24 July 2001

Senators Express Cautious Support for Missile Defense Development

Washington -- Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voiced broad, if qualified, support July 24 for the Bush administration's goal of developing a missile defense system to ward off threats from so-called rogue states and accidental launches.

But Democrats, in particular, expressed concerns over possibly huge expenditures on the program in the face of competing priorities, and cautioned administration officials against unilateral action by the United States in pursuit of the plan - most notably by scrapping the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed with the former Soviet Union.

Questioning administration witnesses closely on their rationale for the plan, Chairman Joseph Biden (Democrat, Delaware) said his ultimate concern was whether development of the system they propose "will make our people more secure" or whether, conversely, it holds the potential for triggering a new arms race.

The hearing by the Foreign Relations Committee marked a change in venue for congressional deliberations on the controversial missile defense plan, as top administration officials have previously testified before the Armed Services and Budget Committees in the Senate and House.

It was the first in a series of hearings announced by Biden which will focus on the whole range of national security issues, including later sessions on attacks by weapons of mass destruction, information warfare attacks, terrorist attacks abroad, regional conflicts, peacekeeping operations, the war on drugs, and humanitarian crises.

On the point of proceeding unilaterally, the opening witness -- Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton -- restated the administration's position that, while the missile defense development program will inevitably come into conflict with provisions of the ABM treaty, "our objective is to reach an understanding with Russia" by that time.

Bolton said that, in the aftermath of the meeting in Genoa July 22 between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, "there is increasing evidence that Russia is ready to explore cooperative solutions and reach agreement on a new strategic framework." He expressed optimism over the impending visit to Moscow by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to set up the schedule for "the intensive ministerial-level consultations" to which the presidents agreed in Genoa.

But he repeated the administration position that, in the end, "we will move ahead on our own if need be."

Biden was critical of what he characterized as a vagueness on missile defense system plans - and potential costs -- by administration witnesses in previous hearings.

"Before spending the taxpayers' money to conduct tests that would require us to walk away from the ABM Treaty, we must know exactly what the administration has planned," Biden said.

"Frankly," he declared, "I marvel at the audacity of a request for $8 billion ($8,000 million) to conduct unspecified research and development on programs which may or may not violate a treaty from which the administration may or may not withdraw six months before an unspecified date - but sometime soon...."

"It is one thing for the president to walk away from a 30-year-old treaty without knowing what strategic framework will replace it. It is quite another to ask Congress to be complicit by approving $8 billion for unclear objectives," Biden said.

Under questioning by Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska), Lt. General Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, declined to estimate how much the program might ultimately cost.

Kadish termed it "an awkward question" because the program architecture, which will determine costs, has not yet been developed. But he acknowledged, "It's going to be very expensive."

When Hagel persisted, Kadish said it would come to "many billions of dollars." Hagel asked, "Hundreds of billions?" and Kadish responded, "In my judgment, no." But he observed that the limited system under consideration in the prior Clinton administration was estimated at $23 to $30 billion, and said, "as you add more capabilities to it, it will obviously add to the cost of the system."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) told Bolton and his fellow administration spokesman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, that he is "in favor of building a limited system" provided the process has "sufficient transparency and mutuality." Like Biden and others, he expressed concern about a go-it-alone approach by the administration.

Feith disputed that characterization, arguing that "there really is a possibility of moving forward in a harmonious fashion."

He said there is "an important degree of common ground" with friends and allies, who give general support to the missile defense concept, and that the administration is showing "concern for Russia's view ... and that nothing be done that's reckless in that regard."

On the other hand, he said, "a veto (power by Russia over U.S. plans) would not be acceptable to anybody here."

Kerry said he also is concerned about "the level of rhetoric" by the administration, which suggests that the limited missile defense it proposes will somehow supplant the concept of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) -- a concept that during the Cold War was credited with inhibiting the nuclear superpowers from launching a first strike, in the knowledge that the other side had enough missiles to respond by wiping out the attacker.

"If the system is limited, as you say it's going to be, and all we're targeting is rogue missiles, it is absolutely inconceivable that we have moved away from MAD," he said. Indeed, he said, the reason that Russia and China worry about the missile defense program is that "they know it's going to alter the balance."

But Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina), saw the plan as a way out of "the outdated and dangerous strategy of MAD" -- one that could allow "unprecedented reductions" in nuclear arsenals.

As for possible conflict with the ABM Treaty, he said he is among those who believe that pact to be "non-existent" because the only treaty partner, the Soviet Union, has gone out of existence.

Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, like his fellow Democrats, expressed cautious support for a limited program. But he said it should have been handled in the context of a "modest modification of the ABM Treaty" to permit a single launch site. Instead, Torricelli said, the administration is pursuing "a foolish and unnecessary retreat from a generation of arms control."

Again, Senator Lincoln Chafee (Republican, Rhode Island), said that substantial support exists in the Senate for missile defense, but that the administration must be careful about the "tone" of its presentation and avoid "unilateralism."

Returning to the cost issue, Biden noted competing demands for tight defense funds. "Is this the best way to spend our limited resources?" he asked. The question is particularly pertinent now that the Bush-sponsored tax cut "has eliminated the surplus," Biden said -- repeating that final phrase three times for emphasis.