[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10096-10097]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    INTRODUCTION OF H. CON. RES. 428

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JANE HARMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 18, 2004

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a Concurrent 
Resolution that calls on Congress to clarify our national security 
spending priorities and regain a sense of fiscal responsibility. 
Specifically, my resolution recommends that Congress not provide funds 
for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, 
mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not 
met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed 
funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from 
terrorist attacks.
  The Defense Authorization bill as reported by the House Armed 
Services Committee authorizes increased funding for ballistic missile 
defense and the deployment of ground-based interceptors without 
additional testing. I think this is a mistake from both a budgeting and 
a national security standpoint.
  Let me be clear that I am a strong supporter of missile defense. As a 
member of the Armed Services Committee from 1992-98, I urged increases 
in BMD R&D accounts. I support the Patriot Missile Defense System. I am 
a principal supporter of the Arrow Anti-Missile system, the first 
Member of Congress to have seen it deployed at Palmerchim AFB in 
Israel, and a strong proponent of the Third Arrow battery.
  However, I do not support rushing to deploy a new U.S. system that 
has neither received adequate testing, nor been proven effective.
  In August of 2003, the General Accounting Office issued a report 
stating that only two out of the ten critical technologies needed for 
the successful implementation of a ground-based missile defense system, 
or GMD, have been proven reliable. That report also indicated the 
administration's intent to deploy ground-based interceptors before all 
the critical technology has matured.
  Before we deploy such a system, we should be absolutely sure that it 
is effective and sustainable. The expected five-year cost of the 
ballistic missile defense system is $53 billion. In this budget 
environment, the last thing we need is a $53 billion weapons program 
that plays no substantial role in our protection.
  The resolution I introduced yesterday would authorize funding for 
ballistic missile defense programs for fiscal year 2005 at fiscal year 
2004 levels, and require the administration to determine that all 
technologies are operational before moving to deploy ground-based 
interceptors. My resolution also calls on Congress to bolster homeland 
security by agreeing that we should authorize at least $500,000,000 for 
port security programs for fiscal year 2005.
  From a national security standpoint, we have higher priorities than 
deploying an untested missile defense system. America's seaports remain 
vulnerable to terrorist attack and infiltration. Cargo containers are 
susceptible to being used to smuggle terrorists or dangerous materials 
into the United States, or as a delivery vehicle for a weapon of mass 
destruction.
  The Intelligence Community has warned that the United States is more 
likely to be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction delivered by 
ship, truck, or airplane than by a ballistic missile.
  I am not alone in my assessment of the GMD program and the importance 
of port security. In March of this year, 49 retired generals and 
admirals--including Ret. Adm. William J. Crowe--sent a letter to 
President Bush asking that he postpone operational deployment of an 
untested GMD system, and transfer the associated funds to securing our 
nation's ports and borders from terrorist attack.
  I support strong, sensible and effective homeland security. Any 
strong national security strategy must include both effective ballistic 
missile defense and strong port security measures. I am also an 
advocate of fiscal responsibility. This resolution calls on Congress to 
take a step toward fiscal responsibility while providing much-needed 
funding for port security programs, and still allowing for the 
development of an effective ground-based missile defense system.
  For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 428, 
and ask unanimous consent to attach the letter I referred to to my 
remarks.


                                             Waging Peace.org,

                                                   March 26, 2004.
     President George W. Bush,
     The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

     49 Generals and Admirals Call for Missile Defense Postponement

       Dear Mr. President: In December 2002, you ordered the 
     deployment of a ground-based strategic mid-course ballistic 
     missile defense (GMD) capability, now scheduled to become 
     operational before the end of September 2004. You explained 
     that its purpose is to defend our nation against rogue states 
     that may attack us with a single or a limited number of 
     ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.
       To meet this deployment deadline, the Pentagon has waived 
     the operational testing requirements that are essential to 
     determining whether or not this highly complex system of 
     systems is effective and suitable. The Defense Department's 
     Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated on March 
     11, 2004, that operational testing is not in the plan ``for 
     the foreseeable future.'' Moreover, the General Accounting 
     Office pointed out in a recent report that only two of 10 
     critical technologies of the GMD system components have been 
     verified as workable by adequate developmental testing.
       Another important consideration is balancing the high costs 
     of missile defense with funding allocated to other national 
     security programs. Since President Reagan's strategic defense 
     initiative speech in March 1983, a conservative estimate of 
     about $130 billion, not adjusted upward for inflation, has 
     been spent on missile defense, much of it on GMD. Your Fiscal 
     Year 2005 budget for missile defense is $10.2 billion, with 
     $3.7 billion allocated to GMD. Some $53 billion is programmed 
     for missile defense over the next five years, with much more 
     to follow. Deploying a highly complex weapons system prior to 
     testing it adequately can increase costs significantly.
       U.S. technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source 
     of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly 
     unlikely that any state would dare to attack the U.S. or 
     allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile 
     armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking 
     annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike.
       As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to 
     prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of 
     mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the 
     militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone 
     operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD 
     system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated 
     programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing 
     nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and 
     borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons 
     of mass destruction into the United States.
           Signed:

       Admiral William J. Crowe (USN, ret.), General Alfred G. 
     Hansen (USAF, ret.), General Joseph P. Hoar (USMC, ret.).
       Lt. General Henry E. Emerson (USA, ret.), Lt. General 
     Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.). Vice Admiral Carl T. Hanson 
     (USN, ret.), Lt. General James F. Hollingsworth (USA, ret.), 
     Lt. General Arlen D. Jameson (USAF, ret.), Lt. General Robert 
     E. Kelley, (USAF, ret.), Lt. General John A. Kjellstrom (USA, 
     ret.), Lt. General Dennis P. McAuliffe (USA, ret.), Lt. 
     General Charles P. Otstott (USA, ret.), Lt. General Thomas M. 
     Rienzi (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral John J. Shanahan (USN, 
     ret.), Lt. General Dewitt C. Smith, Jr. (USA, ret.), Lt. 
     General Horace G. Taylor (USA, ret.), Lt. General James M. 
     Thompson (USA, ret.), Lt. General Alexander M. Weyand (USA, 
     ret.).
       Major General Robert H. Appleby (AUS, ret.), Major General 
     James G. Boatner (USA, ret.), Major General Jack O. Bradshaw 
     (USA, ret.), Major General Morris J. Brady (USA, ret.), Major 
     General Williams F. Burns (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral William 
     D. Center (USN,

[[Page 10097]]

     ret.), Major General Albert B. Crawford (USA, ret.), Major 
     General Maurice O. Edmonds (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert 
     C. Elliott, (USN, ret.), Major General John C. Faith (USA, 
     ret.), Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley (USN, ret.), Major 
     General Richard B. Griffitts (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral 
     Charles D. Grojean (USN, ret.), Major General Raymond E. 
     Haddock (USA, ret.), Major General Jack R. Holbein, Jr. 
     (USAF, ret.), Major General Stanley H. Hyman (USA, ret.), 
     Major General Wayne P. Jackson (USA, ret.), Major General 
     Frederick H. Lawson (AUS, ret.), Major General Vincent P. 
     Luchsinger, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General James J. LeCleir 
     (AUS, ret.), Major General William F. Willoughby (USAF, 
     ret.).
       Brig. General George C. Cannon, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Brig. 
     General John J. Costa (USA, ret.), Brig. General Alvin E. 
     Cowan (USA, ret.), Brig. General Lee Denson (USAF, ret.), 
     Brig. General Evelyn P. Foote (USA, ret.), Brig. General 
     Leslie R. Forney, Jr. (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H. 
     Grubbs (USA, ret.), Brig. General James E. Hastings (USA, 
     ret.), Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, ret.), Brig. General 
     Maurice D. Roush (USA, ret.).

                          ____________________