NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
(Senate - June 28, 1996)
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have had many discussions over an extended period about national missile defense, and I will be offering as soon as it is prepared, as we work through the discussions of the wording of an amendment, an amendment on the subject of national missile defense.
I have reached the conclusion that national missile defense is necessary. I believe it is not a question of if, but rather a question of when missile defenses are deployed and what sort of system do we field.
I have always believed that any system we deploy ought to be treaty compliant, ought to be affordable, and ought to be effective. Those ought to be the tests.
Right now, we have no alternative before us that meets those tests, at least in the judgment of this Senator. I think it is clear there is a threat that exists. Today's threat is of an accidental or unauthorized launch of a Russian or Chinese missile. Clearly, that is unlikely, but we cannot afford to be wrong.
The threat that we may face tomorrow is a rogue nation launch. North Korea, Libya, other countries may develop an ICBM capability before we are anticipating that they would achieve such a capability. We must be prepared before we are surprised.
As I have looked at the options before us, I have been most interested in a plan that the Air Force has developed, an Air Force alternative that does meet the criteria of being effective, of being treaty compliant, and of being affordable.
I had intended to offer an amendment that would require the deployment of such a system in the same timeframe as the Defend America Act. I have been persuaded by the chairman and ranking members that the best way to proceed would be to require a study of this system by the Secretary of Defense and to have a statement by the Senate that this is a serious alternative.
Let me just outline, if I could, the elements of the amendment I intended to offer, what the elements of the system are, and then to have a chance to discuss the specific amendment I would be offering today.
The Conrad alternative authorizes deployment by 2003 of a Minuteman system--20 interceptors at Grand Forks, ND, capable of defending all 50 States, according to U.S. Air Force analysis.
The amendment also requires a report from the Department of Defense within 1 year on the future of the ICBM threat and a recommendation as to whether 20 or 100 interceptors were necessary. It also would express the sense of the Congress that the President can and should consult the Russian Government to clarify interpretation of the ABM Treaty as may be necessary.
I want to stress that the approach I am endorsing is an approach that is treaty compliant. It is a single site. The only question would be with certain radars that would be to assist the phased array radar that is already agreed to in the treaty. I want to stress this alternative does not endanger ABM and START arms control treaties. Second, it is not a budget buster. A 20 interceptor system is deployable, according to CBO, for $4 billion--not the $40 billion or the $60 billion that we have heard associated with defend America, but about $4 billion.
This system, I believe, is not only treaty compliant, is also not a budget buster, and it also uses today's proven missile, tracking and command and control technology. We are not talking here about breaking new ground. We are not talking about having to find something that has not yet been discovered.
We have the components of this system available to us now.
I wish to review very briefly what those components are. This is leveraged development, in the sense that we are building on what we currently have. Instead of going out and trying to recreate the wheel, instead of trying to invent something totally new, we have the components of this system today. Let me emphasize that we use an existing booster--the Minuteman booster. That is the base of this system. We use existing command, control, and computers, the NORAD and Minuteman systems.
We use existing infrastructure, that is the Minuteman wing that currently exists at Grand Forks, ND, today. We only require an upgrade of existing kill vehicle technology. We use an upgrade of existing early warning radars. We do not have to go out and invent something new, we have these radars now. We would need X-band radars based on existing design. It would be four new radars, as I understand it, X-band radars, based on an existing design. So, again, we do not have to go out and create something that is new.
The cost, according to the Air Force, of a 20-Minuteman system is $2 to $2.5 billion. If we have a more robust force and go up to 100 Minuteman missiles, we would have a system for $3.5 to $4.5 billion according to Air Force estimates. CBO says 20 would cost us $4 billion.
This is in comparison to the defend America system that goes to a layered defense after 2000 that would cost from $40 to $60 billion. Yet this is a fully capable system.
Let me give a couple of quick examples of how this would work against a rogue nation launch. If Libya, for example, determined that they were going to launch on the United States by way of a threat, by way of intimidation, this is what the system would allow us to do. If Libya launched, our first launch could occur at T plus 480 seconds. Our national command authority would have 8 minutes to make a first decision to respond. The first intercept would then occur at T plus 1,200 seconds, and 20 minutes later there would be an intercept of that Libyan launched rogue missile. That would be a Minuteman III, fired from Grand Forks Air Force Base from existing silos with existing launch vehicles using a kinetic kill vehicle that has previously been tested. That first intercept would give us a very high probability of success in defending against that missile attack.
Because of the architecture of this system, in this circumstance we would have a look-fire-look-fire capability. In other words, we would be able to respond to the first launch, fire, see if our missile was effective in killing the incoming missile. We would then have a second chance to fire again, to knock down that incoming missile. That launch would have to occur at T plus 1,420 seconds. That last intercept would occur at T plus 1,720 seconds. So this would be an effective system against a rogue nation launch, such as against a launch from Libya.
Let us look at a second alternative, because one of the great concerns of a single-site system is, `Are you going to provide protection for all of the United States?' The answer is, `Yes.' The Air Force-designed system, which I want to say I applaud General Fogleman for developing as an alternative that should be part of this mix, I think is a serious alternative. It has been very well thought through. People at the Air Force, I think, deserve great commendation for the work they have done.
This chart shows what happens in a case of North Korea launching with Hawaii as an intended target. In this situation the first launch picked up at T plus 400 seconds. We are launching in response to that at T plus 400 seconds. We have the first intercept under this scenario at T plus 1,200 seconds.
On a second launch, in this case we do not have the look-shoot-look-shoot capability because, obviously, North Korea is much closer to Hawaii than Libya is to Washington, DC, so in this case we would have to fire immediately again against that missile. We would have dual shot capability to attempt to intercept that missile. The first, as I indicated, first intercept occurring at T plus 1,200 seconds; the last intercept occurring at T plus 1,700 seconds.
In other words, we would again have two chances to intercept that incoming missile. We are able to defend all 50 States from one treaty compliant site in the United States.
We are talking about a cost here of $4 billion in comparison to the defend America plan of $60 billion. That is $56 billion of savings. We put together kind of a lighthearted list here of `Top 10 Things We Could Do With $56 Billion Other Than To Deploy the `Defend America' System.'
Given the fact we could have a similar capability with this plan, which I think clearly is fully capable, is treaty compliant, and highly effective, what are the things we could do with $56 billion?
No. 10 on our list, we could fund the Weatherization Assistance Program for 500 years;
No. 9, we could buy a computer for every school-age child in America.
Other things we could do with $56 billion that would be saved by adopting this system rather than the `Defend America' system? We could fund all payments to farmers for the next 7 years under the Freedom To Farm Act, recently passed by Congress;
No. 7, we could renovate America's crumbling infrastructure;
No. 6, we could meet the entire global need for basic child health, nutrition, and education for 2 years with the $56 billion we save under this plan;
No. 5, we could provide health care to all Americans under 18 for 9 months;
No. 4, we could fund WIC, nutrition for women, infants, and children, for 14 years with the savings generated by adopting this approach rather than the more expensive `Defend America' approach;
No. 3, we could fund Head Start for 16 years with this $56 billion of savings;
No. 2, we could fund the destruction of ex-Soviet nuclear weapons through the Nunn-Lugar Act for 18 years.
There are many things we could do, Mr. President. No. 1 on our list is we could not spend it, and avoid increasing the deficit by $56 billion. Frankly, that is my favorite option. Let us take the saving, let us apply it to the deficit. Let us have a National Missile Defense System, let us have one that is treaty compliant, let us have one that is cost effective, let us have one that is proven technology, and let us save $56 billion and apply it to the deficit.
Mr. President, I sum up and look at what I call our national missile defense checklist, and apply commonsense criteria. Is the system ABM Treaty compliant? Is it affordable? Does it utilize proven technology?
On `Defend America,' on all three of the commonsense criteria, it fails: It is not treaty compliant, it is not affordable, it does not use proven technology. The Conrad alternative does meet the commonsense criteria. It is treaty compliant, it is a single site, and uses the phased array radar that is called for in the treaty. It is affordable, $4 billion instead of $60 billion that CBO says the Defend America Act would cost. And it uses proven technology, it uses the existing Minuteman boosters, uses a kinetic kill vehicle, it uses the command, control, and computers that we already have.
I hope very much that my colleagues take a serious look at this alternative to national missile defense. Clearly, there is a risk. Clearly there is a threat. I believe it is a growing risk and a growing threat;
that at some point, the American people are going to want to have deployed a national missile defense system. We can do it. We can do it in a way that is treaty compliant. We can do it in a way that is affordable. We can do it in a way that is effective.
Mr. President, the Air Force has come forward with a plan, unveiled several weeks ago now by General Fogleman, of a national missile defense system that builds on our existing technology, that costs, according to Air Force estimates, $2.5 billion, that gives us a capability to defend 50 States against accidental launch or rogue nation launch.
Mr. President, I suggest that is a reasonable cost for an insurance policy for the American people. I hope my colleagues will take very seriously this alternative.
Momentarily, I will offer an amendment that will call on the Senate to indicate that this is a serious alternative that deserves serious attention and requires the Secretary of Defense to analyze this alternative fully by the end of January.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[Page: S7256]
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to withhold.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, what is the question of the Senator? The Senate is anticipating voting now on the Nunn amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I am just awaiting an amendment I will offer. I just wanted a chance to discuss the amendment so I would not take up the time of the Senate unduly.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
