Space

[Page: S1382]

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am speaking today, once again, about the urgent priority we have to develop and deploy adequate defenses against a ballistic missile attack.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee, I feel it is my duty to call relevant aspects of this issue to the attention of my colleagues and the American people.

This month, we are marking the 5-year anniversary of the gulf war. While the war was, in many respects, a great triumph, there are certainly many lessons that we should learn from that war. One of these lessons is that future conflicts will, very likely, include attacks on American forces by ballistic missiles. It is our obligation to our troops--not to mention the American people, generally--to do all we can to prepare for this reality.

Five years ago this past Sunday, a primitive Iraqi Scud missile carrying a conventional explosive warhead slammed into a barracks housing American troops in Saudi Arabia, and 28 Americans were killed, 98 Americans were injured. It was the single largest loss of lives during that war.

In recalling this event the other day, the Washington Post Style section recounted the horror of how these brave young Americans, well behind the front lines, were coldbloodedly attacked and murdered without warning. As the Post described it:

It was simply a freak of war. No ground was gained, none was defended, no tactical purpose was served, people were assassinated in their beds as they dozed or lounged or clowned with buddies. They were in a converted warehouse in the suburbs of Saudi Arabia, 200 miles behind the front line, in a neighborhood that included a supermarket, a hotel, and other buildings. The war was winding down. Two days after the attack, it would be over.

I was particularly struck by the Post's description of the victims of this incident as the `forgotten fatalities of the Persian Gulf war.'

Now, it is understandable that a lot of the American people did not see this happening because, understandably, the television crews were up there in the front lines, and they were filming the last 2 days of this war. Nonetheless, it happened. I think there are a lot of people who think that perhaps it would go unnoticed. But I am here to remind my colleagues that, as policymakers and overseers of our national defense preparedness, we cannot and will not ever forget what happened in this incident. This was an unprovoked, cowardly, and feeble ballistic missile attack that gives us a glimpse of the future.

My concern is that, with a lot of people not having known and remembered that this happened, these 28 Americans will have died in vain. On the other hand, if this can be very visibly laid out in front of the American people--and I do applaud the Washington Post for bringing this to public attention this week--then perhaps this can be used to get a very meaningful, sophisticated, theater missile defense in place as everyone in Congress has asked the President to do.

Ballistic missiles are fast becoming the weapons of first choice of those who seek to harm to American interests abroad. We know, and our intelligence confirms now, that 25 nations have ballistic missiles of different degrees of technology, but the capability is there. Keep in mind, the one that murdered 28 Americans was a very primitive Scud missile. These 25 nations all have missiles that are more sophisticated than that.

Now, to illustrate this directly, I call the attention of my colleagues to recent news reports concerning communications between the United States commander in Korea, General Luck, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili. In this astonishing exchange, General Luck's urgent request for advanced missile defenses to protect his troops was rejected. General Luck and his forces are on the front lines facing an increasingly hostile and menacing adversary in North Korea. According to the Washington Times, General Luck warned in December that the threat to United States forces from North Korean missiles is growing and advance theater missile defenses were needed as soon as possible.

Specifically, General Luck requested that the development of our most capable ground-based theater missile defense system, the THAAD system, the theater high altitude area defense, be accelerated to facilitate rapid deployment to Korea of at least 2 THAAD batteries including up to 18 launchers. Such a system would have the potential to provide some adequate protection for our forces in the entire Korean theater. In other words, this is the very minimum that General Luck says we have to have to protect the lives of our Americans in South Korea. We have 37,000 Americans in South Korea. The report states that General Luck's urgent request for THAAD batteries was rejected. Instead, General Shalikashvili reportedly informed him that THAAD development would actually be further delayed by a period of 3 to 5 years so that limited funds could be diverted to smaller and less capable missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC 3 system and to what was called critically underfunded areas of recapitalization.

Mr. President, I find this story to be absolutely incredible. The Congress has been wringing its hands all year to accelerate the vital missile defense programs, especially advanced theater missile defense programs, to help commanders like General Luck. We have just passed, and the President has signed, a Defense authorization bill which expressly calls for more funding and more priority to such theater missile defense systems such as THAAD and the Navy Upper Tier.

We are not talking about a national defense system. That is very controversial. I have stood on this floor over the past year and talked, collectively, many, many hours about a national missile defense system. We are not talking about that, Mr. President. We are talking about a theater missile defense system to protect our troops who are currently over in places like South Korea from missile attack. At the very least, the threat we face is from missiles that are using what we consider right now to be very primitive technology, such as the Scud missile.

While I have been trying to carry on the debate on the national missile defense system--I am very much concerned about it--we have been losing the battle with the administration. They are convinced that we will have to adhere to the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty was put together in 1972, not by a Democratic administration but by a Republican administration. That was President Nixon.

Henry Kissinger felt at that time it was in the best interests of the United States of America to have a program of what was

referred to as `mutual assured destruction.' That is a program that would say there are two superpowers in the world. We have U.S.S.R. and we have America. If we agree not to defend ourselves, then, in theory, if one would fire a missile at the other superpower, that superpower would fire one back at us, everyone would die and everything would be fine. That was our strategy at that time. I did not agree with President Nixon and Mr. Kissinger at that time. At least it made sense because at that time we had two superpowers.

We are not talking about that now. We are not talking about a national missile defense system. What we are talking about is a theater missile defense system, and I think that America needs to know that General Luck in South Korea made the request to continue the technology advancements so that we would have somewhat of a sophisticated system just to protect those people.

These field commanders know what they are talking about, Mr. President. They are not like we are here, talking in theory and debating on these things in the abstract. They are on the ground facing the threat that exists. I remind my colleagues that the last time the Clinton administration turned down a field commander's similar request for needed equipment was in Somalia in 1993, and it cost 18 American lives. All they asked for was armored vehicles. For some reason, we felt that was not what they needed. But, in retrospect, we now we know the field commander was right, and Americans died.

I urge General Shalikashvili, the Pentagon, and the policymakers in the Clinton administration to reconsider what is going on here. Our troops in the field are facing a threat. That threat is real. That threat is now. It has been 5 years since the devastating Scud missile attack in Saudi Arabia. We should have no illusions about what we are up against. We know hat we have to do. We should do it and do it now. We have the technical know how.

The only other thing we have that would stand in the way, deterring us from responding to the urgent needs of General Luck and other field commanders, is the money. I have to say, Mr. President, I have said this many times before, I am very much disturbed over what is happening right now. We have an administration that is sending troops all throughout the world--Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia--on humanitarian missions. Then they come back to us for emergency supplementals that we give to them. That is all we need here, to come for an emergency supplemental and give General Luck that which he needs to protect 37,000 American soldiers.

My fear is that people will think that we will forget those 28 Americans who lost their lives. The President may think we will forget, but he is wrong again. Now is the time to reverse that policy of delay in the Pentagon and continue the development of a sophisticated theater missile defense system, and do what is right.

I notice my colleague from North Dakota is on the floor. I yield the floor.

[Page: S1383]

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was thinking perhaps the Senator from Oklahoma was talking about the proposals for a national missile defense system. Since there is no Senate business pending, I thought it would be a good time to discuss the building of a $48 billion boondoggle called star wars, but you were not talking about that, and this is not the time for that discussion.

Mr. INHOFE. I think this might be an appropriate time to have that discussion because the Senator understands that I am talking here about theater missile defense, which we all agreed we needed when we voted in favor of the second go around on the DOD authorization bill. In addition, as I said, I believe we need to proceed with a national missile defense.

Let me correct the Senator from North Dakota. It is not a $48 billion proposition. We already have a $40 billion investment in the essential elements a limited, but effective, national missile defense system. It would take about 10 percent of that to make the upgrades necessary to make such a system work. For example, we have 22 Aegis ships with launching capability floating today. That technology is here. It is paid for. All we need to do is upgrade it, giving it the capability to penetrate the upper tier so that if a missile does go forth from North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia, China, or any place throughout the world, we could protect American lives. I think any time is an appropriate time to discuss that.

Mr. DORGAN. I understand the Senator is talking about theater missile defense. We have had robust research and development funds for theater missile defense. I have supported some of that. We have had robust research and development funds for national missile defense. I have supported some of that. What I do not support is this notion that we ought to, on an urgent basis, deploy in 1999 a national missile defense that has a star wars component, a space-based component, multiple sites around the country. If you wanted to waste the taxpayers' money, that is an awfully good way to waste it.

To those who advocate creating now this new star wars or national missile defense system, I would say that if this country were threatened by a rogue nation, Qadhafi from Libya, Saddam Hussein from Iraq, or any other rogue nation, we are far more likely to be threatened by a nuclear device stuck in the trunk of a rusty Yugo parked at the docks of New York City than one delivered by a sophisticated missile. Or it is far more likely we will be threatened from another country by a small glass vial, no bigger than my hand, full of deadly biological agents.

I just think this notion of building an Astrodome over America--and it will cost $48 billion incidentally, for something we do not need--I think we ought to think long and hard before we do that.

Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that the Taepo Dong missile in North Korea, it is believed, will be able to reach the United States by the year 2002, and actually can reach Alaska and Hawaii by the year 2000? I think that is something which the Senator would agree that our intelligence has indicated would be a threat to the United States in those time limits.

We can talk about all these other things, these social areas in which to invest our money. But if we do not stay on line and finish what we have started, what we have paid for, to develop a national missile defense system, I believe we will regret it. I agree with Jim Woolsey--and certainly Jim Woolsey is not a Republican; he was the CIA Director appointed by President Clinton--when he said our intelligence confirms there are between 20 and 25 nations that currently have, or are in various stages of developing, weapons of mass destruction, either chemical, biological, or nuclear, and are working on the missile means to deliver them.

The Senator from North Dakota is fully aware that such technology is out there, and that many of those countries who want to sell that technology may do so and we might not have any way of knowing what is going on.

Mr. DORGAN. I would say to the Senator, a much greater threat than an ICBM from North Korea is the likelihood that some rogue country will get a hold of an air-launched cruise missile from an air platform not too far offshore, or a sea-launched cruise missile, or a ground-launched cruise missile. That would be a far more likely delivery vehicle to get. The national missile defense system is not going to shoot down cruise missiles.

In any event, we should debate this question of what is an adequate defense for this country, what are the threats, and what do we do to prepare to meet those threats. I do not disagree at all with the contention of the Senator that we should have such a debate.

The difficulty I have is there seems to be a tendency for some to embrace the biggest, most expensive, and broadest possible defense program to respond to a threat. There are many threats to this country, and I think the Senator from Oklahoma and others do a service when they raise on the floor of the Senate a whole series of defense issues and do it in a thoughtful and persuasive way. It is also helpful for others of us who switch roles sometimes and say, `Wait a second, who are the big spenders now? Where are you going to get all this money?'

We have had some experience with national missile defense. In North Dakota, they built the only antiballistic missile program in the free world's history. It was decommissioned 30 days after it

was declared operational. I do not know how many billions of dollars went into that, but it was wasted because the system was closed down. It was closed down within a month after it was declared operational.

I am not suggesting that we should not invest in a lot of these issues. I supported investing $370 million in research and development on the national missile defense system. But when the defense bill came to the floor, and the Senator from Oklahoma and others insisted on increasing that funding by over 100-percent in this year's appropriation, I said, `Wait a second, where are we going to get the money? Where on Earth are we going to get the money to increase the so-called star wars, as I call it, the national missile defense, as you call it, by over 100 percent in this year and demand it be deployed, early deployment, in 1999?'

The Senator quoted some defense and intelligence folks he knows. The Senator will recall that I held up on the floor of the Senate a chart showing letters from the Secretary of Defense, who thought that funding increase was very unwise. He did not support a 100-percent increase for a star wars program, demanding early deployment in 1999, and suggesting that we use multiple sites on the ground and possibly systems in space. The Secretary of Defense did not support that. He said that was not in this country's interests.

[Page: S1384]

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, we have talked about this on the floor many, many times. A number of us who are on both the Intelligence Committee and on the Senate Armed Services Committee believe that this threat is imminent and real. If our intelligence confirms that we could be reached by a missile from North Korea within 6 years of right now, this is something to be called to the attention of the American people.

You might say, the big spenders, what are they spending this on? Yes, we were asking for more money to stay on course so we would have a defense system in place by the year 2000 or 2003.

Mr. DORGAN. No, no, it was 1999. If I might reclaim my time, the Senator is mistaken. The legislation that came to the floor of the Senate demanded early deployment by 1999 of a national missile defense system. The way to waste the taxpayers' money is to----

Mr. INHOFE. But that bill, of course, was vetoed by the President. And the President, in his veto message, said we do not need a national missile defense system on the timeline we are talking about. He is talking about 15 years out in the future.

I would ask the Senator, does he remember what Saddam Hussein said during the Persian Gulf war, when he stated that if he could have waited another 5 years, he would have had the missile technology to reach the United States, and that he would not have hesitated to use it? I think there should be no hesitation to conclude that some of the madmen around the world like Saddam Hussein would act the same way.

Then, only 3 weeks ago, in an article in the New York Times, references were made to statements from top Chinese officials concerning direct missile threats on Taiwan. They indicated that they could make such threats with little concern about how the Americans would react because, they said, the Americans are more concerned about protecting Los Angeles than they are about protecting Taipei.

When you get top officials talking like that, you get a sense of what we will be facing in the future. Let us just assume for a minute that maybe you are wrong. Maybe the Senator, who is very knowledgeable, the Senator from North Dakota, might be wrong. What are the consequences? I come from Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, just last April, we had the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of terrorism in this country, in the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. The bomb that went off was a 1-ton bomb, the equivalent to 1 ton of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead known right now is 1,000 times the devastation of that bomb.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me reclaim my time on that point, because I think the Senator makes the point I am trying to make. Tragically, the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City was a fertilizer bomb. The tragic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City was with a fertilizer bomb in the back of a Ryder truck. Not even a very large one, but large enough to destroy that building and kill so many wonderful Oklahoma people and others. It just breaks your heart to see that happen.

But my point is this. My point is, terrorism does not come, necessarily, as a warhead on an ICBM.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree.

Mr. DORGAN. Terrorism finds its form in dozens of different areas. The Japanese confronted a terrorist attack that could have been of such a nightmare quality that it would have been unheard of previously, with this deadly chemical agent which killed, tragically, a good many Japanese. The human toll of that attack in Tokyo could have actually been much worse than it was. Fortunately, certain circumstances intervened.

But my point is this. There are a lot of rogue nations out there. There are people with the capability to build a nuclear device. There are some with the ability to deliver the nuclear device. You can deliver a small nuclear device in a suitcase these days. You can deliver it with an ICBM. You can put it on a cruise missile. You can drive it in a car. You can plant it in a truck. Or you can create a nonnuclear device, a deadly biological agent, in a very small bottle. There are dozens and dozens of ways to terrorize this country.

One thing that anybody out there ought to understand in this world is this. If a Saddam Hussein or if a rogue country decides to launch a nuclear attack on our country, they would be vaporized instantly. We have intercontinental ballistic missiles with Mark 12 warheads. The fact is, with our combined triad of nuclear power in the sea, nuclear power in the air, nuclear power on the land, anyone who harbors the thought of engineering that kind of attack on our country will understand that they will be gone from this Earth.

That has been what for many years has prevented a nuclear attack on our country. The Senator makes the point that there are other ways to ensure our safety. We can essentially create a catcher's mitt to catch ICBM's that may be aimed at us. The catcher's mitt over America will not catch cruise missiles. But it will not deal with the other elements of terror, including fertilizer bombs or deadly biological agents.

The question is whether we should build this astrodome over America for roughly $48 billion. And it is not a case of spending 10 percent more because we already spent 90 percent. I should mention that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office estimated in July 1995 that the cost of a six-site ground-based national missile defense system would be $48 billion. You go down this road and I guarantee you that you will spend tens of billions of dollars. And at the end you will have not devised a system that gives you any more cause to sleep better at night than you did yesterday.

[Page: S1385]

Mr. INHOFE. Up until that statement, I suggest to the Senator from North Dakota that we are almost in agreement on a couple of things. We need to do what we can to defend against terrorist attacks, whether it is fertilizers bombs in suitcases and any other way. But just because that is also a threat does not mean we should abandon our national missile system because that threat is there. The Senator talks about what our capabilities are today. The Senator talks about a dome. I am not talking about a dome. I think it is demeaning to the American people to keep using over and over again the statement `star wars.' I know the President does that quite often.

Mr. DORGAN. I reclaim my time. This is my time. The reason I use `star wars' is because the proposal that the Senator and others pushed is a proposal that----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I really came to the floor to speak for about 5 minutes about an economic task force. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 7 additional minutes, and for the next 2 minutes let us deal with this and let me give the statement I intend to on the economic task force.

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

Mr. DORGAN. The bill the Senator supported last year included both multiple sites on the ground and the possibility of space-based laser systems.

Mr. INHOFE. We are talking right now about going into that position. We have something in space we are concerned about, and that is our satellite technology that warns us in advance 30 minutes before it reaches the United States. If one should come from North Korea, that gives us adequate time. That technology is here now. Brilliant Eyes would tie into our ground-based radar and give us warning so we would be able to project and hit it. But we are not talking about that at this point. We are talking about a bad missile that would reach the stratosphere. We have 22 Aegis ships that we have a tremendous investment in, and I am sure the Senator maybe disagreed with the amount of money that we invested in that to begin with. But it is here. We were in this body at the time that decision was made. They have now those out there floating. We want to get in the position that we can use that investment by having maybe three ships on the east coast and three ships on the west coast to reach into the atmosphere and hit missiles coming toward the United States. That is hardly an umbrella over the United States. But it is common sense--I still contend--that your figures are not accurate. And for approximately 10 percent more in investment than we have already made we could have a system that would defend Americans against missile attack.

Mr. DORGAN. I respect the Senator's views. And he comes with great energy, as do many of his colleagues when we have this discussion on the floor. I will be here when it comes again this year on the Defense authorization bill. I am not suggesting that we ought not be involved in these kinds of questions or issues. I could have supported a level of $370 million of R&D for a national missile defense. I think that is a little high. But the fact is that was in the administration's budget. We agreed with that. We disagreed with adding over 100 percent to that, or increasing by 100 percent.

Interestingly enough, this comes at a time when the workhorse of our strategic defense are still effective. The B-52 bomber, for example, is a wonderful airplane. It has lots of life left. The Air Force does not have enough money. So they are putting B-52's in storage. We are going to draw down that bomber force? Why? Because we do not have enough money to retain the bomber force. You can run 25 B-52's for I think 5 years for the cost of one new B-2 bomber, as I recall.

The tradeoffs here are what I am talking about. I am not suggesting that we should not make good investment to defend this country. I am saying let us make sure that what we are doing represents the right kind of tradeoffs in the things that are necessary for this country's defense in the future.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree. I cannot think of anything more valuable when you are talking about tradeoffs than defending the lives of Americans.

The reason I brought up the thing in Oklahoma City was I was there for the 168 people who were killed, and many were dear friends of mine. The point there is that the smallest warhead known could kill 1,000 times that many. That is a real threat to Americans.

Mr. DORGAN. I understood the point the Senator was making. I think all of us in this Chamber understand the heartbreak and the sadness which was visited on Oklahoma and Oklahoma City and this entire country by that tragedy, by that senseless violence that happened. It maybe in a lot of ways reminds us all again of how fragile things are and how easy it is for someone deranged, or some group deranged, to want to visit great damage on a country, or a region, or a city, or a people. We need to be vigilant about that. But there are a whole range of threats. We need to consider the entire range.

As always, I enjoyed the visit with the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, thank you for indulging us and sitting and listening to this exchange. But you will hear much of this exchange again when we have the Defense authorization bill on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for the next 5 minutes.

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