[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1384-S1386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I take this time to respond to those who
are suggesting we put off, or even cancel, the deployment of a national
missile defense system.
One reason the critics of the program are giving for delay is the
alleged opposition of our allies, particularly those in Europe. Earlier
this month at the Munich Conference on International Security,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a forceful case for
deployment of a defense against strategic ballistic missiles. He
explained the rationale for our missile defense program, and he also
made it clear that this administration intends to deploy such a system
as soon as possible.
He told those attending the conference that deploying a missile
defense system was a moral issue because ``no U.S. President can
responsibly say his defense policy is calculated and designed to leave
the American people undefended against threats that are known to
exist.''
Former Secretary of State Kissinger, who negotiated the 1972 Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty, also spoke at the conference. He said a U.S.
President cannot allow a situation in which ``extinction of civilized
life is one's only strategy.''
The response from our European allies was very encouraging. For
months, critics have been saying that our allies firmly oppose our
plans to deploy missile defenses and would never go along with them.
But the Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson, said:
[[Page S1385]]
Now the Europeans have to accept that the Americans really
intend to go ahead. . . . Now that the question of
``whether'' it's going to happen has been settled, I want an
engagement inside NATO between the Americans and other allies
about the ``how'' and the ``when.''
With respect to the threat, Secretary General Robertson said:
The interesting point is that there is now a recognition by
leaders--American, European, and even Russian--that there is
a new threat from the proliferation of ballistic missiles
that has got to be dealt with. The Americans have said how
they're going to deal with it. The Europeans are being
offered a chance to share in that.
Robertson also added:
The concept of mutually assured destruction is obsolete.
The old equation no longer works out: Russia and the United
States in a balance of terror. Now there are groups and
States acquiring missile technology and warheads with great
facility. We are living in a dangerous new world.
Germany's views are also changing. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder,
addressing fellow Social Democratic Party members, said recently, ``We
should be under no illusions that that there will be no difference of
opinion with the new American leadership under President George W.
Bush. First and foremost, it won't be about the planned National
Missile Defense program but about trade policy issues. Differences over
NMD are not the decisive factor in the German-American relationship.''
German Foreign Minister Fischer said that NMD ``above all is a national
decision for the United States.'' In Moscow this week, he said, ``in
the end, the Russians are going to accept it somehow.''
Here in Washington last week, Britain's Foreign Secretary said, ``On
the question of what happens if national missile defense proceeds; if
it means the U.S., feels more secure and therefore feels more able to
assert itself in international areas of concern to us, we would regard
that as a net gain in security.'' And the Prime Minister of Canada, who
just a few months ago had joined Russian President Putin in calling for
preservation of the ABM Treaty, said last week after consulting with
President Bush, ``Perhaps we are in a different era.''
The Australian Foreign Minister noted last week that until now,
A lot of the debate has been directed at the United States.
I frankly think an awful lot of the debate should instead be
directed not only toward those countries that have got or are
developing these missile systems but the countries that have
been transferring that missile technology to others. . . . If
there were no missiles, there would be no need for a missile
defense system.
Dr. Javier Solana of Spain, former Secretary-General of NATO and now
the director of foreign policy for the European Union, said ``The
United States has the right to deploy'' an NMD system. Of the ABM
Treaty, the so-called ``cornerstone of strategic stability,'' Dr.
Solana said, ``It is not the Bible.''
The words we now hear from our European and other important allies
are signaling changed attitudes. I think they have been influenced by
the Bush administration's willingness to confront the NMD issue
squarely, to consult fully with our allies, and to make clear a
determination to protect this nation and its allies from long-range
ballistic missile attack. The best ally is a strong one, and the
actions of the Bush administration are an overdue reassurance that the
United States will indeed be a strong alliance partner.
Of course, not every nation welcomes our NMD plans. France still has
not embraced the concept, and Russia and China continue their
opposition. But this shouldn't change our plans to deploy missile
defenses. Our action threatens no nation, although it will create an
obstacle for those who would threaten the U.S. Those who mean us no
harm have nothing to fear from this purely defensive system; those who
do mean us harm will learn that the United States will no longer commit
itself to continuing vulnerability.
Another reason for proceeding as soon as possible to deploy missile
defenses to protect the United States was highlighted last week in
testimony presented to the Senate by the Director of Central
Intelligence, George Tenet.
He said, ``we cannot underestimate the catalytic role that foreign
assistance has played in advancing . . . missile and WMD programs,
shortening the development times, and aiding production.'' He noted
that it is increasingly difficult to predict those timelines, saying
``The missile and WMD proliferation problem continues to change in ways
that make it harder to monitor and control, increasing the risks of
substantial surprise.'' Director Tenet went on to say, ``It is that
foreign assistance piece that you have to have that very precise
intelligence to understand, and sometimes you get it and sometimes you
don't.'' Because of the difficulty monitoring foreign assistance,
Director Tenet added that ``these time lines all become illusory.''
He also noted that it is a mistake to think of nations who aspire to
obtain missiles as technologically unsophisticated: ``We are not
talking about unsophisticated countries. When you talk about Iraq and
Iran, people need to understand these are countries with sophisticated
capabilities, sophisticated technology, digital communications.''
And the danger does not stop when one of these nations acquires the
technology that is now so freely available. Mr. Tenet warned about what
he termed ``secondary proliferation'':
There is also great potential for secondary proliferation,
for maturing state-sponsored programs such as those in
Pakistan, Iran and India. Add to this group the private
companies, scientists and engineers in Russia, China and
India who may be increasing their involvement in these
activities taking advantage of weak or unenforceable national
export controls and the growing availability of technologies.
These trends have continued, and in some cases have
accelerated over the past year.
The Director of Central Intelligence added, ``So you know, the kind
of technology flows that we see from big states to smaller states and
then the inclination of those people who do the secondary proliferation
I think is what's most worrisome to me.''
Some who oppose missile defense deployment point to diplomatic
initiatives and political change as evidence that the threat is
diminishing. For example, they point to recent efforts by North Korea's
leader Kim Jong Il to present a more open face to the world. But
according to the Director of Central Intelligence, little has actually
changed with respect to North Korea's proliferation activities. For
example, he testified,
Pyongyang's bold diplomatic outreach to the international
community and engagement with South Korea reflect a
significant change in strategy. The strategy is designed to
assure the continued survival of Kim Jong Il by ending
Pyongyang's political isolation and fixing the North's
failing economy by attracting more aid. We do not know how
far Kim will go in opening the North, but I can report to you
that we have not yet seen a significant diminution of the
threat from North to American and South Korean interests.
Pyongyang still believes that a strong military, capable of
projecting power in the region, is an essential element of
national power. Pyongyang's declared military-first policy
requires massive investment in the armed forces, even at the
expense of other national objectives . . . [T]he North Korean
military appears, for now, to have halted its near decade-
long slide in military capabilities. In addition to the
North's longer-range missile threat to us, Pyongyang is also
expanding its short- and medium-range missile inventory,
putting our allies at risk.
Similar claims about diminishing threats have been made about Iran. A
year ago, those who oppose missile defense were suggesting that because
of the election of reform-minded leaders we need no longer worry about
that country obtaining more capable missiles. Here is what the Director
of Central Intelligence had to say about Iran in his testimony last
week:
Iran has one of the largest and most capable ballistic
missile programs in the Middle East. It's public statements
suggest that it plans to develop longer-range rockets for use
in a space-launch program. But Tehran could follow the
North Korean pattern and test an ICBM capable of
delivering a light payload to the United States in the
next few years . . .
Events in the past year have been discouraging for positive
change in Iran. . . . Prospects for near-term political
reform in the near term are fading. Opponents of reform have
not only muzzled the open press, they have also arrested
prominent activists and blunted the legislature's powers.
Over the summer, supreme leader Khamenei ordered the new
legislature not to ease press restrictions, a key reformist
pursuit, that signaled the narrow borders within which he
would allow the legislature to operate.
I hope that reformers do make gains in Iran, although senior CIA
officials have testified that Iranian ``reformers''--such as President
Khatemi--are enthusiastic about acquiring ballistic missiles. I hope
Iran will one day be a thriving democracy. But that day has not
arrived, and our security policy cannot be based on hope.
[[Page S1386]]
We need missile defense not just because of the capabilities of
particular countries, but because of the larger problem: The
proliferation of missile technology has created a world in which we can
no longer afford to leave ourselves vulnerable to an entire class of
weapons. Remaining vulnerable only guarantees that some nation will
seize upon this vulnerability and take the United States and our allies
by surprise.
The Bush administration's resolve to deploy missile defenses is an
essential first step in modernizing our national security assets.
Because of the neglect our missile defense program has suffered over
the last eight years, we now face a threat against which we will have
no defense for several years. Because of decisions made by the previous
administration, the only long-range missile defense we have in the
near-term will be the ground-based system planned for initial
deployment in Alaska. Additional resources must be provided so that
other technologies and basing modes can be developed and tested. But
now, we must move forward as fast as we can with the technology we have
today. We must not prolong our vulnerability by waiting for newer and
better technology. Therefore, it is important that the administration
immediately begin construction of the NMD radar at Shemya, AK.
Construction of the national missile defense radar at Shemya, AK,
should begin immediately.
Construction of this radar was to have begun this May, but last
September President Clinton postponed the decision to proceed, citing
delays with other elements of the system and a lack of progress in
convincing Russia to modernize the ABM Treaty to permit NMB deployment.
However, construction of the Shemya radar is the so-called ``long-
lead'' item in deployment of the NMD system; it is the step that takes
the longest and must begin the soonest. Delaying construction of the
NMD radar means delaying deployment of the entire system, and we cannot
afford more unnecessary delays in this program.
There is still time to recover from the delays caused by President
Clinton's postponement last fall. The radar design is complete, the
funds have been appropriated, and any missile defense system we build
will have to begin with an X-band radar at Shemy. So we should get on
with it.
Beginning construction of the Shemya radar will be a demonstration of
the determination of our government to fulfill its first constitutional
duty, which is to provide for the security of our Nation. It will send
an unmistakable signal to all--friend or potential foe--that the United
States will not remain vulnerable any longer to those who threaten us
with ballistic missiles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I propound a unanimous consent
request, I want to make some brief comments on the bill that I expect
to call up.
____________________