Space

[excerpts] FY 98 DEFENSE BUDGET
FEBRUARY 12, 1997 SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

..............

COHEN: A quick comment on ballistic missile defense. The Department is proposing a stronger BMD program this year. Senator Levin asked the question, is this consistent with what was negotiated last year, and the answer is yes. This is consistent entirely with that. The theater missile defense system obviously occupies our highest priority as far as missile defense capability. We've added some $722 million to the THADD system. We are, and by virtue of that we hope to accelerate the first unit deployed or equipped rather, from Fiscal 2006 to Fiscal 2004. So we've accelerated by two years the introduction of the THADD system.

We've also added some $254 million to reduce the risk of the Navy theater wide or upper tier system, reducing the risk that the deployment schedule will slip any further. I am told, and I accept this, I have talked on several occasions with Dr. Kaminski that that program is not dollar driven, it's really technology driven at this point. That we are putting as much money into the program as technology will allow for the foreseeable future at least.

On national missile defense, the budget accelerates the first launch of the satellite missile tracking system from the year 2006 to 2004. And we have in here the 3 plus 3 program that Secretary Perry had advocated, and that remains on course.

...............................

WARNER?: When you were here three weeks ago, I asked you about the whole issue about how we could perhaps reduce the threat of nuclear conflict by trying to move ahead to explore with the Russians getting more weapons off of alert status, I think. And you indicated that that was something that was worth considering, as I understand it.

I've been particularly concerned here in the last week or two, when I saw the statement by the secretary of the Russian Security Council, Ivan Ripkin, which -- I understood him to be saying that he thought Russia should drop its no first strike policy because of the deficiencies that were becoming apparent in their conventional capability.

And it seemed to me that that statement put new priority -- gave a new priority to this issue we were talking about. If you have any thoughts about that, I'd be interested.

COHEN: Well, there are two statements that are somewhat troublesome -- not only Rifkin's statement, but also Minister Rodionov. He is also quoted as saying that he's very concerned about the deterioration in the command and control of the Soviet military forces. And that, of course, has gotten everyone's attention.

Now it may be that he is simply sending a signal that he needs more cooperation and more funding from the Russian Duma, that he is seeking to try to modernize the forces by having a 15 percent cut and by trying to upgrade the capabilities of the remaining forces. And he's not getting much success in making that case and trying to sound an alarm.

Hopefully, that is the signal that he is sending to his -- his appropriators. But it does cause some concern when statements like that are made that they may go to a first-strike option, and that is why I believe it is important that these issues be raised.

I know that Vice President Gore, meeting with the Russian prime minister this past week, is raising issues of START II, looking at the possibility of START III, and this is an aspect of it that could be explored at that level.

But it's something very high on the agenda of the administration.

..........................