[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11296-11299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have in many ways a good Defense 
authorization bill. I am sorry we are debating again this year over 
national missile defense.
  Last year, the same debate occurred. It was about the only major 
disagreement we had over the Defense authorization bill, but it is a 
very important issue. It is important to the people of the United 
States. It is important to the President and the Secretary of Defense 
who are charged with defending our homeland against attack. We have to 
debate it again this year. That is healthy. That is what this body is 
all about.
  In 1999, it is important to recall, the Senate voted 97 to 3 to 
``deploy as soon as technologically feasible a national missile defense 
system.'' That represented the overwhelming consensus of opinion in 
this body. President Clinton signed that bill. President Clinton stated 
that he favored the deployment of a national missile defense system.
  During the 2000 campaign, Vice President Gore said he was for it. 
President Bush made quite clear in his campaign for the Presidency that 
he considered the deployment of a national missile defense system a 
high priority for America.
  We should not fail to note that Vice President Gore's candidate for 
Vice President, Senator Joe Lieberman, was a cosponsor with Senator 
Cochran of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 and a supporter of 
national missile defense. He quite clearly stated that position during 
the campaign for the Presidency.
  It is a bipartisan issue. There is no doubt about it. President Bush 
had it somewhat higher on his priority than President Clinton, but 
everybody was on board about the issue in general.
  When President Bush became President, he proposed last year for the 
2002 budget a $7.8 billion national missile defense budget.
  President Clinton had proposed a $5.3 billion national defense 
budget, so he was a little over $2 billion above what President Clinton 
proposed. We voted

[[Page 11297]]

on it in committee. On a party-line vote, the Democratic majority 
struck that increase--or a significant portion of it--from the bill. We 
took it to the floor last year and, after full debate, that money was 
restored.
  Again this year the President asked for missile defense funds. It is 
not correct, however, to say he asked for an increase. He actually 
asked for less this year for national missile defense. He asked for, I 
believe, $7.6 billion this year as opposed to $7.8 billion last year, 
all of which was necessary to complete the research and development and 
testing that is necessary to bring this system online. Let me note, 
people say that is billions and billions of dollars. It is a lot of 
money, no doubt about it; but we have a $376.2 billion defense budget. 
The $7.6 billion needed to deploy and bring online a national missile 
defense system to protect us from missile attack is not too much, in my 
opinion, and is a rather small part of the overall defense budget.
  So, again, we had in committee a 13 to 12 party-line vote on a motion 
that cut the President's request by over $814.3 million this year. And 
the way those cuts were made--as Senator Cochran and others have noted, 
those cuts took parts of programs and undermined the brain trust or the 
capabilities of many of the systems--some of the testing capabilities 
that the people who have been a critic of the system say we ought to 
do. It undermined our ability to do that.
  It is an unwise act, in my view. We need a continual, steady funding 
source that the Defense Department can count on so that they can 
develop, over a period of years, an effective national missile defense 
system. We would be very unwise if every year we cut a little bit and 
try to fight to put that back and go up and down in the budget. That 
costs more money in the long run and is not healthy. It was one of the 
President's top priorities when he took office. It is a top priority, I 
believe, of all Americans. I believe we should go forward with it.
  Well, people say: Why do we need this budget? Why do we need a 
national missile defense? There are a lot of threats to America, but we 
don't believe we are threatened by intercontinental ballistic 
missiles--or words to that effect.
  Several years ago, when President Clinton was President, he appointed 
a bipartisan commission, or one was selected and put together. The 
chairman turned out to be the now Secretary of Defense, Donald 
Rumsfeld. That commission, after studying the intelligence situation, 
the threats facing America--Republicans and Democrats of both parties--
unanimously agreed that we were facing an increased threat; that we 
would, indeed, be facing a ballistic missile threat to this country 
sooner than had been projected; and that we needed to prepare 
ourselves.
  So I would like people to know how these things occur. We don't just, 
out of the blue, come up with ideas that we need to have a national 
missile defense. We deal with some of the best experts. We listen to 
their testimony in the Senate Armed Services Committee and, based on 
that testimony under oath, recognizing that what witnesses say has 
great import, they help us decide how to spend our resources.
  Admiral Wilson, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told 
us this recently, on March 19 of this year, about Iran: Iran continues 
``the development and acquisition of longer range missiles and weapons 
of mass destruction to deter the United States and to intimidate Iran's 
neighbors.'' He added about Iran, ``It is buying and developing longer 
range missiles.''
  He notes that Iran already has chemical weapons and is ``pursuing 
biological and nuclear capabilities,'' both of which can be placed 
inside an intercontinental ballistic missile. He concludes on Iran that 
Iran will ``likely acquire a full range of weapons of mass destruction 
capability, field substantial numbers of ballistic and cruise missiles, 
including perhaps an ICBM, that will be capable of hitting the United 
States.''
  Admiral Wilson on Iraq: ``Baghdad continues to work on short-range--
150 kilometer--missiles and can use this expertise for future long-
range missile development.'' He adds, ``Iraq may also have begun to 
reconstitute chemical and biological weapons programs,'' as we have 
heard so much concern expressed about, all of which can be delivered by 
missile. Wilson concludes that ``it is possible that Iraq can develop 
and test an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015.''
  Admiral Wilson on North Korea: ``Korea continues to place heavy 
emphasis on the improvement of its military capability and North Korea 
continues its robust efforts to develop more capable ballistic 
missiles.''
  We know North Korea has been doing that for some time and testing 
those missiles. Admiral Wilson said this specifically as to North 
Korea: It is ``developing an ICBM capability with its Taepo Dong 2 
missile, judged capable of delivering a several hundred kilogram 
payload to Alaska and Hawaii, and a lighter payload to the western half 
of the United States.'' They have that capability in North Korea now.
  The President of the United States has to deal with these issues. He 
has to consider what might happen as he deals with these countries.
  Admiral Wilson, further on North Korea, added this: ``It probably has 
the capability to field''--that means put into place right now--``an 
ICBM within the next couple of years.'' That is a frightening thought. 
``North Korea continues,'' he added, ``to proliferate''--that is to 
sell or distribute--``weapons of mass destruction, and especially 
weapons technology.''
  CIA Director George Tenet, in March of this year before the Armed 
Services Committee, said this about the Chinese military buildup:

       Earlier this month, Beijing announced a 17.6 increase in 
     defense spending, replicating last year's increase of 17.7 
     percent. If this trend continues, China could double its 
     announced defense spending between 2000 and 2005.

  Tenet added further on China:

       China continues to make progress toward fielding its first 
     generation of road-mobile strategic missiles, the DF-31, a 
     longer range version, capable of reaching targets in the 
     United States, which will become operational later this 
     decade.

  In the CIA's unclassified report of January 10 of this year, entitled 
``Foreign Missile Development,'' they wrote this:

       China has about 20 liquid propellant missiles, silo based, 
     that could reach targets in the United States.

  The report also said China continues ``a long-running modernizational 
program and expects within 15 years to have 75 to 100 ICBM's deployed 
primarily against the United States.''
  Admiral Wilson, testifying about the China situation, noted:

       One of Beijing's top military priorities is to strengthen 
     and modernize its small daily strategic nuclear deterrent 
     force.

  He continues:

       The number, reliability, survivability, and accuracy of 
     Chinese strategic missiles, capable of hitting the United 
     States, will increase during the next 10 years.

  There are about 15 to 16 countries now that have these kinds of 
missiles. I shared those from some recent testimonies we have had 
before our committee. This is not a myth. We are not talking about an 
abstract idea. We are talking about a different world. In the previous 
world, the Soviet Union had missiles, we had missiles, and we entered 
into a treaty to bar the deployment of a national missile defense 
system. We agreed to that, and it worked for some time.
  Unfortunately--or fortunately in some ways--the country we had a 
treaty with, the Soviet Union, no longer exists, but Russia exists. The 
treaty was with the Soviet Union. During that same period of time, all 
these other countries were developing the capabilities to threaten us. 
So we now had a treaty with a country that used to be our enemy, and it 
no longer is, that was barring us from deploying and producing a 
defensive system for our country. That did not make sense, and the 
President had the gumption, the courage, and the wisdom to say we did 
not need to be in this treaty any longer, that it did not serve our 
interests. He worked with the Russians, and we had Members of this body 
about to have a conniption fit that if we violated or took steps to get 
out of this treaty, as

[[Page 11298]]

the treaty gave us the right to do, somehow this would cause another 
cold war, an arms race with Russia, and do all kinds of damage to our 
relationship.
  President Bush worked on this, and the Russians knew this was not 
critical to their defense. We knew it was not critical to the Russian 
defense. What was important about it was it was complicating our 
ability to develop a missile system that made sense. Under that treaty, 
we were trying to build a system that could have only one location for 
the missiles. It has to cover the entire United States from that one 
system. The treaty explicitly prohibited mobile systems such as ship-
based; it kept us from developing a system that would take out missiles 
in the launch phase; it would have kept us from doing space-based 
defense systems, all of which were prohibited by the treaty.
  President Bush was serious about national missile defense, and he 
took the steps to eliminate that. Indeed, Phil Coyle, who has been a 
big critic of the national missile defense system, in a recent quote in 
the newspaper said, with grudging admiration--I think he said, well, 
they are serious about it. And that is correct. This President is 
serious about producing a layered defense system for America.
  We are doing it for the $7.6 billion in this year's budget. If we do 
this over a period of years, we are going to be able to successfully 
implement a system that can protect us from limited missile attack. It 
cannot protect us from the kind of attack the Russians could have 
launched, but it can protect us against limited attack, accidental 
attack, or rogue nation attack. We have that capability, and we should 
do it. We do not need President Bush sitting down eyeball to eyeball 
with Saddam Hussein, knowing Saddam Hussein can push a button and a 
nuclear weapon or a chemical or biological weapon that he has can hit 
New York City or some other American city. We do not need him in that 
position. He does not need to be there, and we can avoid that.
  Great nations do not allow themselves to be in a situation where the 
ability to act in their national interest will be compromised by these 
kinds of threats by nations that have not shown themselves to have a 
commitment to civilized behavior. That is simply where we are.
  So I believe this country needs to deploy this national missile 
defense system. I am sorry there are some who do not agree, and they 
have been consistent in opposing it in every way possible. I have to 
respect that, but we voted 97 to 3 to deploy it. Both Presidential 
candidates said they wanted it. We funded it last year at $7.8 billion, 
after a full floor debate, and we did not do it thinking that was going 
to be the only year we funded national missile defense. When we voted 
last year to fund national missile defense, we contemplated and 
considered that we would be funding it on a steady basis to complete a 
program as the President envisioned. We have to start now. They say 
these missiles are not able to reach us today. Well, it takes a number 
of years to develop, get the bugs out, and study this system so we have 
the best system.
  The President has been tough about this. He cancelled the Navy 
theater-wide program that many people believed in, but it was behind 
schedule, over budget, and not performing, so he cancelled it. He said 
that is not getting us to where we need to go. He has shown he is 
willing to make tough calls, but the ultimate goal is to reach a 
situation in which we can deploy a system by the time our enemies have 
the capability of reaching us.
  This Senate is at its best when we talk about important issues. I 
believe in many ways this one has been settled. The American people 
voted for two candidates who favored it in the last election. The 
President has pushed it forward. We funded it last year at the 
President's request; we should not come in now to take a big whack out 
of it and target programs that really are pretty key. These cuts have 
the unfortunate impact of undermining some of the work that would be 
done.
  For example, it eliminates 10 THAAD missiles. Those are the theater 
missiles. When we have troops out on the battlefield in the theater of 
operations, if Saddam Hussein has a missile that will go 150 
kilometers, then he can hit them if he cannot hit the United States. So 
we cannot deploy our people and leave them vulnerable to being 
annihilated by an enemy attack if we have the capability to defend it, 
and we do. The THAAD is going to be a highly successful program, but 
this bill, as it was voted out of committee over my objection, would 
eliminate 10 THAAD missiles that would be used for future testing and 
it would put the success of the program in jeopardy by not allowing it 
to fly through failures.
  In other words, these programs have to be tested, robust tested. Some 
of the critics are probably correct in saying we did not have enough 
testing in the system. The President's budget will enhance testing.
  The bill, as proposed on the floor today, delays or eliminates 
planning for promising boost phase programs. In other words, one of the 
best ways to knock down an incoming missile is when it is coming off 
the ground in the foreign country. So if it falls back, it falls back 
on their country. If it is missed, there still may be an ABM system in 
the United States that can knock it down later. If those systems could 
be knocked down through absolute communications capabilities in the 
region, sea-based capabilities, that would be ideal. All of that was 
prohibited in the treaty. That is one of the reasons the President got 
rid of it.
  This bill, as it is today, would eliminate planning for promising 
boost phase programs. It eliminates sea- and space-based kinetic kill 
experiments in the field. It imposes serious risk to the airborne laser 
program by eliminating funding for a second aircraft testing program. 
It will not allow the airborne laser program to fly through failure, to 
figure out what will really work and make it successful. It imposes 
numerous tests and evaluation restrictions and duplicative oversight 
requirements on the Missile Defense Agency.
  We have been very fortunate that General Kadish is head of this 
program. He is a man of ability, integrity, and steadfastness. He has 
nurtured it through good and ill. He has seen it hit successfully time 
and again in recent months, and he is leading it on through quite a 
successful program. It has been well managed. He is very concerned 
about these cuts. It will complicate his strategic vision of how to 
produce and deploy this system as we have told him we want him to do.
  It is important to know that we have a man in charge who is capable 
and knows how to get the job done, and he is very troubled that we are 
cutting back in this fashion.
  In sum, I note these cuts will expose the United States to 
unnecessary risks if we enact them. I do not believe they will be 
enacted. I believe we will vote to restore the cuts. I know the bill 
passed in the House of Representatives has this funding in it, and they 
will insist on it. I am not sure the President will accept the bill 
that has these large cuts in our national missile defense.
  It is time to move ahead. I believe we can deploy a system that is 
layered in nature, that will have a shot at knocking down an attacking 
missile in a boost phase, that can hit in midcourse and defend again 
with a layer system on the land of the United States. Then we will not 
be in the bizarre situation of several years ago when we were trying to 
maneuver our national missile defense system to fit the ABM Treaty, to 
allow just one site to produce, that would limit testing and 
development in a lot of different areas.
  We are on the right track. Let's stay the course. Let's not back up 
now. Let's not manipulate this program and endanger it. This is a small 
part, $800 million out of a $386 billion budget. Let's not gimmick 
around with it. Let's get on with it. Let's stay committed. We will 
save money in the long run and have a system that will protect the 
people of the United States from rogue attack, from nations that are 
desperately attempting to have an ICBM system such as Korea and Iraq.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 11299]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________