for humanitarian
missions that, by their own admission, in the Senate Armed Services
Committee, by the Secretary of Defense were really not to our vital
national security interests.
I am talking about Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia and Rwanda. We are
spending all this money. We are sending our troops all the way around
the world to defend violations of human rights. Certainly, I am not
insensitive to the ethnic cleansing that is going on and all these
human rights violations. But we are spending huge amounts for that. I
disagree with the foreign policy of the administration, and I do not
think we should be doing it. But if we are doing it, that is $2
billion, and we are talking $300 million right now to keep this on line
to be able to defend this country 5 years from now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator'
s 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield 2
additional minutes?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I grant him 2 more minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Mr. President, I must express my amazement with
the priorities of the Senator from North Dakota. He wants to cut $300
million from the missile defense. He says we have higher domestic
priorities. We heard about the nutrition programs, we heard about all
these social programs that seem to, in his mind, have a higher
priority.
I suggest to you that this $300 million is a relatively small amount
of money. The one bomb in Oklahoma City that wiped out the Murrah
Federal Building cost the taxpayers $500 million--one bomb.
I suggest if the Senator from North Dakota could have stood with me
in Oklahoma City on April 19, April 20, April 21, when they are sending
troops and volunteers into this building to pull out people who might
be alive in there, the hope was there that more would be alive, then
the fourth day came and the smell of death had enveloped the city, if
you could have been there, and what was going through my mind was, this
is just one building in one city, one missile could come in there and
wipe out every building in the city of Oklahoma City, in the city of
Sioux Falls, SD, in Bismarck, ND, in New York City, could wipe out the
entire thing.
Multiply that one thing, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
by 100, by 1,000. That is the threat that is out there. That is the
threat that can reach, according to many in the intelligence community,
this country within 5 years. We have to be ready for that. This should
be the highest priority. We are elected to defend America. That is
exactly what this is about today.
So, Mr. President, in the strongest of terms, I say this is the
minimum that we can do to keep on force, to have a national missile
defense system in place in 5 years when the threat is very real.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative, reported by the Armed
Services Committee, puts our Nation on the right track to address the
growing missile threat to our country.
In the defense appropriations bill, which was reported last week, we
fully supported every element of that plan, and I congratulate Senators
Thurmond, Lott, and others who worked with them on this plan.
Every intelligence assessment available to the Congress indicates
that the threat posed to U.S. military forces is growing from ballistic
missiles, as is the threat to the United States itself.
There can be no greater imperative, as we allocate funding for
research and development for future systems, than to develop and deploy
an effective national missile defense system.
This matter has special significance to every citizen of my State of
Alaska. Already, North Korea is developing missiles that could attack
the military installations in Alaska.
Alaska-based F-15's, F-16's, and OA-10 aircraft will be the first to
respond to any attack on South Korea. On that basis, we are a target
for North Korea.
The distinguished Senator from North Dakota may be confident that his
State will not face that threat in coming years, and I share that
confidence. Our country was lucky in the gulf war. The ingenuity and
technical creativeness ensured that we had some minimal capacity to
respond to the Iraqi Scud missile threat.
We cannot, and must not, rely on luck to be ready to face the risk of
missile launches against my State and against the United States in
total. We must make the investment now to have ready a system to
deploy, if that is the decision of the President and Congress.
The additional funds proposed for authorization and appropriation for
national missile defense is a reasonable and affordable start for this
program.
I am here to urge all Members to support this initiative. I do so as
a Senator from a State that is seriously threatened today, and I
believe the funding authorized by this bill, already included in the
defense appropriations bill, is the proper way to start.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume to
myself.
Mr. President, statements have been made that my position is I do not
want to defend America's cities against a very real threat--total
nonsense; absolute nonsense.
My position is that we should not be spending money we do not have on
something the Secretary of Defense says we do not need. Let me read
from a letter from Secretary of Defense William Perry to Senator Nunn:
The bill's provision would add nothing to DOD's ability to
pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly
cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.
The bill would require the United States to make a decision
now on developing a specific national missile defense for
deployment by 2003, with interim operational capability in
1999, despite the fact that a balanced strategic missile
threat has not emerged. Our national missile defense program
is designed to give us the capability for a deployment
decision in 3 years, when we will be in a much better
position to assess the threat and deploy the most
technologically advanced system available, if they think it
is needed.
This is not a case of somebody deciding we do not want to protect
America's cities. It is a case of saying we do not want to spend $300
million that the Secretary of Defense says we do not need to spend.
Let me respond to a couple of other things that have been said. This
is not about just $300 million. It is about $48 billion, according to
the Congresional Budget Office. I ask all the Senators who spoke here,
where are you going to get that money? You suggest that the Secretary
of Defense budget for it. I ask you, are you going to charge it? And
are you going to tax people for it? Where are you going to get the
money? Do you want to advance a notion now that you want to build a $50
billion new system, which by the way does, indeed, include star wars,
as page 59 of the bill says? I ask you, where are you going to get the
money for it?
Let me say to you, as well, that when you talk about the threat from
an intercontinental ballistic missile, as you have all talked about,
you understand and I understand--I have some material that I will not
read from on the floor, but it is material from Nobel laureates, from
veterans of the Manhattan project and from physicists who are experts
in this field, all of whom agree--and I think you would agree--that a
threat from a renegade country is far more likely as a result of a
cruise missile, which cannot be defended against by this system, than
it is from an intercontinental ballistic missile. A cruise missile is
easier to build and cheaper to build and more likely for them to get.
I ask you this question, if you are worried about protecting
America's cities: If you finished spending $48 billion to defend
against ballistic missiles, then tell me how that system defends
America's cities against the far more likely threat of cruise missiles.
The fact is that by building a national ballistic missile defense you
have done nothing to defend against a cruise missile attack on American
cities.
That is the point. The point here is that this is a weapons program
with a constituency. Like all weapons programs, it does not matter what
the climate is--it can be rain, snow, wind, or
[[Page
S 11232]]
sleet; you can have a Soviet Union or not, and it could be 1983 or
1995--this weapons program has legs. It has jobs and it has
constituencies. This is out of step, makes no sense, and yet we see on
the floor of the Senate folks who come here and say, well, let us, this
year, stick $300 million more in this program than was asked for and
than is needed. Why? Because we want to defend America's cities.
Against what? Against a threat which the Secretary of Defense says does
not exist, and Nobel laureates and veterans of the Manhattan project
say does not exist.
If you are so all-fired worried about threats, let us focus on the
threats that the Nation will really face.
One additional thing. I think the Senator from Oklahoma makes the
point that I have been trying to make this morning when he talks about
the tragic bombing of Oklahoma City. It is not an intercontinental
ballistic missile with all of its sophisticated targeting that is the
likely way to attack against America. It is far more likely to be a
rental truck, a suitcase, a glass vial, a single-engine airplane. I
think the Senator from Oklahoma made the point I was trying to make.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I will not yield on my time.
Mr. INHOFE. I would like to respond to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would give time, I am happy to answer
questions. But we have 45 minutes equally divided.
I will at this time reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that 5
minutes is not a lot of time to make the case. But I am in strong
support of the Dorgan amendment for a number of reasons. First of all,
I will talk policy, and then I will talk budget. There is no
significant long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States
now or in the immediate future. The head of the DIA stated:
We see no interest in or capability of any new country
reaching the continental United States with a long-range
missile for at least the next decade.
Mr. President, the national missile defense provides no defense
against the most likely future attacks on the United States, which will
not be delivered by missiles. We have seen that clearly in a tragic way
at the World Trade Center, the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and
the subway in Tokyo.
Mr. President, there are many arguments I could make about this
impossible dream. But let me just put it in a slightly broader context.
We have out here a bill that requests $7 billion more than the Pentagon
says it needs. We have out here with star wars a request for $300
million more than the Pentagon says it wants to spend or needs to
spend.
Mr. President, I think this amendment is about more than star wars.
It is about priorities. And if you look at requests for Head Start, it
is $3.9 billion, but the total cost of the next aircraft carrier, the
CVN-78, is $4.6 billion.
If you look at requests for police officers, housing, childhood
immunization, alongside star wars, the B-2, Pentagon budget, $7 billion
more in this bill than requested by the Pentagon itself, of the kind of
stories that are now coming out, Mr. President, about a variety of
different pork projects, all across the country, we have to ask
ourselves the question, what are we doing here?
I was on the floor of the Senate not too long ago, saying why are we
eliminating low-income energy assistance? I was talking about the poor
in the cold-weather State of Minnesota. We also could talk about
cooling assistance. This was during the time where we read that 450
people died, many elderly and poor.
On the one hand, we cut low-income energy assistance, we cut
education programs, we cut job programs, we cut all sorts of nutrition
programs, we are not investing in our children, and we have here a bill
that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs for our
national defense.
Now we have--for this impossible dream, many independent people
arguing it never will work anyway--a request for an additional $300
million.
Mr. President, the real national security for our country is not for
star wars in space. It is to feed children and educate children and
provide safety and security for people in communities, and job
opportunities for people on Earth.
This is outrageous. At the very time we have some of our deficit
hawks saying, ``Cut this nutrition program, cut low-income energy
assistance, cut legal services, cut job training, cut summer youth
programs, cut education programs, cut health care programs,'' we have
here a budget that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon wants,
and $300 million more for star wars--this impossible dream, this
fantasy--than is requested by our own defense people.
This is really a test, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, this
is a test case vote, as to whether or not we are serious about reducing
the deficit and investing in people in our country, investing in people
who live in the communities in our country. That is what this is about.
Senators, you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. Maybe
you are trying to dance at three weddings at the same time. You cannot
keep saying you are for deficit reduction, you cannot keep saying you
are for children and education, you cannot keep saying that you are for
job opportunities, you cannot keep saying you are for veterans, you
cannot keep saying we will not cut Medicare, and at the same time
allocating more and more money for your pork military projects, and
adding to a military budget that the Pentagon itself says it does not
need. I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee for yielding time to discuss this amendment.
Going back to basics, the amendment is to cut $300 million from the
committee's request for funding for the Defense Department. The
committee has a $300 million increase from what the administration had
requested for this particular part of the budget. The House had
increased it $400 million. The Senate increase is less than the House
increase by $100 million. The Dorgan amendment is to cut $300 million
from the committee's request.
The primary arguments against the committee's mark are categorized
into two areas: First, the threat is not that great or that soon;
second, the money could be spent on other things.
First, talking about the threat, there is a suggestion here that the
threat is not imminent. The threat we are talking about is a threat to
relatively soon be able to attack the continental United States,
because this is the national missile defense part of the program we are
talking about.
Now, we all understand that eventually we will have to have a defense
against missiles that would either be accidentally or intentionally
launched against U.S. territory. The question is, how soon do we need
to begin preparing for that?
The Senator from North Dakota says we do not need to worry about it
yet because it will be maybe 10 years before the threat emerges. There
are two primary responses to it. First, it is wrong; and, second, we
are not taking into account the fact that it takes a long time to
develop the programs to respond to the offensive threat.
We have been working at this program for a long time. It has been 5
years yesterday, since the taking over of Kuwait by Iraq. Yet we are
not very far down the road in terms of improving our ability to defend
even against a missile like the Scud B that the Iraqis had. We are
talking here about much longer range missiles than the Scud B. We are
talking about missiles that could reach U.S. territory.
Now, at first we are talking about the State of Alaska or the
Territory of Guam. I know it is of interest to the Senator from North
Dakota.
In fact, we all would be very, very concerned about a threat to any
U.S. citizen, whether it be in Guam or whether it be in Alaska. It does
not have to be to the heartland of America.
What is the fact with regard to this threat? The person who last
headed the CIA just prior to the new Director, John Deutch, the then
Acting Director
[[Page
S 11233]]
of the Central Intelligence Agency, Admiral William Studeman, made this
point just a few months ago. He said,
Our understanding of North Korea's earlier Scud development
leads us to believe that it is unlikely Pyongyang could
deploy Taepo-Dong I or Taepo-Dong II missiles before 3 to 5
years. However, if Pyongyang has foreshortened its
development program, we could see these missiles earlier.
What the acting CIA Director was saying is that they probably will
not have this missile that could reach the United States for 3 to 5
years.
Well, we cannot develop this system within 3 to 5 years. The bill
calls for some kind of a deployment, hopefully, by 1999. That is within
the timeframe that the CIA Director acknowledges the Taepo-Dong II
missile could be developed.
Now, what about the current CIA director? John Deutch said last year,
``If the North Koreans field that Taepo-Dong II missile, Guam, Alaska,
and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.''
The point here is that North Korea, a belligerent state over whom we
have virtually no negotiating control, no diplomatic control, is
developing a weapon which the CIA says could potentially reach United
States territory in 3 to 5 years.
If the 3 years is correct, we cannot possibly have anything deployed
in time to meet that threat. Even if it is just used to blackmail us,
it is a tremendous threat. For those who say that there is no threat
here, the facts do not bear them out. The intelligence estimates do not
bear them out.
The other side of this argument is, well, there are other threats.
There could be a suitcase bomb. There is a cruise missile threat, and
of course the answer is yes, that is true. We are doing everything we
can to meet those threats as well.
It is a fallacy of logic to suggest that because there is some other
threat that, therefore, this is not a threat. That is the logic of the
Senator from North Dakota. Well, somebody might bring a suitcase bomb
over.
Well, we are working that problem very hard. The last three CIA
Directors have said that their primary concern is the proliferation of
these weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that can deliver
them.
As a matter of fact, there has not been a suitcase nuclear bomb
explode, but there have been missiles launched against U.S. forces. As
a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, fully 20 percent of our
casualties in the Persian Gulf were as a result of a Scud missile. We
did not have an adequate protection against the Scud missile.
We at least had the Patriot over there. We have nothing to protect
the people in the United States. I think the CIA Directors are a pretty
good source for the proposition that there is a potential threat out
there, and we will be lucky to be able to deploy a system in time to
meet that threat, if their statistics are correct.
Now, just one quick final point on the threat. The Senator from North
Dakota suggests that the triad is actually adequate here, but the same
Secretary of Defense that he is so fond of relying on has made it clear
that mutual assured destruction, the threat that we retaliate with
nuclear weapons against Iraq or some other country, is just not
credible.
As Secretary Perry said on March 8 of this year,
The bad news is that in this era, deterrence may not
provide even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We
may be facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic
missiles and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future,
and they may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they
may be madder than MAD.
And the M-A-D that he is referring to is the mutual assured
destruction doctrine, which the Secretary is saying is madness today.
That doctrine no longer works. We need a defense, not just the threat
of massive retaliation to prevent countries from launching missiles
against the United States.
Finally, let us talk about the amount here. First of all, as the
Senator from Mississippi pointed out earlier, the amount that is in the
Senate bill this year is less than the Clinton administration requested
last year in their 5-year budget. So in the 5-year plan the
administration sent up here last year, they were asking for more money
for this program than the committee has asked for this year. It is a
matter of timing, of when you spend the money. As I think I have
pointed out, even with this amount of money we will be lucky to be able
to field something that is effective by the time the threat is upon us.
Second, there is a suggestion here that the Secretary does not want
this because he has not asked for it. Obviously, we are all aware of
the politics within the Pentagon and the administration and not asking
for it is not the same as not wanting it. You will note in the letter
from the Secretary, nowhere does he say: Do not send us this $300
million, I do not want it and I will not spend it if you send it to me.
As a matter of fact, his spokesman on this issue, Gen. Malcolm O'Neill,
before the House committee just a few weeks ago, was asked if he could
spend this money, and here is what he said:
I have reviewed the BMD program, the impact of last year's
budget reductions and the schedule of several key programs in
order to recommend where additional resources could be best
applied.
Remember, the House is talking about $400 million in additional
resources. And he says:
These funds could be effectively used in several key BMD
programs to accelerate development efforts, preserve early
development options for a national missile defense system,
and to protect current theater missile defense system
acquisition schedules.
In other words, the expert in this area, the head of the program,
Gen. Mal O'Neill, made it clear to the House of Representatives if he
had this extra money he could effectively use it. I understand the
administration position is against this. We all understand that. But it
is not common sense when you recognize the speed with which this threat
could be upon us and the ability we have to develop a system that could
defend us.
When I say it is not common sense, I do not mean to denigrate the
Secretary of Defense. He is a fine public servant and is very concerned
about the future of our country. But reasonable people can differ about
the speed with which we ought to get on with this effort and the
priority of spending this money. I submit the weight of evidence from
the Central Intelligence Agency and from the other people who have
spoken on the issue is, we better get about this task right away.
The final point with regard to the money is that while we could be
spending this money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy
Assistance--of course we could. But what is more important, defending
American lives or summer youth programs? We have to set priorities
around here. I submit, if a missile were launched against the State of
Hawaii or the State of Alaska, every one of us on this floor would be
denouncing the act and would be asking why that was allowed to happen?
Who sat by while this threat emerged? Who allowed this threat to evolve
to the point we could not defend our own citizens from a missile
attack? Those would be the questions asked on this floor.
Today that question can be answered because those people who seek to
cut these funds out of the committee bill will be the people
responsible for us not having a system at the time that the CIA
believes we are going to need to have it. That is the question before
the body. Do we go along with the leadership? Do we go along with the
committee, which is the body of expertise on this? Do we go along with
the Central Intelligence estimates, and do we go along to fund this
program to at least get us on a path to develop and deploy a system in
the time we need it? Or do we take the risk and roll the dice, spend
the money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy Assistance
or the like?
I submit the decision today is that we should go along with the
committee's request here, support the committee and vote down the
Dorgan amendment which would cut the $300 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield a minute to myself before I
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
I might say if ever there is an Olympic event called side stepping, I
have seen this morning several candidates for gold medals.
Let us not be confused about what the Secretary of Defense has said.
Here is a letter he sent last week. It says this:
[[Page
S 11234]]
The bill's provisions would add nothing to DOD's ability to
pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly
cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.
That is not a letter from a Secretary who is undecided about whether
this is good policy or not. The Senator from Arizona says he just has
not asked us. The Senator says that of course, the Secretary would like
to get it this additional money.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. This letter says he does not want it. He thinks it adds
excess costs and additional security risks to this country. So let us
not be confused about the message from the Secretary of Defense. He is
clear on this issue.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas. I will be
happy to yield momentarily for a question.
Mr. KYL. Briefly, can the Senator point anywhere in that letter where
he is referring to this $300 million? He is referring generally to this
bill, not to this $300 million.
Mr. DORGAN. In fact, he specifically refers to this $300 million in
this program, I say to the Senator from Arizona, in the following part
of this paragraph. I read it once before and I am not going to read it
again for you.
The point is, he is talking about developing specific national
missile defense for interim operational capability in 1999 and for full
deployment in 2003. That is exactly and specifically the program we are
now debating. If the Senator is asking, was the Secretary talking about
this issue, the answer is clearly, unequivocally, yes, that is exactly
what the Secretary was talking about in this letter.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding, and
thank him for his leadership in support of the defense of the United
States of America.
I am very pleased that this amendment has been offered. I oppose it,
vehemently and strongly oppose it, but I am glad it has been offered
because it gives the American people a chance once and for all to see
just exactly what this debate is all about and who stands for what.
The Dorgan amendment would leave the American people completely
vulnerable to ballistic missile threats, completely vulnerable. It says
to our constituents, it is OK to protect Israel, protect France,
protect Germany, protect Italy, protect our allies, but not our folks
at home. Do not protect them.
The armed services bill, on the other hand, establishes a program to
defend all Americans, regardless of where they live, against a limited
ballistic missile attack. For the life of me, I do not understand how
anyone could use the argument it is OK to protect somebody in one area
of the country and not in another area of the country. How can one do
that and keep a straight face?
The Clinton program and the Dorgan amendment leaves the United States
hostage, completely, to the likes of Kim Jong Il and the Pyongyang
Communists. The intelligence community has suggested that North Korea
may well deploy an ICBM capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii within 5
years, and some talk maybe even as far as San Francisco in a very short
period of time, but the Senator from North Dakota thinks it is wrong
for us to defend these American citizens?
If the Senator disagrees with this assessment, let us look at the
statement of the recently confirmed Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, John Deutch. Dr. Deutch stated,
If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong II missile, Guam,
Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.
This is a serious, serious problem. The issue really boils down to
this. Twenty nations have acquired or are acquiring weapons of mass
destruction and the capability to deliver them, Iran, Syria, North
Korea, Libya, China, to name a few. That ought to put the fear of God
in us--just that, just thinking about those nations. And at least 24,
some of the same ones I just mentioned, have chemical weapons. And
approximately 10 more are believed to have biological weapons. And at
least 10 countries are reportedly interested in development of nuclear
weapons.
The international export control regime is failing to prevent the
spread of these technologies. They are being spread all over the world,
this missile technology, biological, chemical, nuclear, and the
capability to deliver them.
The Armed Services Committee, under the strong leadership of Senator
Strom Thurmond, recognizes that fact. This is a far-reaching,
farsighted, looking-ahead attempt to protect the United States of
America and its citizens in the outyears. You have to be thinking about
that today, not 50 years from now, because 50 years from now it will be
too late. You think about it today, and that is what the Senator from
South Carolina has done. Under his leadership we have provided, in the
Armed Services Committee, the opportunity to protect our citizens.
The Dorgan amendment would say that the continental United States,
Alaska, and Hawaii, are absolutely vulnerable to these threats. The
reckless leaders of North Korea, Syria, Libya, and others basically
have free access to our citizens. The choice is simple, really; really
simple. If you believe the American people should be protected against
limited accidental or intentional missile attacks--take your choice--
you should support the Armed Services Committee bill.
That is why we are on the committee. That is why we delve into these
matters in great detail. That is our specialty. That is what we are
there for, to understand these things and to present options to the
full Senate. But if you believe the American people should not be
defended and should be completely vulnerable, then you vote for the
Dorgan amendment.
It is ironic--and tragically ironic, frankly--that those who oppose
defending the American people hide behind the fig leaf of the cold war.
The cold war is over. And the technology and the philosophy that we use
to defend against it is also over. We do not have mutual assured
destruction anymore. We do not have a bipolar world anymore. These
people are not rational. Does anybody think Saddam Hussein is rational?
Would Saddam Hussein have used a nuclear missile in the Persian Gulf
war if he had the opportunity? You bet he would. He just does not have
it.
We do not have the capability to protect against this. It is very
interesting that focus groups have been held where we call a few people
into the room and interview them. We asked them, ``What would you do if
somebody fired a missile at the United States?'' In this group,
American citizens were put together in a room and they were asked,
``What would you do if someone fired a missile at the United States of
America?'' And every single one of those people said, ``We would shoot
it down.'' Guess what? We do not have the capability to shoot it down,
Mr. President. This amendment will make sure we do not have the
capability to shoot it down until it is too late.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat this very irresponsible amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I want everyone to
understand that the President's request already has $371 million in the
bill for a national ballistic missile defense system. The committee
added $300 million. So now we have $671 million, almost doubling what
the Pentagon requested. The Senator from North Dakota very sensibly and
wisely is trying to strike out the extra money. I hear people on that
side of the aisle saying, ``We are not trying to abrogate the ABM
Treaty. This does not abrogate the ABM Treaty.'' Really?
Here is what the ABM Treaty says:
Each party shall be limited at any one time to a single
area out of the two provided in Article III of the treaty for
deployment of antiballistic missile systems or their
components. . . .
English is the mother tongue. If you speak English, you understand
the word ``single.'' It means one. Our one site is now in North Dakota.
[[Page
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(Senate - August 03, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S11227-S11321]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of
S. 1026, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (
S. 1026) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is recognized to offer an amendment on which
there shall be 90 minutes for debate equally divided.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from North
Dakota? The Senator from Nebraska has been attempting to make an
opening statement with regard to the measure before us. I am wondering,
after the Senator from North Dakota has made the presentation under the
unanimous-consent agreement, if both sides would agree to the Senator
from Nebraska having 10 minutes for an opening statement on the overall
measure without being charged to the time under the control by the
majority or the minority.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from
Nebraska, I have no objection. But my understanding is that the 9 to
10:30 time period for this amendment would result in a vote at 10:30,
and there are some leadership obligations that require that vote to
occur at 10:30, and by unanimous consent we have limited debate to an
hour and a half, 45 minutes to each side, on the amendment.
It might be the case that the Senator should give an opening
presentation immediately after the vote at 10:30.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator. That does not happen to agree with the
schedule of the Senator from Nebraska. But I will try again.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I might say that I have no objection. But
my understanding is that the 10:30 vote must occur at 10:30 because of
some leadership obligations by previous agreement.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert
Russell, a fellow on detail from the Department of Energy, be allowed
floor privileges during the debate of
S. 1026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2087
(Purpose: To reduce the amount authorized to be appropriated under
Title II for national missile defense)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
Mr. Bradley, Mr. Leahy,
[[Page
S 11228]]
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment
numbered 2087.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 32, strike out line 14 and insert in lieu thereof
the following` ``$9,233,148,000, of which--
``(A) not more than $357,900,000 is authorized to implement
the national missile defense policy established in section
233(2);''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have by unanimous consent a time
agreement on this amendment, I understand 45 minutes to each side. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, let me begin to describe this amendment. It is
painfully simple. There was $300 million added to the defense
authorization bill by the Armed Services Committee for something that
this country does not need and that the Secretary of Defense says he
does not want. The proposal that I lay before the Senate is to take the
$300 million back out.
This, it seems to me, is a very symbolic issue. The $300 million is
to build a national missile defense system with instructions it be done
on a priority or accelerated basis so that the deployment begins in
1999. Some said yesterday, well, this has nothing to do with star wars.
And, of course, that is not true at all. This is, in fact, national
missile defense, which includes a star wars component. It is the
building of missiles in order to create some sort of astrodome over our
country to block incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.
It is the revival of a proposal offered in the early 1980's by then
President Ronald Reagan. Of course, times were different then. The
Soviet Union existed. We had a cold war that was in full force. We had
an active adversary and a real threat. Times have changed. Now we have
the dismantling and destruction of intercontinental ballistic missiles
in Russia. And, paradoxically, we are helping pay the bill to destroy
those missiles.
It is an irony that does not escape me this morning that the same
people who proposed $300 million in additional spending this year as
part of what will eventually be a $48 billion new project are also
saying they want to cut back on our contribution to help the Soviets
dismantle and destroy their intercontinental ballistic missiles. If
ever there is a disconnection, it seems to me it is in that logic.
To call this $300 million--or what eventually will be a $40 billion
program--``pork'' is I think unfair to pigs. Hogs carry around a little
meat. This in my judgment is pure, unadulterated lard.
I want to describe this proposal in the context of what the Secretary
of Defense has said. I am reading from a letter from the Secretary to
Senator Nunn:
This bill will direct the development for deployment by
2003 [incidentally, the early deployment by 1999] of a
multiple site system for national missile defense that, if
deployed, would be a clear violation of the ABM Treaty. The
bill would severely strain U.S.-Russian relations and would
threaten continued Russian implementation of the START I
Treaty and further Russian consideration of the START II
Treaty. These two treaties will eliminate strategic launchers
carrying two-thirds of the nuclear warheads that confronted
the Nation during the cold war.
That is a statement of current administration policy.
S. 1026 would authorize appropriations for defense programs
that exceed by approximately $7 billion the administration's
FY 1996 request.
A $7 billion increase, this from folks who say they are opposed to
the Federal deficit.
Here is what the committee says:
The committee recognizes that deploying a multiple site NMD
system by 2003 will require significant investments in the
outyears.
And, incidentally, the Congressional Budget Office says anywhere from
$30 to $40 billion. But the committee avoids the issue. The committee:
. . . directs the Secretary of Defense to budget
accordingly.
This is very interesting. The Armed Services Committee says we are
going to build this. Here is $300 million you do not want to build
something we do not need, and it is going to cost $48 billion, and we
say to you, Mr. Secretary of Defense, ``budget accordingly.''
It does not say where he should get the money. It does not say they
are going to raise taxes to pay for it. It says to the Secretary of
Defense, budget accordingly.
Well, we all understand what that means. That means that the warriors
who fight so hard rhetorically to reduce the Federal budget deficit are
now wallflowers who decide they want to use the taxpayers' credit card
to go out and purchase a $48 billion national ballistic missile program
that this country does not need and cannot afford.
It seems to me we ought to ask two questions about these kinds of
proposals when they come to us. One is, do we need it? And the second
is, can we afford it?
On the first question, do we need it, do we need the $300 million
added to this budget, the Secretary of Defense says no.
Can we afford it? Even if we do not need it, can we afford it? Does
anybody in this room, living in a country that is up to its neck in
debt, with annual yearly deficits that are still alarming and a Federal
debt approaching $5 trillion, believe we can afford something we do not
need?
I am going to talk some about the system itself, but first I wish to
talk about the irony of being here in the Chamber at a time when we are
told repeatedly, week after week after week, that we do not have enough
money. We are told we do not have enough money to fully fund the
programs to be able to send kids to college. So we are going to budget
in a way that is going to make it harder for families to send their
kids to college because we have to tighten our belt. We are told that
we cannot afford to provide an entitlement that a poor child should
have a hot lunch at school in the middle of the day because we must
tighten our belt. We are told health care is too expensive and so we
must cut $270 billion from Medicare and a substantial amount from
Medicaid because we must tighten our belt.
So for the American family, the message is tighten your belt on
things like education, health care, nutrition. But when it comes to
security, we are told it is not time to tighten our belt; let us get
the wish lists out and let us get the American taxpayers' checkbook
out--or the credit card more likely--and let us decide to build a
project that the Secretary of Defense says he does not want money for
at this point.
Let me talk about the project itself.
This bill provides research and development funds in order to
accelerate the deployment of a national missile defense system. The
administration requested $371 million for its ongoing research and
development program. The Armed Services Committee says that is not good
enough for us. The committee wants $300 million more added to the
request because it wants to deploy the system in four years. The
committee is telling the Defense Department to build it. They are
saying that it does not matter to us what you think; it does not matter
to us whether you think we need it. We insist you build it.
I come from a State where the only antiballistic missile system in
the free world was built. It was built in the late 1960's and early
1970's. Less than 30 days after it was declared operational, it was
mothballed. In other words, in the same month that it was declared
fully operational it was also mothballed.
It is anticipated, because of our Nation's geography, that one of the
sites in a multiple site national missile defense system would be in
North Dakota. There would likely be one North Dakota site. And I
suppose some would say, well, that means jobs in your State; you ought
to support this.
I do not think it makes sense to support a defense initiative of this
type especially at this time in our country's history if you measure it
with the yardstick of a jobs program. Yes, this might include some jobs
in North Dakota, but it also will include the commitment and the
prospect of taking $40 billion from the American taxpayers to build a
project we do not need, with money we do not have, at a time when we
are telling a lot of Americans that we cannot make investments in human
potential for the future of this country.
There is an ancient Chinese saying:
If you are planning for a year, plant rice; if you are
planning for 10 years, plant trees; if you are planning for
100 years, plant men.
[[Page
S 11229]]
I take ``plant men'' to mean ``educate your children.''
In this Chamber, we appropriately say that we have big financial
problems. We are choking on debt and must do something about it. We
have a lot of folks who talk a lot about it, gnash their teeth, who
wring their hands, and act like warriors on deficit reduction--until it
comes time for a bill like this. And then they say to us, boy, we have
threats; we have threats from North Korea; we have threats from Libya;
we have threats from Iraq.
What do those threats suggest we should do? What we should do is,
under the aegis of reform--which is the wrong ``re'' word; the real
``re'' word is not ``reform''; it is ``retread''--is resurrect and dust
off a proposal coming from the early 1980's, a cold war relic to build
a national missile defense system to put an umbrella over America to
protect against incoming missiles from some renegade country. Far more
important, in my judgment, is the threat from a suitcase bomb
somewhere; you start worrying about a nuclear device hauled in the
trunk of a car and parked at a dock in New York City; you start
worrying about a canister 3 inches high of deadly biological weapons.
That is far more likely a threat to this country than a terrorist
getting ahold of an intercontinental ballistic missile and attempting
to blackmail America.
Mr. President, I am most anxious to hear those who defend this kind
of spending on projects that are, in my judgment, worthless. So let me
at this point yield the floor and listen and then respond to some of
what I hear. I hope maybe the Senate, voting on this today, will decide
that it ought not spend $300 million we do not have on something the
Secretary of Defense says we do not need. That would seem to me to send
a powerful signal to the American people who in this body is serious
about the issue of the Federal deficit.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my time.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Dorgan amendment. The Armed Services Committee has taken a hard look at
the ballistic missile defense programs and concluded that an increase
of $300 million is warranted--indeed, badly needed. If the United
States is to ever be defended against even the most limited ballistic
missile threats, we must begin now.
The administration's program for national missile defense is simply
inadequate. And in my view, the ballistic missile threat facing the
United States is significant and growing. This threat clearly justifies
an accelerated effort to develop and deploy highly effective theater
and national missile defenses. In the bill now before the Senate we
have done just this. The Missile Defense Act is a responsible and
measured piece of legislation that responds to a growing threat to
American national security.
There have been many arguments raised in opposition to the Missile
Defense Act of 1995. These are either false or seriously exaggerated.
Let me address three of the main objections that have been mentioned
repeatedly.
First, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 does not signal a return to
star wars. It advocates modest and affordable programs that are
technically low risk.
Second, it does not violate or advocate violation of the ABM Treaty.
The means to implement the policies and goals outlined in the Missile
Defense Act of 1995 are contained in the ABM Treaty itself.
Finally, the policies and goals contained in the Missile Defense Act
of 1995 will not undermine START II or other arms control agreements.
Russia has repeatedly agreed in the past that deployment of a limited
national missile defense system is not inconsistent with deterrence and
stability. The United States must not allow critical national security
programs to be held hostage to other issues when there is no
substantive or logical linkage between them.
Mr. President, I therefore would conclude by urging my colleagues to
oppose the amendment by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
This amendment would undermine a critical defense requirement and
further perpetuate the vulnerability of the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment.
I would like to begin with a quote from Secretary Perry in this general
area now, that we have entered the post-cold war time. Secretary Perry
is quoted as saying:
The bad news is that in this era deterrence may not provide
even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We may be
facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic missiles
and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future. And they
may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they may be
madder than MAD.
MAD, mutually assured destruction.
Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate that there are those who
seem to think that the American people should not be defended against
the one military threat which holds them at risk in their homes on a
daily basis. Simply stated, this amendment seeks to perpetuate what
many believe is truly an American vulnerability.
Yesterday there were only five Senators who opposed a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that the American people should be defended against
accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack. Today the
Senator from North Dakota is attempting to cut $300 million from
national missile defense to ensure that American cities will in effect
remain undefended without this additional funding.
Senators yesterday voted in favor of defending the American people in
this new era that we are in. So today all Senators will have an
opportunity to demonstrate whether or not they are serious about a
national defense. If you believe, as the Senator from North Dakota so
honestly does, and has stated, that the United States should not be
defended against this particular potential for ballistic missile
attack, then support the amendment. But if you believe that the time
has come to get on with national missile defense, you should oppose
this amendment.
We have heard quite a bit about how there is no threat and how
investment in national missile defense is a waste of money. Let us
remember that more Americans died in the Persian Gulf war as a result
of one missile than any other single cause. I do not imagine that the
families of these victims would view missile defense investments as a
waste.
The argument that there is no threat to justify the deployment of a
national missile defense system I think is strategically shortsighted
and technically incorrect. Even if we get started today, by the time we
develop and deploy an NMD system we will almost certainly face new
ballistic missile threats to the United States. Unfortunately, it will
take almost 10 years to develop and deploy even a limited system.
Much has been made of the intelligence community's estimate that no
new threat to the United States will develop for 10 years. But the
intelligence community has confirmed that there are numerous ways for
hostile countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in
much less than 10 years by other than indigenous development. I would
point out the same intelligence has also prepared a chart that has been
displayed on the Senate floor showing the North Korean missile
programs, including the Taepo Dong II ICBM, which DIA says could be
operational in 5 years.
We see the size and the capability of destructive ability of these
various missiles. You have got the Scud-B, the Scud-C, the No Dong, the
Taepo Dong I and II. And these have not been tested. But it is very
capable for them to do that, the North Koreans to do that. And it is
estimated that they could go to this biggest one, which would be well
over the 1,000 kilometers, in 5 years or maybe less. And in developing
this system North Korea has demonstrated to the world that an ICBM
capability can emerge rapidly and relatively with little notice.
Nobody knows with certainty what the range of this potential new
missile would be. But we do know that it is approximately the size of
the Minuteman ICBM.
Even if we knew with certainty that no new threat would materialize
for 10 years there would still be a strong case for developing and
deploying a national
[[Page
S 11230]]
defense system. Developing an NMD system would serve to deter countries
that would seek to acquire otherwise ICBM capability. A vulnerable
United States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even
aggression.
It has also been argued that the administration's NMD program costs
less than the one proposed in the defense authorization bill. Well, I
guess that is right. It usually does cost more to actually do something
about a problem than nothing, which is precisely what the
administration's program will do, I fear--nothing at all. They request
money. And they have requested almost $400 million this year. And yet
it is not enough to actually get the job done. The administration's
program has no deployment goal in sight. In effect, you know, it wastes
almost $400 million per year on a program designed never to achieve a
specific end. In my view, if we are not going to actually deploy
something we ought to take the rest of the NMD money and spend it on
something that will defend America.
The Senator from North Dakota has stated that the system we want to
build will cost $40 billion. But by the administration's own charts, it
states that it would cost less than $25 billion, including a full
space-based sensor constellation. How does this compare to the cost of
the F-22, the B-2 or other major new systems? I think it is a pretty
good investment relative to virtually anything else that DOD is
developing. What good does it do to be able to project power overseas
with modern and sophisticated weapons if we cannot secure our families
at home? Remember what we are talking about here.
It is not an insignificant amount, an additional $300 million
approximately, but you are talking about the cost of three or four
airplanes. You are talking about offensive weaponry, three or four
airplanes. We can move toward the ability to develop and deploy this
system.
One other chart I would like to refer to with regard to the national
missile defense program. The Bottom-Up Review just, I guess, 2 years
ago, projected the expenditures at this level for the national missile
defense. The administration fiscal year 1995 request was as you see up
to about, I believe it indicated about $500 million. And then in the
fiscal year 1996 it dropped down, and what this bill actually does is
basically a very small increase over what the administration's fiscal
year 1995 request was. So, talking about just enough increase to move
toward actual development and the ability to deploy within 10 years.
So this is a good-sense approach. It is one based on what the
administration had projected in its Bottom-Up Review and what it asked
for in 1995.
For those who argue that the Senate Armed Services Committee is
throwing money at ballistic missile defense, I point out that the
amount of this bill for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is
$136 million lower than the Clinton administration's own Bottom-Up
Review recommended for fiscal year 1996. It is also less than the
administration's own budget forecast in last year's plan.
All four of the defense committees in Congress have increased funding
for the national missile defense. In fact, the Senate Armed Services
Committee and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have
recommended a smaller increase than the House committees have. The
House has recommended an increase of $450 million.
In response to those who say the administration did not request this
increase, I point out the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has
made it clear on many occasions and with the administration's, I think,
tacit approval, that if more money was made available for ballistic
missile programs that they would want to spend $400 million on the
national missile defense program.
The bottom line is simple. If you think that the American people
should not be defended against ballistic missiles, then go ahead and
support this amendment. If you think that the time has come to do
something about an ever-increasing threat in this post-cold-war era,
then vote against this amendment.
I strongly urge my colleagues to put themselves on the side of
defending the American people at a very reasonable cost.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time.
I was listening intently to the Senator from Mississippi. I was glad
he brought that up because the Senator from North Dakota has said over
and over and over again that this is a $40 billion program for the
future. I think it has to be clarified, and yet after we clarify it, I
suggest the Senator from North Dakota will continue to use $40 billion.
This is just not true.
The Senator from Mississippi talked about, according to the figures
of the administration, it was $24.2 billion. But I suggest that
includes the SMTS program, Brilliant Eyes, which is funded separately,
which can be taken off. It is closer to $18 billion.
We do have an investment today in the program of $38 billion. Some
people estimate it is more than that. Let us be conservative and say
$38 billion in what we call the SDI program, which some people like to
continue to use star wars to try to make the public of this country
believe that this is some fantasy, that it is not real. It is not
something we are handling today.
The SDI program, we feel, helped end the cold war by 5 years. What
kind of a value can we put on that? In fact, the Russian Ambassador to
the United States, Vladimir Lukin, stated that if it had not been for
SDI, the cold war would have gone on for 5 additional years.
The SDI program and its research led to systems, not fantasies, but
systems in place today, such as the Aegis system, cruisers and
destroyers, kinetic energy programs, the hit-to-kill technologies which
are used in the THAAD, the PAC-3, the Navy upper-tier defense systems.
These are not star wars; these are technologies. They are on line
today.
All we are trying to do is say that in 5 years from now, where many
in the intelligence community say we are going to be threatened by
perhaps North Korea or other technology that will reach the United
States--and this is something that most of the intelligence community
agrees with--we want to do something today that will be within the
confines of the ABM Treaty. We talked about that before. This is as
much as we can do to reach the point so that 5 years from today, we are
going to be able to defend the United States against missile attacks.
The Senator from North Dakota refers over and over again to the
suitcase bombs, to the ships and vans that deliver weapons. And on that
case, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota, I think he is right.
But we are already taking care of that. We are already working on that
program.
The Senator from North Dakota talks about intelligence estimates. I
asked yesterday on this floor, what if we are wrong, what if those
intelligence estimates he is saying where the threat is not there for
10 more years, what if we are right and it i
s 5 more years? What if he
is wrong? Look back to 1940 and Pearl Harbor. At that time our
estimates were wrong; North Korea in 1950, or more recently, Iraq in
1990. Our intelligence was wrong at that time.
The Senator relies on the cold war mutually assured destruction
program embodied in the triad of missile submarines, land-based
missiles and bombers, but we had all these thing
s 5 years ago, and that
did not deter Saddam Hussein from using Scud missiles.
When the Senator points out that the administration says that $300
million to defend Americans from attack is not in our interest, he
ignores the fact that just 3 months ago, the director of the Pentagon's
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, with the administration's
blessing, said that they could spend $500 million more. That is $200
million more than the additional amount we are trying to put on that we
did put on in the Senate Armed Services Committee and our counterparts
in the other body to reach a system that would defend America.
The Senator from North Dakota is also citing the administration
supposedly defended our interests last year by spending $2 billion. We
are doing a lot of talking now about $300
[[Page
S 11231]]
million. What about the $2 billion that we spent for humanitarian
missions that, by their own admission, in the Senate Armed Services
Committee, by the Secretary of Defense were really not to our vital
national security interests.
I am talking about Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia and Rwanda. We are
spending all this money. We are sending our troops all the way around
the world to defend violations of human rights. Certainly, I am not
insensitive to the ethnic cleansing that is going on and all these
human rights violations. But we are spending huge amounts for that. I
disagree with the foreign policy of the administration, and I do not
think we should be doing it. But if we are doing it, that is $2
billion, and we are talking $300 million right now to keep this on line
to be able to defend this country 5 years from now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator'
s 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield 2
additional minutes?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I grant him 2 more minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Mr. President, I must express my amazement with
the priorities of the Senator from North Dakota. He wants to cut $300
million from the missile defense. He says we have higher domestic
priorities. We heard about the nutrition programs, we heard about all
these social programs that seem to, in his mind, have a higher
priority.
I suggest to you that this $300 million is a relatively small amount
of money. The one bomb in Oklahoma City that wiped out the Murrah
Federal Building cost the taxpayers $500 million--one bomb.
I suggest if the Senator from North Dakota could have stood with me
in Oklahoma City on April 19, April 20, April 21, when they are sending
troops and volunteers into this building to pull out people who might
be alive in there, the hope was there that more would be alive, then
the fourth day came and the smell of death had enveloped the city, if
you could have been there, and what was going through my mind was, this
is just one building in one city, one missile could come in there and
wipe out every building in the city of Oklahoma City, in the city of
Sioux Falls, SD, in Bismarck, ND, in New York City, could wipe out the
entire thing.
Multiply that one thing, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
by 100, by 1,000. That is the threat that is out there. That is the
threat that can reach, according to many in the intelligence community,
this country within 5 years. We have to be ready for that. This should
be the highest priority. We are elected to defend America. That is
exactly what this is about today.
So, Mr. President, in the strongest of terms, I say this is the
minimum that we can do to keep on force, to have a national missile
defense system in place in 5 years when the threat is very real.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative, reported by the Armed
Services Committee, puts our Nation on the right track to address the
growing missile threat to our country.
In the defense appropriations bill, which was reported last week, we
fully supported every element of that plan, and I congratulate Senators
Thurmond, Lott, and others who worked with them on this plan.
Every intelligence assessment available to the Congress indicates
that the threat posed to U.S. military forces is growing from ballistic
missiles, as is the threat to the United States itself.
There can be no greater imperative, as we allocate funding for
research and development for future systems, than to develop and deploy
an effective national missile defense system.
This matter has special significance to every citizen of my State of
Alaska. Already, North Korea is developing missiles that could attack
the military installations in Alaska.
Alaska-based F-15's, F-16's, and OA-10 aircraft will be the first to
respond to any attack on South Korea. On that basis, we are a target
for North Korea.
The distinguished Senator from North Dakota may be confident that his
State will not face that threat in coming years, and I share that
confidence. Our country was lucky in the gulf war. The ingenuity and
technical creativeness ensured that we had some minimal capacity to
respond to the Iraqi Scud missile threat.
We cannot, and must not, rely on luck to be ready to face the risk of
missile launches against my State and against the United States in
total. We must make the investment now to have ready a system to
deploy, if that is the decision of the President and Congress.
The additional funds proposed for authorization and appropriation for
national missile defense is a reasonable and affordable start for this
program.
I am here to urge all Members to support this initiative. I do so as
a Senator from a State that is seriously threatened today, and I
believe the funding authorized by this bill, already included in the
defense appropriations bill, is the proper way to start.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume to
myself.
Mr. President, statements have been made that my position is I do not
want to defend America's cities against a very real threat--total
nonsense; absolute nonsense.
My position is that we should not be spending money we do not have on
something the Secretary of Defense says we do not need. Let me read
from a letter from Secretary of Defense William Perry to Senator Nunn:
The bill's provision would add nothing to DOD's ability to
pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly
cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.
The bill would require the United States to make a decision
now on developing a specific national missile defense for
deployment by 2003, with interim operational capability in
1999, despite the fact that a balanced strategic missile
threat has not emerged. Our national missile defense program
is designed to give us the capability for a deployment
decision in 3 years, when we will be in a much better
position to assess the threat and deploy the most
technologically advanced system available, if they think it
is needed.
This is not a case of somebody deciding we do not want to protect
America's cities. It is a case of saying we do not want to spend $300
million that the Secretary of Defense says we do not need to spend.
Let me respond to a couple of other things that have been said. This
is not about just $300 million. It is about $48 billion, according to
the Congresional Budget Office. I ask all the Senators who spoke here,
where are you going to get that money? You suggest that the Secretary
of Defense budget for it. I ask you, are you going to charge it? And
are you going to tax people for it? Where are you going to get the
money? Do you want to advance a notion now that you want to build a $50
billion new system, which by the way does, indeed, include star wars,
as page 59 of the bill says? I ask you, where are you going to get the
money for it?
Let me say to you, as well, that when you talk about the threat from
an intercontinental ballistic missile, as you have all talked about,
you understand and I understand--I have some material that I will not
read from on the floor, but it is material from Nobel laureates, from
veterans of the Manhattan project and from physicists who are experts
in this field, all of whom agree--and I think you would agree--that a
threat from a renegade country is far more likely as a result of a
cruise missile, which cannot be defended against by this system, than
it is from an intercontinental ballistic missile. A cruise missile is
easier to build and cheaper to build and more likely for them to get.
I ask you this question, if you are worried about protecting
America's cities: If you finished spending $48 billion to defend
against ballistic missiles, then tell me how that system defends
America's cities against the far more likely threat of cruise missiles.
The fact is that by building a national ballistic missile defense you
have done nothing to defend against a cruise missile attack on American
cities.
That is the point. The point here is that this is a weapons program
with a constituency. Like all weapons programs, it does not matter what
the climate is--it can be rain, snow, wind, or
[[Page
S 11232]]
sleet; you can have a Soviet Union or not, and it could be 1983 or
1995--this weapons program has legs. It has jobs and it has
constituencies. This is out of step, makes no sense, and yet we see on
the floor of the Senate folks who come here and say, well, let us, this
year, stick $300 million more in this program than was asked for and
than is needed. Why? Because we want to defend America's cities.
Against what? Against a threat which the Secretary of Defense says does
not exist, and Nobel laureates and veterans of the Manhattan project
say does not exist.
If you are so all-fired worried about threats, let us focus on the
threats that the Nation will really face.
One additional thing. I think the Senator from Oklahoma makes the
point that I have been trying to make this morning when he talks about
the tragic bombing of Oklahoma City. It is not an intercontinental
ballistic missile with all of its sophisticated targeting that is the
likely way to attack against America. It is far more likely to be a
rental truck, a suitcase, a glass vial, a single-engine airplane. I
think the Senator from Oklahoma made the point I was trying to make.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I will not yield on my time.
Mr. INHOFE. I would like to respond to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would give time, I am happy to answer
questions. But we have 45 minutes equally divided.
I will at this time reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that 5
minutes is not a lot of time to make the case. But I am in strong
support of the Dorgan amendment for a number of reasons. First of all,
I will talk policy, and then I will talk budget. There is no
significant long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States
now or in the immediate future. The head of the DIA stated:
We see no interest in or capability of any new country
reaching the continental United States with a long-range
missile for at least the next decade.
Mr. President, the national missile defense provides no defense
against the most likely future attacks on the United States, which will
not be delivered by missiles. We have seen that clearly in a tragic way
at the World Trade Center, the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and
the subway in Tokyo.
Mr. President, there are many arguments I could make about this
impossible dream. But let me just put it in a slightly broader context.
We have out here a bill that requests $7 billion more than the Pentagon
says it needs. We have out here with star wars a request for $300
million more than the Pentagon says it wants to spend or needs to
spend.
Mr. President, I think this amendment is about more than star wars.
It is about priorities. And if you look at requests for Head Start, it
is $3.9 billion, but the total cost of the next aircraft carrier, the
CVN-78, is $4.6 billion.
If you look at requests for police officers, housing, childhood
immunization, alongside star wars, the B-2, Pentagon budget, $7 billion
more in this bill than requested by the Pentagon itself, of the kind of
stories that are now coming out, Mr. President, about a variety of
different pork projects, all across the country, we have to ask
ourselves the question, what are we doing here?
I was on the floor of the Senate not too long ago, saying why are we
eliminating low-income energy assistance? I was talking about the poor
in the cold-weather State of Minnesota. We also could talk about
cooling assistance. This was during the time where we read that 450
people died, many elderly and poor.
On the one hand, we cut low-income energy assistance, we cut
education programs, we cut job programs, we cut all sorts of nutrition
programs, we are not investing in our children, and we have here a bill
that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs for our
national defense.
Now we have--for this impossible dream, many independent people
arguing it never will work anyway--a request for an additional $300
million.
Mr. President, the real national security for our country is not for
star wars in space. It is to feed children and educate children and
provide safety and security for people in communities, and job
opportunities for people on Earth.
This is outrageous. At the very time we have some of our deficit
hawks saying, ``Cut this nutrition program, cut low-income energy
assistance, cut legal services, cut job training, cut summer youth
programs, cut education programs, cut health care programs,'' we have
here a budget that asks for $7 billion more than the Pentagon wants,
and $300 million more for star wars--this impossible dream, this
fantasy--than is requested by our own defense people.
This is really a test, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, this
is a test case vote, as to whether or not we are serious about reducing
the deficit and investing in people in our country, investing in people
who live in the communities in our country. That is what this is about.
Senators, you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. Maybe
you are trying to dance at three weddings at the same time. You cannot
keep saying you are for deficit reduction, you cannot keep saying you
are for children and education, you cannot keep saying that you are for
job opportunities, you cannot keep saying you are for veterans, you
cannot keep saying we will not cut Medicare, and at the same time
allocating more and more money for your pork military projects, and
adding to a military budget that the Pentagon itself says it does not
need. I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee for yielding time to discuss this amendment.
Going back to basics, the amendment is to cut $300 million from the
committee's request for funding for the Defense Department. The
committee has a $300 million increase from what the administration had
requested for this particular part of the budget. The House had
increased it $400 million. The Senate increase is less than the House
increase by $100 million. The Dorgan amendment is to cut $300 million
from the committee's request.
The primary arguments against the committee's mark are categorized
into two areas: First, the threat is not that great or that soon;
second, the money could be spent on other things.
First, talking about the threat, there is a suggestion here that the
threat is not imminent. The threat we are talking about is a threat to
relatively soon be able to attack the continental United States,
because this is the national missile defense part of the program we are
talking about.
Now, we all understand that eventually we will have to have a defense
against missiles that would either be accidentally or intentionally
launched against U.S. territory. The question is, how soon do we need
to begin preparing for that?
The Senator from North Dakota says we do not need to worry about it
yet because it will be maybe 10 years before the threat emerges. There
are two primary responses to it. First, it is wrong; and, second, we
are not taking into account the fact that it takes a long time to
develop the programs to respond to the offensive threat.
We have been working at this program for a long time. It has been 5
years yesterday, since the taking over of Kuwait by Iraq. Yet we are
not very far down the road in terms of improving our ability to defend
even against a missile like the Scud B that the Iraqis had. We are
talking here about much longer range missiles than the Scud B. We are
talking about missiles that could reach U.S. territory.
Now, at first we are talking about the State of Alaska or the
Territory of Guam. I know it is of interest to the Senator from North
Dakota.
In fact, we all would be very, very concerned about a threat to any
U.S. citizen, whether it be in Guam or whether it be in Alaska. It does
not have to be to the heartland of America.
What is the fact with regard to this threat? The person who last
headed the CIA just prior to the new Director, John Deutch, the then
Acting Director
[[Page
S 11233]]
of the Central Intelligence Agency, Admiral William Studeman, made this
point just a few months ago. He said,
Our understanding of North Korea's earlier Scud development
leads us to believe that it is unlikely Pyongyang could
deploy Taepo-Dong I or Taepo-Dong II missiles before 3 to 5
years. However, if Pyongyang has foreshortened its
development program, we could see these missiles earlier.
What the acting CIA Director was saying is that they probably will
not have this missile that could reach the United States for 3 to 5
years.
Well, we cannot develop this system within 3 to 5 years. The bill
calls for some kind of a deployment, hopefully, by 1999. That is within
the timeframe that the CIA Director acknowledges the Taepo-Dong II
missile could be developed.
Now, what about the current CIA director? John Deutch said last year,
``If the North Koreans field that Taepo-Dong II missile, Guam, Alaska,
and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.''
The point here is that North Korea, a belligerent state over whom we
have virtually no negotiating control, no diplomatic control, is
developing a weapon which the CIA says could potentially reach United
States territory in 3 to 5 years.
If the 3 years is correct, we cannot possibly have anything deployed
in time to meet that threat. Even if it is just used to blackmail us,
it is a tremendous threat. For those who say that there is no threat
here, the facts do not bear them out. The intelligence estimates do not
bear them out.
The other side of this argument is, well, there are other threats.
There could be a suitcase bomb. There is a cruise missile threat, and
of course the answer is yes, that is true. We are doing everything we
can to meet those threats as well.
It is a fallacy of logic to suggest that because there is some other
threat that, therefore, this is not a threat. That is the logic of the
Senator from North Dakota. Well, somebody might bring a suitcase bomb
over.
Well, we are working that problem very hard. The last three CIA
Directors have said that their primary concern is the proliferation of
these weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that can deliver
them.
As a matter of fact, there has not been a suitcase nuclear bomb
explode, but there have been missiles launched against U.S. forces. As
a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, fully 20 percent of our
casualties in the Persian Gulf were as a result of a Scud missile. We
did not have an adequate protection against the Scud missile.
We at least had the Patriot over there. We have nothing to protect
the people in the United States. I think the CIA Directors are a pretty
good source for the proposition that there is a potential threat out
there, and we will be lucky to be able to deploy a system in time to
meet that threat, if their statistics are correct.
Now, just one quick final point on the threat. The Senator from North
Dakota suggests that the triad is actually adequate here, but the same
Secretary of Defense that he is so fond of relying on has made it clear
that mutual assured destruction, the threat that we retaliate with
nuclear weapons against Iraq or some other country, is just not
credible.
As Secretary Perry said on March 8 of this year,
The bad news is that in this era, deterrence may not
provide even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We
may be facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic
missiles and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future,
and they may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they
may be madder than MAD.
And the M-A-D that he is referring to is the mutual assured
destruction doctrine, which the Secretary is saying is madness today.
That doctrine no longer works. We need a defense, not just the threat
of massive retaliation to prevent countries from launching missiles
against the United States.
Finally, let us talk about the amount here. First of all, as the
Senator from Mississippi pointed out earlier, the amount that is in the
Senate bill this year is less than the Clinton administration requested
last year in their 5-year budget. So in the 5-year plan the
administration sent up here last year, they were asking for more money
for this program than the committee has asked for this year. It is a
matter of timing, of when you spend the money. As I think I have
pointed out, even with this amount of money we will be lucky to be able
to field something that is effective by the time the threat is upon us.
Second, there is a suggestion here that the Secretary does not want
this because he has not asked for it. Obviously, we are all aware of
the politics within the Pentagon and the administration and not asking
for it is not the same as not wanting it. You will note in the letter
from the Secretary, nowhere does he say: Do not send us this $300
million, I do not want it and I will not spend it if you send it to me.
As a matter of fact, his spokesman on this issue, Gen. Malcolm O'Neill,
before the House committee just a few weeks ago, was asked if he could
spend this money, and here is what he said:
I have reviewed the BMD program, the impact of last year's
budget reductions and the schedule of several key programs in
order to recommend where additional resources could be best
applied.
Remember, the House is talking about $400 million in additional
resources. And he says:
These funds could be effectively used in several key BMD
programs to accelerate development efforts, preserve early
development options for a national missile defense system,
and to protect current theater missile defense system
acquisition schedules.
In other words, the expert in this area, the head of the program,
Gen. Mal O'Neill, made it clear to the House of Representatives if he
had this extra money he could effectively use it. I understand the
administration position is against this. We all understand that. But it
is not common sense when you recognize the speed with which this threat
could be upon us and the ability we have to develop a system that could
defend us.
When I say it is not common sense, I do not mean to denigrate the
Secretary of Defense. He is a fine public servant and is very concerned
about the future of our country. But reasonable people can differ about
the speed with which we ought to get on with this effort and the
priority of spending this money. I submit the weight of evidence from
the Central Intelligence Agency and from the other people who have
spoken on the issue is, we better get about this task right away.
The final point with regard to the money is that while we could be
spending this money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy
Assistance--of course we could. But what is more important, defending
American lives or summer youth programs? We have to set priorities
around here. I submit, if a missile were launched against the State of
Hawaii or the State of Alaska, every one of us on this floor would be
denouncing the act and would be asking why that was allowed to happen?
Who sat by while this threat emerged? Who allowed this threat to evolve
to the point we could not defend our own citizens from a missile
attack? Those would be the questions asked on this floor.
Today that question can be answered because those people who seek to
cut these funds out of the committee bill will be the people
responsible for us not having a system at the time that the CIA
believes we are going to need to have it. That is the question before
the body. Do we go along with the leadership? Do we go along with the
committee, which is the body of expertise on this? Do we go along with
the Central Intelligence estimates, and do we go along to fund this
program to at least get us on a path to develop and deploy a system in
the time we need it? Or do we take the risk and roll the dice, spend
the money on summer youth programs or Low Income Home Energy Assistance
or the like?
I submit the decision today is that we should go along with the
committee's request here, support the committee and vote down the
Dorgan amendment which would cut the $300 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield a minute to myself before I
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
I might say if ever there is an Olympic event called side stepping, I
have seen this morning several candidates for gold medals.
Let us not be confused about what the Secretary of Defense has said.
Here is a letter he sent last week. It says this:
[[Page
S 11234]]
The bill's provisions would add nothing to DOD's ability to
pursue our missile defense programs and would needlessly
cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks.
That is not a letter from a Secretary who is undecided about whether
this is good policy or not. The Senator from Arizona says he just has
not asked us. The Senator says that of course, the Secretary would like
to get it this additional money.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. This letter says he does not want it. He thinks it adds
excess costs and additional security risks to this country. So let us
not be confused about the message from the Secretary of Defense. He is
clear on this issue.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas. I will be
happy to yield momentarily for a question.
Mr. KYL. Briefly, can the Senator point anywhere in that letter where
he is referring to this $300 million? He is referring generally to this
bill, not to this $300 million.
Mr. DORGAN. In fact, he specifically refers to this $300 million in
this program, I say to the Senator from Arizona, in the following part
of this paragraph. I read it once before and I am not going to read it
again for you.
The point is, he is talking about developing specific national
missile defense for interim operational capability in 1999 and for full
deployment in 2003. That is exactly and specifically the program we are
now debating. If the Senator is asking, was the Secretary talking about
this issue, the answer is clearly, unequivocally, yes, that is exactly
what the Secretary was talking about in this letter.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding, and
thank him for his leadership in support of the defense of the United
States of America.
I am very pleased that this amendment has been offered. I oppose it,
vehemently and strongly oppose it, but I am glad it has been offered
because it gives the American people a chance once and for all to see
just exactly what this debate is all about and who stands for what.
The Dorgan amendment would leave the American people completely
vulnerable to ballistic missile threats, completely vulnerable. It says
to our constituents, it is OK to protect Israel, protect France,
protect Germany, protect Italy, protect our allies, but not our folks
at home. Do not protect them.
The armed services bill, on the other hand, establishes a program to
defend all Americans, regardless of where they live, against a limited
ballistic missile attack. For the life of me, I do not understand how
anyone could use the argument it is OK to protect somebody in one area
of the country and not in another area of the country. How can one do
that and keep a straight face?
The Clinton program and the Dorgan amendment leaves the United States
hostage, completely, to the likes of Kim Jong Il and the Pyongyang
Communists. The intelligence community has suggested that North Korea
may well deploy an ICBM capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii within 5
years, and some talk maybe even as far as San Francisco in a very short
period of time, but the Senator from North Dakota thinks it is wrong
for us to defend these American citizens?
If the Senator disagrees with this assessment, let us look at the
statement of the recently confirmed Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, John Deutch. Dr. Deutch stated,
If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong II missile, Guam,
Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.
This is a serious, serious problem. The issue really boils down to
this. Twenty nations have acquired or are acquiring weapons of mass
destruction and the capability to deliver them, Iran, Syria, North
Korea, Libya, China, to name a few. That ought to put the fear of God
in us--just that, just thinking about those nations. And at least 24,
some of the same ones I just mentioned, have chemical weapons. And
approximately 10 more are believed to have biological weapons. And at
least 10 countries are reportedly interested in development of nuclear
weapons.
The international export control regime is failing to prevent the
spread of these technologies. They are being spread all over the world,
this missile technology, biological, chemical, nuclear, and the
capability to deliver them.
The Armed Services Committee, under the strong leadership of Senator
Strom Thurmond, recognizes that fact. This is a far-reaching,
farsighted, looking-ahead attempt to protect the United States of
America and its citizens in the outyears. You have to be thinking about
that today, not 50 years from now, because 50 years from now it will be
too late. You think about it today, and that is what the Senator from
South Carolina has done. Under his leadership we have provided, in the
Armed Services Committee, the opportunity to protect our citizens.
The Dorgan amendment would say that the continental United States,
Alaska, and Hawaii, are absolutely vulnerable to these threats. The
reckless leaders of North Korea, Syria, Libya, and others basically
have free access to our citizens. The choice is simple, really; really
simple. If you believe the American people should be protected against
limited accidental or intentional missile attacks--take your choice--
you should support the Armed Services Committee bill.
That is why we are on the committee. That is why we delve into these
matters in great detail. That is our specialty. That is what we are
there for, to understand these things and to present options to the
full Senate. But if you believe the American people should not be
defended and should be completely vulnerable, then you vote for the
Dorgan amendment.
It is ironic--and tragically ironic, frankly--that those who oppose
defending the American people hide behind the fig leaf of the cold war.
The cold war is over. And the technology and the philosophy that we use
to defend against it is also over. We do not have mutual assured
destruction anymore. We do not have a bipolar world anymore. These
people are not rational. Does anybody think Saddam Hussein is rational?
Would Saddam Hussein have used a nuclear missile in the Persian Gulf
war if he had the opportunity? You bet he would. He just does not have
it.
We do not have the capability to protect against this. It is very
interesting that focus groups have been held where we call a few people
into the room and interview them. We asked them, ``What would you do if
somebody fired a missile at the United States?'' In this group,
American citizens were put together in a room and they were asked,
``What would you do if someone fired a missile at the United States of
America?'' And every single one of those people said, ``We would shoot
it down.'' Guess what? We do not have the capability to shoot it down,
Mr. President. This amendment will make sure we do not have the
capability to shoot it down until it is too late.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat this very irresponsible amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I want everyone to
understand that the President's request already has $371 million in the
bill for a national ballistic missile defense system. The committee
added $300 million. So now we have $671 million, almost doubling what
the Pentagon requested. The Senator from North Dakota very sensibly and
wisely is trying to strike out the extra money. I hear people on that
side of the aisle saying, ``We are not trying to abrogate the ABM
Treaty. This does not abrogate the ABM Treaty.'' Really?
Here is what the ABM Treaty says:
Each party shall be limited at any one time to a single
area out of the two provided in Article III of the treaty for
deployment of antiballistic missile systems or their
components. . . .
English is the mother tongue. If you speak English, you understand
the word ``single.'' It means one. Our one site is now in North Dakota.
[[Page
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
