Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a Concurrent Resolution that calls on Congress to clarify our national security spending priorities and regain a sense of fiscal responsibility. Specifically, my…
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a Concurrent Resolution that calls on Congress to clarify our national security spending priorities and regain a sense of fiscal responsibility. Specifically, my resolution recommends that Congress not provide funds for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from terrorist attacks.
The Defense Authorization bill as reported by the House Armed Services Committee authorizes increased funding for ballistic missile defense and the deployment of ground-based interceptors without additional testing. I think this is a mistake from both a budgeting and a national security standpoint.
Let me be clear that I am a strong supporter of missile defense. As a member of the Armed Services Committee from 1992-98, I urged increases in BMD R&D accounts. I support the Patriot Missile Defense System. I am a principal supporter of the Arrow Anti-Missile system, the first Member of Congress to have seen it deployed at Palmerchim AFB in Israel, and a strong proponent of the Third Arrow battery.
However, I do not support rushing to deploy a new U.S. system that has neither received adequate testing, nor been proven effective.
In August of 2003, the General Accounting Office issued a report stating that only two out of the ten critical technologies needed for the successful implementation of a ground-based missile defense system, or GMD, have been proven reliable. That report also indicated the administration's intent to deploy ground-based interceptors before all the critical technology has matured.
Before we deploy such a system, we should be absolutely sure that it is effective and sustainable. The expected five-year cost of the ballistic missile defense system is $53 billion. In this budget environment, the last thing we need is a $53 billion weapons program that plays no substantial role in our protection.
The resolution I introduced yesterday would authorize funding for ballistic missile defense programs for fiscal year 2005 at fiscal year 2004 levels, and require the administration to determine that all technologies are operational before moving to deploy ground-based interceptors. My resolution also calls on Congress to bolster homeland security by agreeing that we should authorize at least $500,000,000 for port security programs for fiscal year 2005.
From a national security standpoint, we have higher priorities than deploying an untested missile defense system. America's seaports remain vulnerable to terrorist attack and infiltration. Cargo containers are susceptible to being used to smuggle terrorists or dangerous materials into the United States, or as a delivery vehicle for a weapon of mass destruction.
The Intelligence Community has warned that the United States is more likely to be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction delivered by ship, truck, or airplane than by a ballistic missile.
I am not alone in my assessment of the GMD program and the importance of port security. In March of this year, 49 retired generals and admirals--including Ret. Adm. William J. Crowe--sent a letter to President Bush asking that he postpone operational deployment of an untested GMD system, and transfer the associated funds to securing our nation's ports and borders from terrorist attack.
I support strong, sensible and effective homeland security. Any strong national security strategy must include both effective ballistic missile defense and strong port security measures. I am also an advocate of fiscal responsibility. This resolution calls on Congress to take a step toward fiscal responsibility while providing much-needed funding for port security programs, and still allowing for the development of an effective ground-based missile defense system.
For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 428, and ask unanimous
consent to attach the letter I referred to to my remarks.
Waging Peace.org,
March 26, 2004.
President George W. Bush,
The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.
49 Generals and Admirals Call for Missile Defense Postponement
Dear Mr. President: In December 2002, you ordered the
deployment of a ground-based strategic mid-course ballistic
missile defense (GMD) capability, now scheduled to become
operational before the end of September 2004. You explained
that its purpose is to defend our nation against rogue states
that may attack us with a single or a limited number of
ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.
To meet this deployment deadline, the Pentagon has waived
the operational testing requirements that are essential to
determining whether or not this highly complex system of
systems is effective and suitable. The Defense Department's
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated on March
11, 2004, that operational testing is not in the plan ``for
the foreseeable future.'' Moreover, the General Accounting
Office pointed out in a recent report that only two of 10
critical technologies of the GMD system components have been
verified as workable by adequate developmental testing.
Another important consideration is balancing the high costs
of missile defense with funding allocated to other national
security programs. Since President Reagan's strategic defense
initiative speech in March 1983, a conservative estimate of
about $130 billion, not adjusted upward for inflation, has
been spent on missile defense, much of it on GMD. Your Fiscal
Year 2005 budget for missile defense is $10.2 billion, with
$3.7 billion allocated to GMD. Some $53 billion is programmed
for missile defense over the next five years, with much more
to follow. Deploying a highly complex weapons system prior to
testing it adequately can increase costs significantly.
U.S. technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source
of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly
unlikely that any state would dare to attack the U.S. or
allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile
armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking
annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike.
As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to
prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of
mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the
militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone
operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD
system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated
programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing
nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and
borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons
of mass destruction into the United States.
Signed:
Admiral William J. Crowe (USN, ret.), General Alfred G.
Hansen (USAF, ret.), General Joseph P. Hoar (USMC, ret.).
Lt. General Henry E. Emerson (USA, ret.), Lt. General
Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.). Vice Admiral Carl T. Hanson
(USN, ret.), Lt. General James F. Hollingsworth (USA,
ret.), Lt. General Arlen D. Jameson (USAF, ret.), Lt.
General Robert E. Kelley, (USAF, ret.), Lt. General John
A. Kjellstrom (USA, ret.), Lt. General Dennis P. McAuliffe
(USA, ret.), Lt. General Charles P. Otstott (USA, ret.),
Lt. General Thomas M. Rienzi (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral
John J. Shanahan (USN, ret.), Lt. General Dewitt C. Smith,
Jr. (USA, ret.), Lt. General Horace G. Taylor (USA, ret.),
Lt. General James M. Thompson (USA, ret.), Lt. General
Alexander M. Weyand (USA, ret.).
Major General Robert H. Appleby (AUS, ret.), Major General
James G. Boatner (USA, ret.), Major General Jack O. Bradshaw
(USA, ret.), Major General Morris J. Brady (USA, ret.), Major
General Williams F. Burns (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral William
D. Center (USN, ret.), Major General Albert B. Crawford (USA,
ret.), Major General Maurice O. Edmonds (USA, ret.), Rear
Admiral Robert C. Elliott, (USN, ret.), Major General John C.
Faith (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley (USN,
ret.), Major General Richard B. Griffitts (USA, ret.), Rear
Admiral Charles D. Grojean (USN, ret.), Major General Raymond
E. Haddock (USA, ret.), Major General Jack R. Holbein, Jr.
(USAF, ret.), Major General Stanley H. Hyman (USA, ret.),
Major General Wayne P. Jackson (USA, ret.), Major General
Frederick H. Lawson (AUS, ret.), Major General Vincent P.
Luchsinger, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General James J. LeCleir
(AUS, ret.), Major General William F. Willoughby (USAF,
ret.).
Brig. General George C. Cannon, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Brig.
General John J. Costa (USA, ret.), Brig. General Alvin E.
Cowan (USA, ret.), Brig. General Lee Denson (USAF, ret.),
Brig. General Evelyn P. Foote (USA, ret.), Brig. General
Leslie R. Forney, Jr. (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H.
Grubbs (USA, ret.), Brig. General James E. Hastings (USA,
ret.), Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, ret.), Brig. General
Maurice D. Roush (USA, ret.).
