Space

AMENDMENT NO. 4058

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will be laid aside. The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an amendment numbered 4058.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

Beginning on page 32, strike out line 22 and all that follows through page 33, line 21, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SEC. 212. SPACE CONTROL ARCHITECTURE STUDY.

(a) Required Consideration of Kinetic Energy Tactical Antisatellite Program.--The Department of Defense Space Architect shall evaluate the potential cost and effectiveness of the inclusion of the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program of the Department of Defense as a specific element of the space control architecture which the Space Architect is developing for the Secretary of Defense.

(b) Congressional Notification of Any Determination of Inappropriateness of Program for Architecture.--(1) If at any point in the development of the space control architecture the Space Architect determines that the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program is not appropriate for incorporation into the space control architecture under development, the Space Architect shall immediately notify the congressional defense committees of such determination.

(2) Within 60 days after submitting a notification of a determination under paragraph (1), the Space Architect shall submit to the congressional defense committees a detailed report setting forth the specific reasons for, and analytical findings supporting, the determination.

(c) Report on Approved Architecture.--Not later than March 31, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the space control architecture approved by the Secretary. The report shall include the following:

(1) An assessment of the potential threats posed to deployed United States military forces by the proliferation of foreign military and commercial space assets.

(2) The Secretary's recommendations for development and deployment of space control capabilities to counter such threats.

(d) Funding: (1) The Secretary of Defense shall release to the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program manager the funds appropriated in fiscal year 1996 for the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program. The Secretary may withdraw unobligated balances of such funds from the program manager only if--

(A) the Space Architect makes a determination described in subsection (b)(1); or

(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a program.

(2) Not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall release to the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program manager any funds appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for a kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program pursuant to section 221(a) unless--

(A) the Space Architect has by such date submitted a notification pursuant to subsection (b); or

(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a program.

Beginning on page 42, strike out line 15 and all that follows through page 43, line 9.

[Page: S6454]

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It proposes to delete two provisions that have been included in the bill. The effect of the provisions that are in the bill is that they would prejudge an ongoing study that the Pentagon is doing on space control and antisatellite weapons. These provisions that I am proposing to delete would impose on the Pentagon a kinetic energy antisatellite weapon which is generally referred to as KE-ASAT , which may well be one of the least attractive options available to the Pentagon for space control.

My amendment instead sets up a process whereby the Pentagon can complete its analysis of the ongoing space control architecture study and fund the KE-ASAT , the kinetic energy ASAT , only if the Secretary of Defense decides that it is a desirable option.

My amendment was defeated in the committee when I offered it by an 11-to-10 vote. I hope that we can succeed on the floor because we simply should not be imposing a technical solution to a complex problem on the Pentagon before they have told us what their space control architecture will be.

Mr. President, this is a fairly esoteric subject. There is no doubt that our military forces deployed overseas will be made more vulnerable by the proliferation of foreign military commercial satellite imaging capabilities in the coming years. I have been among several here in Washington and around the country pointing to that threat and urging the administration to develop diplomatic and military options to deal with the threat.

The Pentagon's own April 1996 report, `Proliferation Threat and Responsibilities,' pointed to the growing availability of satellite imaging and noted--and here is a quote from that report:

Iraq, for example, might have used such capability to discover that coalition forces had shifted their positions prior to ground operations in Operation Desert Storm. Obviously, such a discovery by Iraq could have cost many allied lives. A future General Schwarzkopf may not have absolute dominance of the space above the battle area that the real General Schwarzkopf enjoyed during Desert Storm as a result of the U.N. sanctions on Iraq.

To deal with this threat, a threat that the Pentagon does take seriously, the Pentagon has launched a space control architecture development effort under the Pentagon's space architect, Maj. Gen. Robert Dickman. The results of the study may be available as early as this fall, according to the testimony that was received in the Armed Services Committee. Unfortunately, instead of waiting for this study, section 212 of this bill, this defense authorization bill that we are considering today--section 212 of the bill takes all funding away from the space architect unless the Secretary of Defense includes the kinetic energy ASAT in the space control architecture being developed. Section 221(c) denies all funding for technical analysis, that is $35 million, denies all that funding to the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology unless the kinetic energy ASAT Program is pursued.

Mr. President, this is, I believe, the first example I have seen of a sort of double mandate being put into law, where we are saying not only will we deny all funds to the space architect in the Department of Defense if they do not come to the conclusion we want in this study, but we will also deny this $35 million to the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology unless they decide to pursue this particular option.

In my view we should not be using such a mandate to influence the outcome of an ongoing Pentagon study. The real reason for this mandatory language, I am afraid, is that many are concerned that the kinetic energy ASAT option will prove to be a very poor alternative in this ongoing study. Most previous studies of antisatellite capabilities have pointed toward directed energy options as preferable to the kinetic energy ASAT mandated by the bill. For example, the Air Force Science Board, in its `New World Vistas' study in air and space power for the 21st century earlier this year recommended both ground-based lasers and high-powered microwave systems over the kinetic energy ASAT systems. Here is a quote from that `New World Vistas' study. It says:

Kinetic energy systems . . . are expensive. The vehicles are complex, and tracking and guidance must be precise. Most of the cost, however, is the result of maintaining readiness to launch within an acceptable time.

Mr. President, I am not opposed to the Pentagon's developing antisatellite capabilities to deal with the proliferation of foreign high-resolution imaging satellites. But we have to understand that these capabilities will be in the hands of a limited number of nations for the next 10 to 15 years, nations such as France, Russia, Israel, China, possibly

India, and Japan. Would we really use a kill capability--which is what the kinetic energy ASAT is? This kinetic energy ASAT capability would collide with the satellite which it is directed against at very high speed. Would we really use this ability against one of those nations which I just listed, simply because they were making imagery available to a potential foe, such as Saddam Hussein, during a regional confrontation? Would our national leadership not prefer a capability that would disable or jam such a satellite when it was over our deployed forces but which would not permanently damage it?

The Air Force Science Board study to which I referred earlier points out that high power `microwave systems could be attractive because they have the potential to produce electronic upset without damaging the structure of a threat satellite.' Similarly, a mobile ground-based laser system might be developed that can only damage a threat satellite if its shutters were open, not if it were in a shutdown mode.

Such systems would provide our military commanders a military option to ensure the dominance of space by this country above the battle area, which General Schwarzkopf enjoyed during Desert Storm, without resulting in the escalation of a regional conflict.

The ideal space control capability is not one that destroys a foreign imaging satellite by colliding with it at high velocity and creating a diplomatic crisis that broadens a conflict as well as a cloud of space debris that will have adverse effects on peaceful space activities.

Mr. President, if there are more cost effective and more diplomatically effective approaches to space control, should we not allow the Pentagon to pursue those? The amendment I am offering leaves the $75 million in the bill which is presently there for tactical ASAT technology, without specifying what technologies we might be using it for. It eliminates the mandate forcing the use of the kinetic energy ASAT by the Pentagon. The amendment instead directs that the kinetic energy ASAT option be explicitly evaluated by General Dickman for the space control architecture, but it leaves the choice of whether to fund that option to the Pentagon. The Pentagon must also give Congress the results of its space control study by March 31, 1997.

This is the way in which we normally proceed when the Pentagon defines a threat, as they have in this case, and launches an effort to deal with that threat. We do not impose our solution to a highly complex problem before we have heard the Pentagon's own recommended solution.

Mr. President, the only testimony which the Senate received this year on this whole issue was from Gil Decker, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Acquisition, who told the Armed Services Committee that this is not an Army priority. This funding did not appear on any service wish list. This is hardly the basis for imposing this kinetic energy ASAT system on the Pentagon.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. That concludes my statement in support of it and I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Indiana.

[Page: S6455]

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from New Hampshire will be seeking some time to respond to the Senator from New Mexico and will be available to speak shortly. Let me just state we appear, now, to be making some progress on the bill. Relevant amendments are being debated and discussed and time limits are being sought. To the extent Members with amendments can notify us of their amendments and we can work out a time agreement, that would be preferable to keep us working late into the night.