• Forum
• SITREP
• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security

• Space

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Public Eye

[Page: S2975]

• [Begin insert]

As most of my colleagues know, today, the United States faces a serious, credible, and growing threat from limited ballistic missiles that could potentially carry nuclear, biological or chemical payloads. This new threat is not from Russia, our partner in many important arms control agreements. Instead, this threat comes from the increasing proliferation of ballistic missile technology. In particular, certain rogue states pose the greatest threat as they continue to push for--and make great progress in acquiring--delivery systems that directly threaten the United States. I do not believe that the threat from these rogue states, most of which have demonstrated a complete disregard for the well-being of their own citizens as they relentlessly pursue the acquisition of this ballistic missile technology, can be understated.

Mr. President, this new and emerging ballistic missile threat from rogue states was dramatically highlighted by the August 1998 Taepo Dong I missile launch in North Korea. This North Korean missile launch demonstrated important aspects of intercontinental missile development. Most importantly, the missile included multiple stage separation and the use of a third stage. This use of a third stage, in particular, was surprising to our intelligence community. Using a third stage gives this missile a potential range in excess of 5,500 kilometers, thus effectively making the Taepo Dong I an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Unfortunately, America's intelligence community did not expect the North Korean's to have the capability to make such a three stage missile. In fact, the most recent U.S. intelligence reports made prior to this Taepo Dong I launch claimed that no rogue state would have this capability for at least ten years.

Even before the North Koreans launched their Taepo Dong I missile last August, there were other disturbing reports that predicted the eminent ballistic missile threat to the United States. In July, the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, known as the Rumsfeld Commission, released its report. The Rumsfeld Commission was a bipartisan commission headed by former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other well respected members in the defense community. The Rumsfeld Commission warned of the growing ballistic missile threat that rogue states posed to the United States. The Rumsfeld Commission unanimously found that, `concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United States, its deployed forces and its friends and allies.'

The Commission reported further that, `The threat to the U.S. posed by these emerging capabilities is broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the Intelligence Community.'

The launch of the Taepo Dong I missile and the findings of the Rumsfeld Commission are very troubling. It is clear that ballistic missile technology is progressing rapidly and proliferating just as rapidly and, consequently, the threat to the United States is real. It is no longer a perceived threat or a potential threat. It is not a threat that may come ten years down the road. This threat is tangible and it is here now. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to all Americans to do everything possible to defend the United States from this threat. Supporting this legislation, in my opinion, is an important step in providing a solid defense for the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks.

Moreover, S.257 is a responsible way to address the threat that the United States faces. In contrast to previous legislative efforts, most of which micro managed this policy by setting a fixed date for deployment and by dictating the exact type of missile defense system to be deployed, this legislation more properly lays out broad U.S. policy. The bill simply--but clearly--calls for deployment of an effective system once the technology is possible. No date for deployment is set. No requirement for a specific type of ballistic missile defense is outlined. By not dictating such requirements, this legislation responsibly allows for flexibility for our military experts to develop and deploy the best possible missile defense system. This language helps ensure that the United State will not rush into deployment with a substandard system--at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars--just to be able to say we've deployed a limited missile defense.

Instead, this legislation will help ensure that the United States has deployed a system that has been thoroughly tested and proven operationally effective. I fully support this flexible approach.

Mr. President, let me briefly address the issue of cost. A lot has been said about how the original draft of this legislation could have bypassed future deliberations about how much the Pentagon should spend on missile defense. In effect, many critics of this legislation believed this bill would simply be providing a blank check for all future missile defense development and deployment efforts. I don't believe that is the case. This legislation does not preclude such important funding deliberations. However, I was very glad to support the amendment that Senator Cochran offered yesterday to make it absolutely explicit that Congress will fully debate the cost implications of a missile defense system in all annual defense authorizations and appropriations proceedings in the future. I plan to fully weigh the costs and benefits of missile defense in comparison to all other defense programs and to assess all potential threats to the United States at the time of those deliberations.

Finally, I am also pleased that the bill now calls for the United States to continue working with the Russians to reduce nuclear weapons. I strongly supported the amendment offered by Senator Landrieu which added this policy statement to S. 257. The United States and Russia have made great progress in reducing nuclear weapons over the past decade and both countries need to continue to do so. I think this statement of policy calling for continued efforts to reduce nuclear weapons is extremely important. We need to make it clear to ourselves, to all American citizens, to our allies, and to the world that not only does the United States plan to defend itself from the threat of limited ballistic missile attacks, but that the best protection we can offer our nation is a world in which the fewest possible weapons of mass destruction exist.

Again, I thank Senator Cochran and all the cosponsors for introducing this important piece of legislation and for allowing the modifications to be made that garnered broad bipartisan support. I believe it is entirely appropriate for Congress to make it the policy of the United States to deploy an effective missile defense when technologically possible. The National Missile Defense Act will help allow this Government to keep its most important covenant with the American people--to protect their life and liberty.

[Page: S2976]

END