[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 36 (Friday, March 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2189-S2191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THREAT OF MISSILE ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES AND OUR ALLIES

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the second subject I address today deals with 
the subject of defense and specifically the threat of missile attack on 
the United States or our allies or our troops deployed abroad.
  Today, the Washington Times carried a story reporting on testimony 
that was given yesterday to the House National Security Committee, the 
equivalent to the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Yesterday, the 
former CIA Director, James Woolsey, according to this story, told a 
House committee that the recent intelligence estimate on the missile 
threat to the United States was flawed and it should not be used as the 
basis for defense policy.
  James Woolsey is an extraordinarily qualified source to speak to 
this. He served as the CIA Director for 2 years under President 
Clinton, and missile defense proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction were one of his primary interests while serving in that 
capacity.
  What Mr. Woolsey said, according to this news report, is that the 
conclusions of this recent National Intelligence Estimate, called the 
NIE, that says that no long-range missiles could threaten the 48 
contiguous United States for at least 15 years, would be a faulty basis 
upon which to base U.S. policy. He urged that the United States set up 
a special team of outside experts to explore just how we should develop 
ballistic missiles and defenses to ballistic missiles in response to 
this threat.
  He said--and I am quoting from the article:

       I would bet that we would be shocked at what they could 
     show us about available capabilities in ballistic missiles.

  He also is reported to have said that if the President extrapolated a 
general conclusion from the very limited threat assessment of the NIE, 
``I believe that this was a serious error.''
  That is precisely what happened. Based on this NIE, which a lot of 
experts have now said appear to have been politically driven--at least 
is not based upon the best intelligence data, or is skewed in its 
conclusion because of the assumptions behind it based on that 
document--the administration has drastically revised the spending 
priorities of the Congress and has said simply that it is not going to 
spend money that we have appropriated pursuant to a defense 
authorization to develop two antiballistic missile systems on the 
schedule that we dictated.
  We are not talking here even about a national missile system to 
protect the continental United States, but rather the theater systems 
called THAAD and the so-called Navy Upper-Tier Program. In both cases, 
the administration, through Secretary Perry, has said they are going to 
delay that spending. I submit that is an unconstitutional action on the 
part of the administration when the Congress has specifically

[[Page S2190]]

authorized and appropriated the money pursuant to a schedule which 
requires expenditures to meet certain goals at certain points in time.
  The administration based that decision on faulty intelligence 
estimates. Why do we say faulty? Not only is CIA Director James Woolsey 
saying they are faulty, but previous administration spokesmen have 
disagreed with the assessment. You have to look at it carefully to see 
what they are saying. What the assessment may be saying is that no 
country is going to begin from scratch and totally indigenously develop 
an intercontinental ballistic missile system that could threaten the 48 
contiguous States in less than 15 years. That may be true, but it is 
largely irrelevant because virtually no state today is attempting to 
indigenously develop a weapon.
  They are not starting today. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, China, 
Russia, other countries in the world have used systems developed by 
others--except for the country of Russia--and have built on those 
systems by acquiring components from, I am sad to say, Western 
countries, including the United States. We know Saddam Hussein was 
within 18 months of having a nuclear weapon, or close, based on 
components he purchased from Germany, Italy, France, the United States, 
and others. He had the missiles which he had acquired from Russia, so-
called Scuds. He had them modified to carry a payload, a longer range 
than the original Scud. That is how the countries do it.
  So if you say no country is starting from scratch today, using a 
strictly indigenously developed program is going to have an 
intercontinental missile hit the 48 contiguous States may be right, but 
it is irrelevant. You should not change American defense policy based 
on that. The 48 contiguous States are not really the relevant factor. 
You have Alaska and Hawaii, both of which are going to be within range 
of missiles from North Korea in the relatively not-too-distant future.
  How soon? Well, taking the testimony of Admiral Studeman, the Acting 
Director of the CIA in between Jim Woolsey and now John Deutch. Last 
April, he testified that his analysis indicated that the Taepo Dong I 
or Taepo Dong II--the missiles that North Korea is developing--were 3 
to 5 years away, maybe less. John Deutch himself testified on August 
11, 1994, that the Taepo Dong II may be able to strike U.S. military by 
the end of the decade. By U.S. territory, we mean including Hawaii or 
Alaska. We are talking now 4 years from now.

  These statements, obviously, were based upon the U.S. intelligence 
community's 1995 missile threat assessment. I leave the point at this: 
Our intelligence community has said that these countries using 
components purchased elsewhere will have missiles that can reach U.S. 
territory, not necessarily the contiguous 48 States, in the not-too-
distant future--3, 4, 5 years--meaning we have to get moving on a 
missile defense system.
  None of the administration's actions will achieve that objective. 
That is why the Congress has said we should get moving with these 
programs. We focused on the theater threats initially because some of 
those theater threats could be deployed in such a way as to deal with 
the threats that are probably most timely, rather than the large 
intercontinental ballistic missile threat against the continental 
United States.
  Navy upper-tier is a program which is deployed using existing 
missiles and existing radar on Navy Aegis cruisers by deploying the 
cruisers in the appropriate places in the Pacific, and in that vicinity 
of the world, we would be able to help defend against a North Korean 
missile threat, but not unless we get moving with the program as the 
Congress has directed. That is why the administration's holdup on that 
program, based upon a faulty intelligence estimate, is so dangerous, 
both to the United States, our people, our forces deployed abroad in 
places like South Korea and Japan, for example, and also to our allies 
who might want to depend on our help.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent an article from the Washington 
Times dated March 15, 1996, be made a part of the Record at the 
conclusion of the remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think the Congress must be much more 
assertive in making certain we have basic policy on correct 
intelligence estimates, that the country proceed with the development 
of an adequate ballistic missile defense program, and that the 
administration abide by the law passed by the Congress and signed into 
law by the President of the United States--that it cannot ignore the 
law.
  Statements based on the U.S. intelligence community's 1995 missile 
threat assessment concluded:
  First, the proliferation of ballistic missiles is significant and 
growing, both in terms of numbers of missiles and in terms of the 
technical capabilities of those missiles;
  Second, the trends in missile proliferation is toward longer range 
and more sophisticated ballistic missiles;
  Third, a determined country can acquire an ICBM in the future, and 
with little warning, by means other than indigenous development; and,
  Fourth, the North Koreans may deploy an ICBM capable of reaching the 
continental United States within 5 years.
  The new CIA letter was apparently based on the most recent national 
intelligence estimate [NIE] for 1996 which concludes that, while 
several countries continue to seek longer range missiles, the North 
Korean ICBM system is now reassessed as having a ``very low'' 
probability of being operational by the year 2000. In addition, the NIE 
assumes it is extremely unlikely any nation with ICBMs will be willing 
to sell them. Finally, the NIE states that U.S. warning capabilities 
are sufficient to provide notice many years in advance of indigenous 
development of ICBM's.
  You might wonder, as I did, what exactly has changed since the 1995 
assessment? What has changed is, not the facts, but the interpretation 
of the data. Either the intelligence community has adopted a new 
methodology to determine the extent of a threat, or outside--maybe even 
political--influences are at play. In either case, I intend to pursue 
this matter through the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  To conclude my first point, I believe that its failure to support a 
viable, sustainable, and sensible ballistic missile defense program 
will be recorded as one of the major mistakes of the Clinton 
administration national security strategy. A second major error is the 
failure to maintain a strong, coherent, nonproliferation policy.
  I conclude on one other item, Mr. President. Within the last 3 weeks, 
Majority Leader Bob Dole and other Members of this body sent a letter 
to the President complaining about this very matter and indicating to 
him that if the administration did not proceed with the development of 
these two missile systems as directed by the Congress and as signed 
into law, that the Congress would have to take whatever means it could 
to ensure that the law be complied with.
  There are now mechanisms for forcing compliance with that law under 
consideration by people in this body. I suspect that we will have to 
take those actions very soon if the administration does not change its 
position. I hope that people from the administration will consider this 
offer to try to cooperate so that we do not have to take action that 
they will find unpalatable.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to 
the Secretary of Defense from Majority Leader Bob Dole and other 
Members of the Senate on this subject.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. William J. Perry,
     Secretary, Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: We are deeply troubled by your plans to 
     disregard provisions of law related to ballistic missile 
     defense contained in the Fiscal Year 1996 Department of 
     Defense authorization bill. We find this course of action 
     indefensible before the law and the American people.
       On numerous occasions over the past year, members of the 
     Republican majority have communicated their strong support 
     for ballistic missile defense--most recently in letters sent 
     to you on November 7, 1995 and December 22, 1995. In these 
     letters, we emphasized our deep commitment to providing 
     future funding for these programs identified in

[[Page S2191]]

     sections 216 and 234 of Public Law 104-106, the Fiscal Year 
     1996 defense authorization bill which the President signed 
     into law on February 10, 1996. In particular, we called your 
     attention to the Space and Missile Tracking System, the 
     Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program, and the 
     Navy Upper Tier program. Therefore, we were dismayed by your 
     February 16 press conference, in which you announced your 
     intention to disregard key provisions of Public Law 104-106 
     by failing to provide funding sufficient to comply with this 
     law.
       With each passing day, new facts emerge which highlight the 
     escalating proliferation threat. Your announcement of a 
     decreased ballistic missile defense effort can only serve to 
     strengthen the determination of nations with interests 
     inimical to our own to continue to pursue these weapons of 
     mass destruction and delivery systems which endanger American 
     lives and interests. Conversely, eliminating our 
     vulnerability in this area can only significantly reduce the 
     incentive of rogue nations to pursue nuclear, chemical and 
     biological weapons, as well as ballistic missile delivery 
     systems.
       The funding level you announced on the 16th of February is 
     insufficient for the THAAD and Navy Upper Tier programs, 
     respectively. We will authorize and appropriate funding in 
     the Fiscal Year 1997 defense bills for these programs--which 
     we believe complement, but cannot replace each other--at the 
     levels necessary to achieve operational capability by the 
     dates now specified in law. While we hope to accommodate as 
     much of your FY '97 budget request as possible, please 
     understand that we will not hesitate to alter the budget 
     request as necessary to bring it into compliance with section 
     234 of Public Law 104-106.
           Sincerely,
         John Warner; Richard Shelby; Ted Stevens; Kay Bailey 
           Hutchinson; Jesse Helms; Spencer Abraham; Conrad Burns; 
           Rick Santorum; Bob Smith; Mike DeWine; Paul Coverdell; 
           Connie Mack; Don Nickles.
         Jon Kyl; Thad Cochran; Jim Inhofe; Larry E. Craig; Chuck 
           Grassley; John McCain; Rod Grams; John Ashcroft; Mitch 
           McConnell; Orrin Hatch; Al Simpson; Trent Lott.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 15, 1996]

    Report on Missile Threat to U.S. Too Optimistic, Woolsey Charges

                            (By Bill Gertz)

       Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey told Congress 
     yesterday that a recent intelligence estimate on the missile 
     threat to the United States was flawed and should not be used 
     as a basis for defense policies.
       Appearing before the House National Security Committee, Mr. 
     Woolsey challenged the conclusions of a recent national 
     intelligence estimate (NIE) that said no long-range missiles 
     will threaten the 48 contiguous United States for at least 15 
     years.
       Limiting the estimate's focus on the missile threat to the 
     48 states ``can lead to a badly distorted and minimized 
     perception of very serious threats we face from ballistic 
     missiles now and in the very near future--threats to our 
     friends, our allies, our overseas bases and military forces--
     and some of the 50 states,'' he said.
       Broad conclusions drawn by policy-makers from the estimate 
     could be ``quite wrong,'' he said, noting that North Korean 
     intermediate-range missiles could threaten Alaska and Hawaii 
     with ``nuclear blackmail'' in ``well under 15 years.''
       To make policy judgments on missile defense needs from the 
     limited analysis is ``akin to saying that, because we believe 
     that for the next number of years local criminals will not be 
     able to blow up police headquarters in the District of 
     Columbia, there is no serious threat to the safety and 
     security of our police,'' Mr. Woolsey said.
       The estimate, based on public testimony and statements 
     about it, also is flawed because it underestimates the danger 
     of long-range missiles or technology being acquired 
     internationally by rogue states, or the possibility that 
     friendly states with missiles could turn hostile, he said.
       A CIA spokesman could not be reached for comment.
       Mr. Woolsey called for setting up a special team of outside 
     experts to explore how to develop ballistic missiles. ``I 
     would bet that we would be shocked at what they could show us 
     about available capabilities in ballistic missiles,'' he 
     said.
       Rep. Floyd D. Spence, South Carolina Republican and 
     committee chairman, said that to say the United States is 
     secure from foreign missile threats over the next 15 years is 
     ``dangerously irresponsible'' because of the global turmoil.
       Mr. Spence has asked the General Accounting Office to 
     investigate whether the 1995 NIE on the missile threat was 
     ``politicized'' to fit Clinton administration opposition to 
     missile defenses.
       The first statements about the NIE were made public by 
     Senate Democrats during debate on the fiscal 1996 defense 
     authorization bill, which President Clinton vetoed in 
     December because he opposed its provisions requiring 
     deployment of a national missile defense.
       Mr. Clinton said at the time of the veto that U.S. 
     intelligence did not foresee a missile threat to the United 
     States within the next decade.
       Mr. Woolsey said that, if the president extrapolated a 
     general conclusion from the very limited threat assessed by 
     the NIE, ``I believe that this was a serious error.''
       In separate testimony, Richard Perle, assistant defense 
     secretary during the Reagan administration, criticized the 
     Clinton administration's effort to expand the Anti-Ballistic 
     Missile (ABM) Treaty to cover short-range anti-missile 
     defenses.
       ``To diminish our capacity to deal with these threats in 
     the mistaken belief that it is more important to preserve the 
     ABM treaty unchanged is utter nonsense,'' Mr. Perle said. 
     ``Those who urge this course are hopelessly mired in the tar 
     pits of the Cold War.''
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have several unanimous consent requests on 
behalf of the majority leader. Mr. President, all of these requests 
have been cleared by the Democratic side.

                          ____________________