[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 132 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9525-S9527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Missile Defense

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment with the administration's decision to cancel plans for 
fully developing missile defenses in Eastern Europe. This decision 
calls into question security and diplomatic commitments the United 
States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic. I believe it has the 
potential to undermine American leadership in Eastern Europe.
  Given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the 
region's Nations since the end of the Cold War, we should not take 
steps backward in strengthening these ties. Yet I fear the 
administration's decision will do just that, and at a time when Eastern 
European nations are increasingly wary of renewed Russian aggression.
  The administration's decision to abandon these sites comes at a time 
when the United States is in the midst of negotiations with Russia on 
reducing strategic nuclear weapons. Russia has long opposed the planned 
missile defense sites in Europe and has on numerous occasions tried to 
link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear arms with defensive 
capabilities such as missile defense. In fact, President Putin, on many 
occasions, has stated in very belligerent tones his opposition to this 
agreement that was already made between the United States and Poland 
and the Czech Republic.
  The United States should reject the Russian attempt to further this 
argument and capitalize on these ongoing negotiations.
  As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear 
envelope and work tirelessly to develop weapons capable of reaching 
America and its allies, we must aggressively develop the systems 
necessary to counter such belligerent efforts and enhance our national 
security, protect our troops abroad, and support our allies. Enhancing 
missile defense capabilities in Europe is an essential component to 
addressing threats we currently face and expect to face in the future. 
As Iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all ranges, 
the United States must reaffirm its commitments to its allies and 
develop and deploy effective missile defense systems.
  I wish to point out two important factors. The United States of 
America does not believe missile defense systems are in any way a 
threat to any nation. They are defensive in nature, and I believe they 
were a key component and factor in ending the Cold War.
  Intelligence assessments apparently have changed rather dramatically 
since January 16. According to Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy under Secretary Gates during the Bush 
administration, intelligence reports on the Iranian threat as recently 
as January of this year were more troubling than what is being 
portrayed by the current administration. Mr. Edelman maintains that:

       Maybe something really dramatic changed between January 16 
     and now in terms of what the Iranians are doing with their 
     missile systems, but I don't think so.

  You know what. I don't think so either. I think the fact is that this 
decision was obviously rushed. The Polish Prime Minister, according to 
news reports, was called at midnight. The agreement was made and 
ratified by these countries after consultation, discussion, and a 
proper process. They were not even notified of this decision. The 
decision to abandon the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech 
Republic came as a surprise to them.
  I understand that administration officials were on a plane supposedly 
to arrive in Poland today. I might add that Members of Congress were 
also not briefed on this decision prior to reading about it in the 
newspaper. I was not informed. I didn't know what ``new technology'' 
was being recommended to be put in the place of the agreement. As short 
a time ago as August 20, the United States said:

       The United States is committed to the security of Poland 
     and of any U.S. facilities located on the territory of the 
     Republic of Poland. . . . The United States and Poland intend 
     to expand air and missile defense cooperation--et cetera.

  We all know the Iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. 
We all know the administration is seeking the cooperation and help of 
the Russians. Now we will see. Now we will see.
  Why was this agreement rushed into--or the abrogation of an 
agreement? Why the abrogation of this agreement between the United 
States with Poland and the United States with the Czech Republic 
rescinded in such a dramatic and rushed fashion? We all know the 
Iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. How many times 
have the ``intelligence estimates'' been wrong dating back to and 
including the Cold War? As many times as they have been right, I tell 
my colleagues--whether it be their assessment about the war in Iraq or 
whether it be the capabilities of many of our adversaries, including 
the Korean buildup, which we have been consistently wrong on.

  The last administration reached out to the governments of Poland and 
the Czech Republic and asked that they make what many at the time 
perceived as an unpopular agreement. Despite threats from Russia, both 
governments recognized the importance such a defense capability would 
provide to their citizens and to Europe as a whole and agreed to allow 
the United States to place ground-based interceptors in Poland and a 
midcourse radar site in the Czech Republic. What are these countries 
going to do the next time we want to make an agreement with them, in 
view of the way this decision was made and announced or, shall I say, 
made known to the media before they were even told about it. It will be 
very interesting to see what we get in return.
  According to a Christian Science Monitor's global news blog:

       ``We see this as a pragmatic decision,'' says Pavel 
     Zolotaryov, deputy director of the official institute of USA-
     Canada Studies, suggesting that internal U.S. factors mainly 
     account for Mr. Obama's choice. ``Obama's sober approach is 
     understandable, given the [economic] crisis, because this 
     project would have given nothing but trouble.''
       If it sounds like Moscow has already discounted this 
     sweeping strategic concession from Washington, experts 
     suggest that's because Russia's foreign policy establishment 
     had been expecting such a decision, at least since Obama 
     hinted that he might give up the missile defense scheme 
     during his summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 
     Moscow last July.
       ``We've been getting signals since last Spring that made it 
     seem almost certain that the missile defense plan would be 
     set aside,'' said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global 
     Affairs, a leading Moscow foreign policy journal.

  The Russians seem to have anticipated this decision. Unfortunately, 
the

[[Page S9526]]

Polish Government and the Czech Government did not. Members of Congress 
were certainly not informed of this decision until after reading about 
it in the media. That is not the way to do business. I think it sends 
the wrong signal to the Russians and to our friends and allies.
  There are consequences with every decision. I believe the 
consequences of this decision may--albeit unintentionally--encourage 
further belligerence on the part of Russians and a distinct lack and 
loss of confidence on the part of our friends and allies in the word of 
the United States and the commitments of the United States of America.
  I ask unanimous consent that articles in the Wall Street Journal and 
the Christian Science Monitor be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 17, 2009]

U.S. To Shelve Nuclear-Missile Shield--Defense Plans for Poland, Czech 
Republic To Be Dropped as Iran Rocket Threat Downgraded; Moscow Likely 
                            to Welcome Move

                           (By Peter Spiegel)

       Washington.--The White House will shelve Bush 
     administration plans to build a missile-defense system in 
     Poland and the Czech Republic, according to people familiar 
     with the matter, a move likely to cheer Moscow and roil the 
     security debate in Europe.
       The U.S. will base its decision on a determination that 
     Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as 
     rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the 
     continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to 
     current and former U.S. officials.
       The findings, expected to be completed as early as next 
     week following a 60-day review ordered by President Barack 
     Obama, would be a major reversal from the Bush 
     administration, which pushed aggressively to begin 
     construction of the Eastern European system before leaving 
     office in January.
       The Bush administration proposed the European-based system 
     to counter the perceived threat of Iran developing a nuclear 
     weapon that could be placed atop its increasingly 
     sophisticated missiles. There is widespread disagreement over 
     the progress of Iran's nuclear program toward developing such 
     a weapon, but miniaturizing nuclear weapons for use on long-
     range missiles is one of the most difficult technological 
     hurdles for an aspiring nuclear nation.
       The Bush plan infuriated the Kremlin, which argued the 
     system was a potential threat to its own intercontinental 
     ballistic missiles. U.S. officials repeatedly insisted the 
     location and limited scale of the system--a radar site in the 
     Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland--posed 
     no threat to Russian strategic arms.
       The Obama administration's assessment concludes that U.S. 
     allies in Europe, including members of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization, face a more immediate threat from Iran's 
     short- and medium-range missiles and will order a shift 
     towards the development of regional missile defenses for the 
     Continent, according to people familiar with the matter. Such 
     systems would be far less controversial.
       Critics of the shift are bound to view it as a gesture to 
     win Russian cooperation with U.S.-led efforts to seek new 
     economic sanctions on Iran if Tehran doesn't abandon its 
     nuclear program. Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. 
     Security Council, has opposed efforts to impose fresh 
     sanctions on Tehran.
       Security Council members, which include the U.S. and 
     Russia, will meet with Iranian negotiators on Oct. 1 to 
     discuss Iran's nuclear program.
       Current and former U.S. officials briefed on the 
     assessment's findings said the administration was expected to 
     leave open the option of restarting the Polish and Czech 
     system if Iran makes advances in its long-range missiles in 
     the future.
       But the decision to shelve the defense system is all but 
     certain to raise alarms in Eastern Europe, where officials 
     have expressed concerns that the White House's effort to 
     ``reset'' relations with Moscow would come at the expense of 
     U.S. allies in the former Soviet bloc. ``The Poles are 
     nervous,'' said a senior U.S. military official.
       A Polish official said his government wouldn't 
     ``speculate'' on administration decisions regarding missile 
     defense, but said ``we expect the U.S. will abide by its 
     commitments'' to cooperate with Poland militarily in areas 
     beyond the missile-defense program.
       Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he 
     expected the Obama administration to drop the missile-defense 
     plans. He said that Moscow wouldn't view the move as a 
     concession but rather a reversal of a mistaken Bush-era 
     policy.
       Still, the decision is likely to be seen in Russia as a 
     victory for the Kremlin. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev 
     will meet with Mr. Obama at next week's meetings of the U.N. 
     General Assembly and Group of 20 industrialized and 
     developing nations.
       Although a center-right government in Prague supported the 
     Bush missile-defense plan when it was first proposed, the 
     Czech Republic is now run by a caretaker government. A Czech 
     official said his government was concerned an announcement by 
     the White House on the missile-defense program could 
     influence upcoming elections and has urged a delay. But the 
     Obama administration has decided to keep to its original 
     timetable.
       European analysts said the administration would be forced 
     to work hard to convince both sides the decision wasn't made 
     to curry favor with Moscow and, instead, relied only on the 
     program's technical merits and analysis of Iran's missile 
     capabilities.
       ``There are two audiences: the Russians and the various 
     European countries,'' said Sarah Mendelson, a Russia expert 
     at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ``The 
     task is: How do they cut through the conspiracy theories in 
     Moscow?''
       The Obama administration has been careful to characterize 
     its review as a technical assessment of the threat posed by 
     the Iranian regime, as well as the costs and capabilities of 
     a ground-based antimissile system to complement the two 
     already operating in Alaska and central California. Those 
     West Coast sites are meant to defend against North Korean 
     missiles.
       The administration has also debated offering Poland and the 
     Czech Republic alternative programs to reassure the two NATO 
     members that the U.S. remains committed to their defense.
       Poland, in particular, has lobbied the White House to 
     deploy Patriot missile batteries--the U.S. Army's primary 
     battlefield missile-defense system--manned by American troops 
     as an alternative.
       Although Polish officials supported the Bush plan, U.S. 
     officials said they had indicated their primary desire was 
     getting U.S. military personnel on Polish soil. Gen. Carter 
     Hamm, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, said 
     Washington has begun talks with Polish officials about 
     starting to rotate Europe-based American Patriot units into 
     Poland for month-long training tours as a first step toward a 
     more permanent presence.
       ``My position has been: Let's get started as soon as we can 
     with the training rotations, while the longer-term stationing 
     . . . is decided between the two governments,'' Gen. Hamm 
     said in an interview.
       For several years, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency 
     has been pushing for breaking ground in Poland and the Czech 
     Republic, arguing that construction must begin so the system 
     would be in place to counter Tehran's emerging long-range-
     missile program, which intelligence assessments determined 
     would produce an effective rocket by about 2015.
       But in recent months, several prominent experts have 
     questioned that timetable. A study by Russian and U.S. 
     scientists published in May by the East-West Institute, an 
     international think tank, downplayed the progress of Iran's 
     long-range-missile program. In addition, Gen. James 
     Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
     and an expert in missile defense and space-based weapons, 
     said in a speech last month that long-range capabilities of 
     both Iran and North Korea ``are not there yet.''
       ``We believed that the emergence of the intercontinental 
     ballistic missile would come much faster than it did,'' Gen. 
     Cartwright said. ``The reality is, it has not come as fast as 
     we thought it would come.''
       It is not an assessment that is shared universally. Eric 
     Edelman, who oversaw missile-defense issues at the Pentagon 
     as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Bush 
     administration, said intelligence reports he reviewed were 
     more troubling.
       ``Maybe something really dramatic changed between Jan. 16 
     and now in terms of what the Iranians are doing with their 
     missile system, but I don't think so,'' Mr. Edelman said, 
     referring to his last day in office.
       There is far more consensus on Iran's ability to develop 
     its short- and medium-range missiles, and the administration 
     review is expected to recommend a shift in focus toward 
     European defenses against those threats. Such a program would 
     be developed closely with NATO.
                                  ____


          [From the Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 17, 2009]

         Russia's Response to U.S. Missile Defense Shield Shift

                             (By Fred Weir)


   Moscow has long opposed a missile shield in Poland and the Czech 
       Republic. But the U.S. shouldn't expect too much in return

       Moscow.--President Barack Obama's decision to shelve plans 
     for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe could be seen 
     as a major concession to Moscow. But given years of vehement 
     opposition to the controversial plan, Russian reaction to the 
     move appears surprisingly lukewarm.
       So what does it mean for U.S.-Russia relations?
       There are indications that Russia might support tougher 
     sanctions on Iran, and fresh START talks, as well as more 
     cooperation with the war in Afghanistan. The Kremlin also 
     expects the U.S. to back off on expanding NATO, say Russian 
     analysts.
       ``We see this as a pragmatic decision,'' says Pavel 
     Zolotaryov, deputy director of the official Institute of USA-
     Canada Studies, suggesting that internal U.S. factors mainly 
     account for Mr. Obama's choice. ``Obama's sober approach is 
     understandable, given the

[[Page S9527]]

     [economic] crisis, because this project would have given 
     nothing but trouble.''
       If it sounds like Moscow has already discounted this 
     sweeping strategic concession from Washington, experts 
     suggest that's because Russia's foreign policy establishment 
     had been expecting such a decision, at least since Obama 
     hinted that he might give up the missile defense scheme 
     during his summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 
     Moscow last July.
       ``We've been getting signals since last Spring that made it 
     seem almost certain that the missile defense plan would be 
     set aside,'' says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global 
     Affairs, a leading Moscow foreign policy journal.


        New arms deal now within reach, but concessions on Iran?

       Mr. Lukyanov says the only predictable result of key 
     importance is that negotiations for a new strategic arms 
     reduction treaty to replace the soon-to-expire 1991 START 
     accord are now likely to meet the December deadline for a 
     fresh deal.
       ``Now we can be sure the new START agreement will be 
     completed on time, because the vexing issue of missile 
     defense and how it affects the strategic balance has been 
     removed for the time being,'' he says. ``That's quite an 
     important matter.''
       But while Russian experts say the move can only contribute 
     to a warmer dialogue between Moscow and Washington, they say 
     no one should expect any reciprocal concessions from the 
     Kremlin on issues of key concern to the U.S., such as Iran.


                 Why Russia has opposed missile defense

       Washington has consistently argued since news of the 
     proposed missile defense shield emerged in 2006 that it was 
     intended to protect Europe and the U.S. from a rogue missile 
     attack from Iran or North Korea and not to undermine Russia's 
     strategic deterrent.
       Moscow has retorted that those threats are merely 
     theoretical, but Russia's dependence upon its aging Soviet-
     era nuclear missile force for its national security would be 
     deeply affected if the American scheme were to go forward.
       ``Iran isn't going to have any long-range missiles in the 
     near future anyway,'' says Alexander Sharavin, director of 
     the independent Institute of Military and Political Analysis 
     in Moscow.
       ``The U.S. evidently doesn't want to quarrel with Russia, 
     now that Moscow is collaborating in such areas of importance 
     to the U.S. as Afghanistan,'' where Moscow has enabled a 
     resupply corridor through former Soviet territory to 
     embattled NATO forces, and offered other forms of 
     cooperation, he says.


       Russians expect another U.S. concession--on NATO expansion

       Mr. Lukyanov says ``it's possible'' Russia may be more 
     pliable on the issue of tough sanctions against Iran, a 
     measure it has strongly resisted in the past. He says that in 
     a recent meeting with foreign policy experts, President 
     Medvedev introduced a new tone by remarking on his contacts 
     with Arab leaders who are deeply worried about Iran's alleged 
     drive to obtain nuclear weapons.
       ``It may be that Russia will be more amenable, but this is 
     a deeply complicated issue,'' he says. ``On Iran, and other 
     regional conflicts, the differences between Moscow and 
     Washington are deep, and that hasn't changed.''
       Russian experts also say they believe the Obama 
     administration will quietly set aside the other issue that 
     has infuriated Moscow over recent years: the effort to expand 
     NATO into the former USSR by including Ukraine and Georgia.
       ``I wouldn't expect any formal statements to this effect, 
     but it's more or less clear that the issue of NATO 
     enlargement is off the table for the time being,'' says 
     Lukyanov.


                        Postponed, not canceled

       So why isn't sunshine breaking and a new era of strategic 
     accord dawning between Moscow and Washington?
       ``Nothing has been canceled, missile defense has just been 
     postponed,'' says Lukyanov. ``For awhile this topic is off 
     the agenda, but later it will return. So, for now the 
     political situation may improve, but the underlying pattern 
     of relations is unlikely to change in any basic way.''
       And Russian hawks might see the dropping of the missile 
     shield as weakness in Washington and press the Kremlin for 
     even less compromise on key U.S.-Russia issues.
       ``I think the reaction of Russia's leadership will be 
     positive on the whole,'' says Mr. Sharavin. ``But Russian 
     hawks are very likely to find faults, and use this to build 
     up their own positions.''
       Who's the new right-wing prophet advising the Kremlin?

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes and that 
the time be charged against Senator Leahy's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.