UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Space


NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT OF 1999 (Senate - March 16, 1999)

[Page: S2705]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 257, which the clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 257) to state the policy of the United States regarding the deployment of a missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Pending:

Cochran Amendment No. 69, to clarify that the deployment funding is subject to the annual authorization and appropriation process.

AMENDMENT NO. 69

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour of debate on the pending Cochran amendment No. 69, to be divided equally between the chairman and ranking member, or their designees.

Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, yesterday, we began debate of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. We have reached a point where we will soon be voting on an amendment that seeks to more clearly define the context for this legislation and the purpose we see that it will serve. This legislation is a statement of a new policy for our Government with respect to the need to develop and deploy a national missile defense system as soon as technology permits.

It is very clear from recent developments that we identified yesterday that we are confronted with a very real threat to our national security interests from ballistic missile technology, the proliferation of this technology, and the capacity of other countries to use it to deliver weapons of mass destruction against the territory of the United States.

Americans today are completely vulnerable to a ballistic missile attack. We need to see that that is changed. We need to see that the technology that we have available to us is used to develop and deploy a defense against ballistic missile attack to protect American security interests and American citizens.

During the discussion yesterday, there was some suggestion that administration officials and military officials in our country were opposed to this legislation. I must say that I heard some of these officials testify at hearings, and I disagree with that conclusion. I think there is ample evidence in the record of our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearings, and in other statements that officials have made, both civilian and military officials, to the media about their views on this subject, that we can draw a completely different conclusion from the conclusion that was expressed yesterday by some of those who participated in this debate.

Let me give you one example. The other day, on March 3, I was in a meeting of our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We were having a hearing reviewing the request for funds for the Department of Defense for the next fiscal year. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Hamre, was a witness, and we started a discussion about whether or not the administration interpreted this legislation that is pending now in the Senate to mean that the Department of Defense should disregard measures relating to the operational effectiveness of developmental testing in determining whether the national missile defense system is technologically ready to provide an effective defense against limited ballistic missile attack.

I asked Dr. Hamre, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, what his interpretation of that legislation was, and if he read the language in a way that suggested we would be deploying an operationally ineffective system or would require the administration to do so. Here is what the Deputy Secretary of Defense said. I am quoting.

[Page: S2706]

No, sir . . . I read the language that it says that you would still expect us to be good program managers. You would still expect us to do testing, disciplined rigorous testing. Not slowing things up just to test for test's sake but to do disciplined testing and know that it really would be effective and that it really would work.

So it is clear from that response to my question that in the mind of the Deputy Secretary of Defense this bill does not require deployment of a missile defense system that is operationally ineffective. On the contrary, he understands clearly, as do the cosponsors of this legislation, that we would put in place a policy and a practice that is common and ordinary in the acquisition process in our Department of Defense.

Finally, to those who suggest that a deployment decision should wait yet another evaluation of the threat, which was one of the four additional criteria outlined yesterday by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, I think a quote attributed to General Lyles, who is the Director of the Ballistic Missile Organization, might be helpful. He was asked again at a January press conference whether another evaluation of the threat would be necessary when the administration gave the go-ahead for production of the national missile defense system. This is what he said. I quote:

The key decision will be on the technological readiness. My statement about looking at the threat, that's something we do for all programs all the time. So yes, we will again look at the threat. But as the Secretary stated, we are affirming today that the threat is real and growing, so that's not an issue. But we will always look at the threat to see has it changed, is it coming from a different source, etc.? That's part of anything we do for any program.

So there is really no question in the minds of the military managers and the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense about the threat. In General Lyles' view, or in the view of Dr. Hamre, and as stated, as Senators know, by the Secretary of Defense, our former colleague, former Senator Cohen, it is routine and a matter of course that there will be a continued evaluation and a monitoring of the threat. But the question as to whether the threat of ballistic missile attack exists now against the United States has been more clearly demonstrated by the actions of North Korea than any other thing anybody can say. The evidence is hard and clear and obvious. There is a capability now in North Korea to launch a missile--multiple stage--with a solid fuel, third stage, with a capacity to reach the territory of the United States.

As Secretary Cohen said when he came to talk to Senators not too long ago, `We have checked the threat box.' `We have checked the threat box.' The threat is clear. It is present. The threat exists.

That is why the administration's policy of waiting to see whether a threat develops to then decide whether we deploy a system that we have developed is an outdated policy and needs to be replaced with a current policy that matches the facts and the realities of our situation.

That is why this legislation is needed, and that is why this amendment is important, because it restates that the policy will be subject to the annual review of the authorization committees, of the appropriations committees, as every defense acquisition system is under current practices. That is what this pending amendment suggests--that we will see the jurisdictional responsibilities for authorizing a deployment, and funding the deployment will be constrained by budget considerations, by the realities of the threat as it then exists on the regular annual processes that this Congress follows each year.

The administration will have an opportunity to sign those bills, or veto them. So we are not changing the policies, or practices, or rules, or the laws that govern the appropriations and the authorization processes of Congress. That is what this amendment clearly suggests.

I am hopeful that with this further information that is available to the Senate as we proceed to wind up debate on this amendment Senators will ask whatever questions they have, and we will be glad to try to respond to them.

We appreciate having the cosponsorship for this amendment of the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, who is the senior member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Warner, who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Lieberman, who is also active in the review and assistance on this issue.

Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I commend and congratulate my colleague from Mississippi for his leadership in this area.

Most respectfully and candidly, I must say that I have been a bit surprised and saddened by the attacks made upon this measure. This bill, in my mind, is a wake-up call. It is telling all of us that there is a threat. Anyone who studies North Korea, anyone who looks at the Soviet Union, anyone who has taken time to study the situation in Iraq and Iran, would have to conclude that there is a threat. This measure does not deploy any ballistic missile defense system. It just tells us it is about time we begin looking to the possibility of deploying a system.

As the author of this measure has pointed out very clearly, we would have to go through the regular process of authorization. This Senate and this Congress will have an opportunity to have a full-scale debate, to debate whether we have the funds, whether the threat is real, whether there is a necessity for this system. Then it will have to go through the appropriations process. At each level, the President of the United States will have an opportunity of either concurring or vetoing our efforts. We are not in any way short-circuiting the process that has been laid down by our Founding Fathers. We are following the process. But we are, in essence, telling our Nation: Wake up. There is a threat, and it is about time we look at it seriously.

I am proud to be a cosponsor, not only of the amendment but of the bill itself. It is about time somebody took the leadership to do what Senator Cochran has been doing. So I hope my colleagues will reconsider their opposition, look at it very objectively, and I am certain they will concur with us.

For those who have been criticizing that this is going to be a very expensive bill, there is not a single dollar in this measure--not a single dollar. That will have to be determined at a later time if the Congress so decides.

I hope my colleagues on my side will join us when the final vote is taken to support this measure.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know that under the order we are going to recess at 12:30, and then the order provides for 1 hour of debate on this amendment and then a vote at 2:15.

I am going to recommend--I do not know what the pleasure of the leadership will be--that we go ahead and have that vote and yield back the time on the amendment. That is going to be my recommendation to our leader on this side of the aisle. I don't know that we left anything out in our debate yesterday. We had time from 3 o'clock until 6:30 yesterday evening when we debated this issue and all of the issues that were involved. But I am happy to abide by whatever decision the leadership makes on that. I am just suggesting, for my part I will be happy to yield back our time on the amendment so we can vote at 2:15 when we resume our session after lunch.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time for this introduction be allocated against the time on this amendment but appear as in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

[Page: S2707]

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Conrad and Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 623 are located in today's Record under `Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.')

END



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list