[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10855-S10856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in light of the recent vote on national 
missile defense, I feel compelled to explain my position on this 
important issue. In short, I agree with this Nation's senior military 
officers, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Each of them opposes the National 
Missile Defense bill, and they provided a detailed explanation of their 
position in a letter they sent to Capitol Hill prior to the vote.
  The National Missile Defense bill would require that a national 
missile defense system be deployed as soon as it is ``technologically 
feasible.'' Conversely, the current plan calls for the Defense 
Department, by the year 2000, to research and develop such a system and 
then be able to deploy it within

[[Page S10856]]

three years. This policy allows us to develop our capabilities in view 
of developing threats rather than run the risk of deploying a system 
that proves to be ineffective. In the absence of a current long range 
ballistic missile threat from a rogue state, this is the most 
reasonable policy.
  Research and development of a National Missile Defense system is 
advancing at an accelerated pace. Most weapons systems require six to 
twelve years before they are fully developed and ready to be deployed, 
but under the current timetable, the National Missile Defense system 
will spend as little as three years in the development phase. This 
represents the Defense Department's strong commitment to protecting the 
United States from an intercontinental missile attack. That commitment 
is backed by billions of dollars in funding. The nation will spend 
nearly a billion dollars on national missile defense during the next 
fiscal year alone.
  The National Missile Defense bill would not have advanced the 
timetable for developing and deploying a missile defense system. What 
it would have done is lock this nation in to buying a yet-to-be-
developed system against an unknown threat for an unidentified sum of 
money. A decision to buy a system at such an early stage would not only 
have been unprecedented, but it could have sapped funding from programs 
that are directed at addressing existing threats. For example, the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff pointed out that a weapon of mass destruction may 
presently be delivered through unconventional, terrorist-style means, 
yet a national missile defense system would not address that threat.
  This bill would have had a detrimental impact on arms control 
agreements. Had the United States gone forward to deploy a National 
Missile Defense system as the bill required, this nation would have 
violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Additionally, it 
might have caused Russia to withdraw from the START I Treaty and 
certainly would have prevented the ratification of the START II Treaty. 
The intercontinental ballistic missile threat to this nation will be 
intensified if Russia retains hundreds of additional nuclear weapons as 
a result broken agreements. The current policy, continued research and 
development of a system, would not violate arms control agreements or 
cause Russia to withdraw from treaties that place important limitations 
on both nations' missiles.
  In conclusion, although I oppose this National Missile Defense bill, 
I feel strongly that there is an important place for missile defense in 
our national security strategy. There have been some important 
advancements in the development of both theater and national missile 
defense systems that will surely benefit this nation in the future. Our 
efforts along these lines must continue. Considering all of our defense 
and non-defense priorities, however, now is not the time to rush 
forward with a decision to deploy an undeveloped national missile 
defense system.

                          ____________________