[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 59 (Monday, May 3, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4734-S4735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE GAO MISSILE DEFENSE REPORT

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I came to the floor to discuss 
a topic we will be taking up in the Senate Armed Services Committee 
later this week as we start to grapple with the authorization bill for 
the Defense Department--the question of missile defense.
  This topic is timely for a number of reasons. First of all, the 
administration plans to deploy a ``rudimentary'' missile defense system 
this September, despite the fact it has not been proven to work. The 
Armed Services Committee begins consideration of this DOD fiscal year 
2005 budget request, and the Pentagon has requested $10 billion for 
missile defense systems in 2005,

[[Page S4735]]

so it is timely to talk about it right now.
  Also, it is timely to talk about this issue because the General 
Accounting Office has released a report exhaustively reviewing major 
missile defense programs--with interesting and useful findings, if we 
will listen to those findings.
  Let's look at that GAO report. The report made some very telling 
observations. Among them was that the missile defense to be deployed in 
September simply will not be proven yet, because it hasn't been tested 
against realistic targets. The GAO recommends that realistic 
operational tests should be conducted on the missile defense system, 
which many of us have been saying. How in the world can you deploy 
something that has not been developed and tested?
  The GAO recommends we establish clear and firm missile defense goals. 
I don't see how we can operate and manage a complex, expensive program 
like this without goals. The report also took a hard, unbiased look at 
what progress was being made on these missile defense programs. The GAO 
spent close to a year doing research going beyond the rhetoric to 
understand what was going on scientifically and fiscally among these 
complex programs.
  What did the GAO find? Well, they found some major problems, problems 
that should concern all of us who support a true working missile 
defense for our homeland. I want to repeat that--problems that concern 
those of us who truly support a working missile defense program for our 
homeland.
  The GAO found, for example, the prime contractors for 2 of the 
missile defense programs had cost overruns totaling almost $400 million 
during fiscal year 2003 alone.
  The GAO found the first increment of missile defense to be deployed 
in September is going to cost a billion dollars more than the Pentagon 
thought it would cost a year ago. That is a billion dollars of cost 
growth in a single year. I want this program to be successful, and I 
also want it to be fiscally responsible.
  The GAO also found the airborne laser program is more than a year 
behind schedule and projected to go over budget between a half billion 
dollars and a billion dollars. Let's look at that airborne laser 
program for a moment. It is a fascinating technology, using a laser 
cannon mounted on a 747 aircraft to shoot down missiles while they are 
rising in the boost phase of an ICBM flight.
  In March 2003, only a year ago, during the Senate Armed Services 
Committee hearing on missile defense, I asked the Lieutenant General 
Kadish, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, about the airborne 
laser. He told me it was going to be working within a year. Well, we 
know now--not from him, but from the GAO report--that at the time of 
the hearing last year, the airborne laser program was already 
significantly behind schedule and had more than $100 million in cost 
overruns a year ago when I asked the question in the Armed Services 
Committee. But they didn't tell us that.
  According to the GAO, just about everything that can go wrong with 
this program has gone wrong. General Kadish did not tell us that a year 
ago. The report says:

       Numerous and continuing issues have caused the [program] to 
slip, including supply, quality, and technical problems.

  I continue the quote:

       For example, specialized valves have been recalled twice, 
     laser fluid management software has been delayed due to 
     inadequate definition of requirements, and improperly cleaned 
     plumbing and material issues have required over 3,000 hours 
     of unplanned work. In addition, delays in hardware delivery 
     occurred in almost every month of fiscal year 2003.

  Why didn't they tell us that last year? It is, again, symptomatic of 
the executive branch not deferring to the proper balance of powers as 
envisioned by the Constitution. Instead, they are asking the 
legislative branch to do its bidding. This has to stop for the sake of 
the balance of powers of this country.
  Even as these problems were occurring with the airborne laser, more 
money was pouring into the program. The Missile Defense Agency spent 
about a billion dollars on the airborne laser in 2002 and 2003, and the 
administration has asked for another half billion dollars in fiscal 
year 2005 for this same program.
  The Pentagon has not been forthcoming with this sort of information. 
If it weren't for this GAO report, it is not likely the Congress would 
understand how serious the problems are with this airborne laser 
program. I wish it were not so, because wouldn't it be good for America 
if we suddenly had an airborne laser that could shoot down an ascending 
rocket heading for an American target?
  The airborne laser program is not the only surprise in the GAO 
report. The report reveals computer programs needed for Navy ships to 
work with the administration's missile defense system won't be tested 
adequately prior to the planned September deployment of the system. 
Since these ships are needed to protect Hawaii from a missile launch, 
Hawaii is now unprotected. That same report reveals major delays with 
the administration's missile defense plans. It says:

       Flight tests leading up to the [deployment] have slipped 
     [over] 10 months, largely as a consequence of delays in 
     [missile defense] interceptor development and delivery. 
     Accordingly, the test schedule leading up to the September 
     [deployment] has been severely compressed, limiting [the] 
     opportunity to characterize [the system's] performance prior 
     to the initial fielding.

  The report goes on:

       The production and delivery of all 20 interceptors by the 
     end of [December 2005] is uncertain--contractors have not 
     demonstrated that they can meet the increased production 
     rate.

  Given the reality of the technical problems, the schedule delays, and 
the lack of operational testing, can we justify to the American people 
spending hundreds of millions of dollars in 2005 to continue to buy 
more missile defense interceptors than we already have?
  I want them to be successful. Let's make sure what we have is going 
to, in fact, work because the GAO report reveals many of the 
administration's missile defense programs are in serious trouble with 
major cost overruns, schedule delays, and inadequate testing. Even to 
the most enthusiastic supporters of missile defense among us, it should 
be clear that technology is not proving itself as fast as we had hoped. 
Given the fact a missile attack against the U.S. is probably lower on 
the list in terms of probability than other attacks, and given what is 
going on right now in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it is 
clear we need to look carefully and objectively at this missile defense 
budget and see if we should not spend some of this money on making sure 
we get it right through the development and testing, and some of that 
money for our soldiers and marines in battle right now so they can 
fight and win.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for morning 
business on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 15 minutes remaining on 
the Republican side.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes 
in morning business, and I request that the Chair let me know when 
there are 2 minutes remaining.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________