[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1902-1903]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            NATIONAL DEFENSE

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our national 
security and defense. This is the week the President has decided to 
emphasize defense. I will take a moment to review briefly where we are 
as far as the National Missile Defense Program is concerned. Before I 
do that, I will lay out a few things for the record.
  First, this week the President has decided to talk about quality of 
life. He has emphasized the fact that soldiers enlist, but families 
reenlist, trying to address the problems we have with retention in our 
military services. I wholeheartedly agree with him in his efforts. He 
has made tremendous strides in that direction, when he says he will go 
ahead and try to promote the idea that we need to have a military pay 
raise, renovate standard housing, improve military training, and review 
overseas deployments to reduce family separations.
  The President also has recognized the concept of a citizen soldier. I 
can relate to that. I like to think of myself as a citizen legislator. 
These are individuals who have regular jobs but take a spell from those 
jobs to serve our country. That is our National Guard and Reserve 
troops, and States play an important role. The National Government 
plays an important role to make sure these citizen soldiers are readily 
available in time of national emergency to serve our country and its 
defense.
  The third item he has talked about is the transformation of the 
military to a stronger, more agile, modern military, which has both 
stealth and speed.
  I think we also need to rethink our vulnerabilities and the time to 
do it is now. We need to rethink our strength, and the time to do it is 
now, while we are transitioning from one administration to another. 
There is no doubt in my mind that for the last 8 years our defense 
structure in this country suffered intolerably. It is time we made very 
significant changes. I support the idea that we need to increase 
spending for defense.
  As we look at our vulnerabilities and strengths, we certainly need to 
base our thinking on the new technology that we have and what the 
future is for the development of that new technology. We need to think 
about the future threat from potential adversaries. We need to work 
toward the idea of more peace and more freedom through renewed strength 
and renewed security. Based on all of that, we have to control the high 
ground. I think that is as true today as it was two or three centuries 
ago. Controlling the high ground is very important in the field of 
battle.
  I am a strong proponent of looking at an enhanced role for space. We 
must think in terms of a space platform. By controlling that high 
ground, we would secure all our forces and secure our national defense 
system. I believe the technology is very close, where we can move 
forward with some very significant steps in enhancing, in a modern way, 
our defense systems in America.
  I want to take a little time while I have the floor to review the 
background of our National Missile Defense System--a step in that 
direction--and review a little bit about where I see we are today.
  First of all, on the National Missile Defense System, I think we 
ought to quit referring to it as the ``national'' missile defense 
system. I think we need to refer to it as our missile defense system 
and get away from the vagueness of trying to identify a theater missile 
defense system and a national missile defense system. I think, from a 
foreign relations standpoint, when we use the term ``national,'' it 
implies it is just for America. We are putting together a missile 
defense system, hopefully, that will secure world peace. I think we 
need to keep that in mind when we talk about what we are going to do to 
enhance our missile defense system.
  In my discussion this morning on defense and the National Missile 
Defense System, I am just going to refer to it as the missile defense 
system.
  Starting back in 1995, the Republican Congress consistently pressured 
the Clinton administration to make a commitment to deploy a national 
missile defense system. In 1995, then-President Clinton vetoed the 
Defense Authorization Act over its establishment of a national missile 
defense deployment policy.
  Then, in 1998, the Rumsfeld report, now-Secretary of Defense 
Rumsfeld, said that a ballistic missile threat to the U.S. was 
``broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly'' than the 
Intelligence Community had been reporting prior to that. The report 
also stated that:

       The warning times the U.S. can expect of new, threatening 
     ballistic missile deployments are being reduced . . . the 
     U.S. might well have little or no warning before operational 
     deployment.

  That is what our current Secretary of Defense was saying.
  Then, in 1999, the National Intelligence Council warned that:

       The probability that a WMD armed missile will be used 
     against the U.S. forces or interests is higher today than 
     during most of the Cold War.

  That was made in 1999 by the National Intelligence Council.
  In 1999, finally, the President signed the National Missile Defense 
Act of 1999--referred to around here as the

[[Page 1903]]

Cochran bill--which requires deployment of a national missile defense 
system ``as soon as technologically possible.'' That is the key--``as 
soon as technologically possible.''
  Even though the administration funded the National Missile Defense 
Acquisition Program, President Clinton never committed the United 
States to actual deployment. So in September of last year, 2000, 
President Clinton decided to defer a deployment decision to the next 
administration.
  Having laid out that background, I want to talk about where we are 
today. The current missile defense system is preparing to deploy a 
single ground-based site in Alaska, with a threshold capacity of 20 
interceptor missiles in fiscal years 2005-2006, and 100 interceptors in 
fiscal years 2007-2008. That is the current plan. This is referred to 
as the initial stage. This would be upgraded, and a second ground-based 
site would be deployed to deal with more complex and numerous threats 
in the fiscal year 2010-2011 timeframe.
  This stand-alone, ground-based approach is inadequate really to 
satisfy U.S. global security requirements. Nonetheless, the most 
affordable and most effective path to a global ballistic missile 
defense system is to augment the current missile defense program rather 
than replace it.
  Now, the current ground-based missile defense program has made 
significant technical progress and offers the earliest deployment 
options. Once this system is deployed, it will offer an ``open 
architecture.'' This is very important. It offers an ``open 
architecture'' that can be augmented with ground-based, sea-based, and/
or space-based systems as they mature and are demonstrated. So we leave 
the door open for technological advances so we can build upon the 
structure we are initially going to lay out there.
  I will reemphasize that this is a defense structure, not offensive; 
it is a defense system. Frankly, I don't understand the opposition from 
many of our allies to a system that is defensive in nature. I think 
they ultimately will share in that technology because it will assure 
that we have a safer world.
  The key to deploying an effective missile defense architecture is a 
layered system that is deployed in phases. A top priority should be the 
prompt establishment of programs to develop the sea-based and then the 
space-based elements that can be added to the initial system when they 
are ready.
  The sea-based missile defense elements should be based on the 
existing Navy Theater Wide (NTW) Theater Missile Defense Program. The 
NTW Program will need to be augmented, both in terms of funding and 
technical capability. The interceptor missiles are not sufficiently 
capable to perform the missile defense mission. Therefore, the 
Department of Defense should consider a phased approach to the NTW, 
which involves initial deployment of a system for long-range TMD and 
limited missile defense applications, and then upgrade to a more 
dedicated sea-based missile defense capability in the future.
  The development of a strategy for dealing with the ABM Treaty is as 
important as the technical/architectural issues mentioned above. The 
United States will need to determine whether it wants to pursue 
modifications to the treaty or seek a completely new arrangement. Any 
effort at incrementally amending the treaty will involve many of the 
same problems the Clinton Administration experienced with Russia and 
our allies.
  The current acquisition cost, including prior years, for the initial 
ground-based National Missile Defense system (with 100 interceptor 
missiles) is $20.3 billion. The average annual cost for R&D and 
Procurement is approximately $2.0-2.5 billion. Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization is also recommending a significant increase to 
enhance its flight test program and its efforts to deal with counter-
measures, which could increase the overall Missile Defense cost by 
several billion dollars. The Navy has estimated that an initial sea-
based National Missile Defense capability could be deployed in 5-8 
years for $4-6 billion; an intermediate capability could be deployed in 
8-10 years for $7-10 billion; and a far-term capability, involving 
dedicated Missile Defense ships and missiles, could be deployed in 10-
15 years for $13-16 billion. Note that the Navy estimates assume that 
the ground-based National Missile Defense infrastructure is in place. 
Without this infrastructure, the Navy would have to add radars, space-
based sensors, battle management, and command and control to their cost 
estimates.
  There are many issues before Congress and this administration 
concerning our missile defense system and they are the following:
  We need to establish a policy for ballistic missile defense 
reflecting the current global security environment.
  We need to illuminate the path ahead regarding the ABM Treaty.
  We need to redefine the relationship between ballistic missile 
defense and strategic forces.
  We need to establish a global missile defense as a new ballistic 
missile defense paradigm.
  We need to deemphasize the distinction between national missile 
defense and theater missile defense.
  We need an integrated missile defense architecture and operational 
concept.
  We need to have a layered approach to ballistic missile defense 
starting with land, sea, and space in the future.
  Our greatest challenge is overcoming 8 years of funding inadequacy. 
In the fiscal years 1994 through 1999, Secretary Cheney at that time 
envisioned $7 billion to $8 billion SDI budgets.
  We have a great opportunity before us. I think most Americans like 
most of President Bush's major proposals. A Newsweek poll found 56 
percent approved of his plan for a missile defense system.
  Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said no President could 
allow a situation in which ``extinction of civilized life is one's only 
strategy.''
  The New York Times reports today that Russian President Putin and 
Germany's Foreign Minister Fischer discussed the proposed American 
missile defense at a Kremlin meeting yesterday, ending 2 days of talks 
that Mr. Fischer said pointed to new Russian flexibility on the notion 
of a shield against rogue missiles. Mr. Fischer told reporters: ``In 
the end, I think Russia will accept negotiations.''
  The Senate Armed Services Committee has met with the British foreign 
minister and discussed this. A nuclear missile defense will benefit the 
world. Only our aggressors, I believe, need fear our missile defense 
technology.
  Robert L. Bartley says in today's Wall Street Journal: ``The 
deliberate vulnerability of `mutual assured destruction' carries an 
appropriate acronym, MAD.''
  In the end, with the cold war over, we should look beyond the cold 
war rules and to the unpredictable future and weapons of mass 
destruction.
  I reemphasize that I believe we need to rethink our vulnerabilities 
and our strengths based on our new technology and based on the future 
threat from potential adversaries. Our goal should be more peace and 
more freedom through renewed strength and a renewed security, and we 
accomplish that by establishing control of the high-ground.
  Technology is the key, and we need to be sure we are willing to put 
our dollars and our brain power behind the idea that we will move 
forward with a strong defense system which will, in the long run, 
assure continued world peace.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________