19 July 2001

Congress Lauds Missile Test, Criticizes Scant Consultations

Washington -- Members of the House Armed Services Committee have expressed a range of opinion on Bush administration missile defense plans, from criticism that there has been insufficient consultations about the planned restructure of the program to praise for a successful missile intercept test on July 14.

They voiced their views July 19 while taking testimony from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Air Force Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).

Representative Duncan Hunter (Republican, California) said, for example, that despite the preliminary success of the recent missile defense test much about the program "still needs to be fleshed out for the Congress." He told Kadish that members "haven't gotten as much detail as we'd like to have" from BMDO. Kadish told him that this test was a repeat of last year's failed test and that the next one in October or November will repeat, again, the same function "in order to build confidence in our hit-to-kill technologic because we need to test some of the elements a little bit better."

Representative John Spratt (Democrat, South Carolina) expressed surprise at learning only in July that the BMDO "plans to begin a limited deployment of what is called a 'testbed' at Fort Greely, Alaska. And we were surprised partly because it's a significant move and we didn't have any consultation on it, but in addition, when we did find out the plans, they also were a surprise." With only five missiles to be placed there, Spratt described it as "a tenuous and terribly thin deployment, and yet it's probably a violation of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty."

Wolfowitz replied that the idea is not only to build a realistic testbed, but also to resolve safety issues. The actual construction of the site would raise the first serious issue about the possible violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty "sometime in next spring or early summer," he said. "We are having our lawyers work very hard right now to make judgments about whether that would be a violation or not a violation. It is an ambiguous event because it can be argued to be a test facility and therefore permitted, or it could be argued to be a deployment and therefore not permitted," he added.

Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's senior Democrat, delivered a strongly worded statement in which he termed himself "concerned about labeling.

"The administration wants to build two launch sites for ground-based interceptors. They're called 'testbeds,' but you can't even test from one of them. That sounds more like a deployment to me, and we haven't in this Congress approved any deployment." He expressed concern about what he described as a "disregard of the Congress."

The Bush administration "wants to start building sites in August, even though Congress did not authorize, did not appropriate, did not reprogram the 2001 funds for that purpose," he said. Some proposed tests do violate the 1972 ABM Treaty, Skelton said. "The Constitution says that treaties are the supreme law of the land, and I want to know whether we're going to violate that," he added.

There were also concerns expressed about the money required for a missile defense program. Skelton said BMDO wants to reorganize the missile defense program into six large "slush funds" in order to decide how to spend the money internally. "It's Congress' job to make sure public funds are spent wisely. Such funds are not a good idea, regardless of where one stands on missile defense -- (it's) not a good precedent," he opined.

Representative Gene Taylor (Democrat, Mississippi) warned the deputy secretary that the defense budget is not unlimited. "And aren't there more pressing needs," he asked? "After all, the (USS) Cole was bombed by a small boat. Khobar Towers was an act of terrorism, not a missile," he said. He asked Kadish, "At what point do they have to build just one more missile than we have the capability to stop? And what does that cost us?"

But Wolfowitz said the challenge of developing defense against missiles has not been taken seriously over the past 10 years. "We have not adequately funded it, we have not believed in it, and we have given the ABM Treaty priority over it," he said.

Developing defenses against a limited missile attack from a rogue state or from an accidental or unauthorized launch requires a "more aggressive exploration of key technologies, particularly those... that have been constrained in the past by the ABM Treaty. So we plan to build incrementally, deploying capabilities as the technology is proven ready, and then adding new capabilities over time, as they become mature," He said.

The July 14 test was just "another step forward on the long road to developing and deploying effective defenses to protect the American people and our friends and allies and our troops abroad," Wolfowitz said, but the administration does not intend to violate the ABM.

The administration does need Congress' support as the President seeks to achieve an understanding with Russia on ballistic missile defense, he said, and it needs support for the missile defense budget request ($8,300 million in fiscal year 2002). "I would hope Congress would not give Russia the mistaken impression that they can somehow exercise a veto over our development of missile defenses," Wolfowitz added. He also said it is impossible "to exaggerate the importance in our negotiations with the Russians of the appearance of consensus" in the United States.

But Representative Thomas Allen (Democrat, Maine) told the deputy secretary that he found his testimony "personally offensive because those of us who have policy differences with this administration need to be able to voice them without being told that if we voice our policy differences somehow we're making it more difficult to negotiate with the Russians."

If the budget request is approved, Wolfowitz answered, it does give the President "a stronger hand" when he negotiates with the Russians. "That doesn't mean you should vote for it regardless," he said, "but it's one of the things I think you need to take into account, and I ask you to."

Allen, who described himself as a strong supporter of theater missile defense, faulted the administration's argument that missile defense will deter suicidal leaders of rogue states, while advance conventional military capabilities will not. He said the real threats are posed by short-range missiles, not intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Wolfowitz agreed on the shorter-range, slower speed threat being more immediate and said the long-range threat is more remote in time. "The threat is developing, you may say slowly; the defenses against the threat are developing even more slowly. And that is why I think it is unreasonable to continue to inhibit your development of those defenses in order to preserve a treaty that we signed with a hostile superpower almost 30 years ago, that frankly, I think, is detrimental to good U.S.-Russian relations."

Russia has a major interest in becoming a part of a stable Europe, he said. "We have an interest in seeing them become a part of Europe, not just physically, but psychologically and politically." Both nations have an interest in a stable Far East, too, he said. That is what will constitute the cornerstone of stability, Wolfowitz said, "not the ability to annihilate one another."

Asked about the possibility of selling missile defense technology and equipment in the future to allies who may wish to deploy their own system, the deputy secretary said "we'd like to see our allies as protected against limited missile attacks as we'd like to see ourselves. Really that's what an alliance is about."