Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I believe that amendment has been cleared on this side. I also compliment my colleagues on their tenacity in sticking with this issue. I was on the Intelligence Committee when this was called to our attention. I believe Senator Smith was one of the first to get involved, as well as Senator Roberts and then Senator Nelson from Florida. We need to get to the bottom of this matter. I think this amendment is something the Senate needs to adopt. There is no objection on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. It has been cleared on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. It has been cleared on this side, too.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an amendment which provides key enabling robotics technologies that will support Army, Navy, and Air Force robotics and unmanned military platforms.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I offer an amendment which would authorize $5 million to conduct a preliminary engineering study and environmental analysis for an alternate road to Woodlawn Road, which was closed as a force protection measure at Fort Belvoir. The funding would be offset by a reduction to increase in the M-Gator program authorized in this bill.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4100

Mr. ALLARD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inhofe and Senator Akaka, I offer an amendment which would increase the maximum amount of assistance the Secretary of Defense may provide to a tribal organization to carry out a procurement and technical assistance program. I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4096

Mr. ALLARD. It has been cleared on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. The amendment has been cleared.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments in response to my colleague's comments earlier about trying to justify the cuts they had in various parts of the Missile Defense Program. I rise in support of the amendment that is going to be offered by the ranking Republican in the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and myself, where we are restoring $814 million for missile defense and activities of the Department of Defense to combat terrorism at home and abroad. This is an important amendment. It will allow the bill to move forward on a bipartisan basis, and I believe it deserves the support of every Member of this body. The committee bill dramatically reduces the President's funding request for missile defense. This bill actually makes a billion dollars in reduction and then adds back to the ballistic missile defense budget in areas where the funding was not requested. I confess that I am baffled and deeply disappointed that the committee majority insisted on these reductions. The missile defense request this year was both reasonable and modest, in my view. At $7.6 billion, it was less than the request for fiscal year 2002 by about $700 million and less than what was appropriated in fiscal year 2002 by $200 million. If the committee bill is enacted, missile defense will be funded a billion dollars below last year's funding level. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can accept this because they look at missile defense as a drain on resources that can be better spent on other priorities. This point of view says a missile attack is the least likely threat the Nation must face and that every dollar spent on missile defense is a dollar we cannot spend on more likely threats. Let us examine this point of view. The contention that a missile attack is the least likely threat the Nation will face is simply false on the face of it. Ballistic missiles pose the most likely threat that we must face. Indeed, we face it today and every day. Missiles and weapons of mass destruction are meant to deter. I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe this. They have often argued that our own nuclear force levels are too high and that effective deterrence does not require that many weapons. According to the latest national intelligence estimate on missile threats, our Nation faces a likely intercontinental ballistic missile threat from Iran and North Korea and a possible threat from Iraq. Dozens of nations have short- and medium-range ballistic missiles already in the field that threaten U.S. interests, military forces, and our allies. The clear trend in ballistic missile technology is toward longer range and greater sophistication. Once deployed, these missiles threaten the United States, its allies, its friends, and deployed troops. No one has to fire them to be effective. They are effective by their mere presence. The most recent national intelligence estimate concludes that nations hostile to U.S. interests are developing these capabilities precisely to deter the United States. We already know that our adversaries believe we can be deterred from pursuing our interests. Earlier this year, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee received some remarkable testimony from Mr. Charles Duelfer in his capacity as the Deputy Executive Chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq. He had the opportunity to interview senior Iraqi Ministers about Saddam Hussein's perception of the gulf war. Many of us are aware that the United States threatened Iraq with extraordinary regime-ending consequences should that nation use chemical or biological weapons against coalition forces during the conflict. The use of this threat has been seen as a triumph of deterrence, but according to Mr. Duelfer, Iraq loaded chemical and biological warheads on ballistic missiles. Authority to launch those missiles was delegated to local commanders with no further intervention or control by higher Iraqi authorities with orders to launch if the United States moved on Baghdad. We never attacked Baghdad. The Iraqi regime survived and survives this day, and they attribute that survival to the deterrent effect of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the national intelligence estimate also concludes that the likelihood that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the cold war and will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature. We have had testimony from many witnesses this year attesting to the seriousness of the threat. General Thomas Schwartz, then the Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces Korea, told the Armed Services Committee: As a result of their specific actions, North Korea continues to pose a dangerous and complex threat to the peninsula and the WMD and missile programs constitute a growing threat to the region and the world. And Admiral Dennis Blair, the Commander in Chief of Pacific Command, testified that he is ``worried about the missiles that China builds . . . which threaten Taiwan and . . . about the missiles which North Korea builds . . . to threaten South Korea and Japan.'' General Richard Meyers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a letter to me dated May 7, 2002, wrote that ``the missile threat facing the United States and deployed forces is growing more serious . . . Missiles carrying nuclear, biological or chemical weapons could inflict damage far worse than was experienced on September 11.'' In light of the consistency of views expressed by our intelligence community and our military commanders, I just cannot fathom the point of view that disregards the missile threat. And yet we hear that other priorities, such as homeland security, are so much higher than missile defense that deep reductions to funding for missile defense are justified. Let us put this view in perspective as well. First of all, I would note that missile defense is, quintessentially, homeland defense. Defenses against long-range missiles will protect our people and our national territory, our shores and harbors, our cities, factories, and farmlands from the world most destructive weapons. Defenses against shorter range missiles will protect our allies and our deployed forces that are fighting for our freedom. Secondly, approving the missile defense budget request will not impair military readiness. General Meyers recently wrote to me he fully endorsed the President's missile defense request, and stated unequivocally that ``military readiness will not be hurt if Congress approves the . . . President's budget.'' Third, I would note that the missile defense program is not a single program activity. The $7.6 billion request funds about 20 sizable projects in the Missile Defense Agency and the Army. Finally, the missile defense request is a modest one when you realize the magnitude of other defense efforts. The missile defense request for fiscal year 2003 is $7.6 billion. This is a mission we have never done before. In essence, we have almost no legacy capability. Contrast that with the more than $11 billion we will spend on three tactical aircraft programs in 2003. We will probably spend about $350 billion on these three programs over their lifetime. And we have tremendous legacy capabilities in this area. Our tactical aircraft are today the best in the world. Another example: We will spend close to $40 billion in 2003 on other homeland security programs. These are all important programs and address vital national security needs. But in light of the size of these programs, the view that the missile defense request is wildly excessive or out of line is misleading at best. Consequently, I believe, as does the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the theater commander in chief, that the missile defense budget request is fair and reasonable. In combination, these reductions represent a frank and potentially devastating challenge to the administration's missile defense goals and how the Department has organized itself to achieve those goals. The administration established the Missile Defense Agency and expedited oversight processes. The committee bill would cut literally hundreds of government and contractors employees that work at the Agency's headquarters and for the military services that serve as executive agents for missile defense programs. These are the people who provide information technology, services, security, contract management and oversight for missile defense projects, and they are vital to good management. The administration seeks early deployment of missile defense capabilities. The committee bill eliminates funds that could provide capabilities for contingency deployment. The Missile Defense Agency established a goal of developing multi- layered defense capable of intercepting missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight. The committee bill reduces or eliminates funding for boost phase intercept systems and cuts funding for defenses against short, medium, and intermediate range missiles by more than $500 million. The Missile Defense Agency established a goal of developing a single integrated missile defense system. MDA established a government- industry National Team to select the best and brightest from industry to determine the best overall architecture and perform system engineering and integration and battle management and command control work for the integrated missile defense system. The committee bill reduces by two-thirds funding for BMD system SE&I and BM/C2 and virtually eliminates funding for the National Team. The amendment offered by Senators Warner, Lott, Stevens, and I could potentially restore the $814 million net reduction to missile defense and reverse these unjustified committee actions. We all recognize, however, that missile defense is part of the larger picture of homeland defense. This amendment provides the flexibility to the President to direct this funding, as he see fit, to research and development for missile defense and for activities of the Department of Defense to counter terrorism. I personally believe that the President would be completely justified in using the funding for missile defense. But to comfortably with the idea that President can direct these funds according to the Nation's needs as he sees them. If the terrorist threat should take an unexpected turn, these funds could be valuable in the effort to assure that a new threat can be contained. If such is not the case, he can direct the funds to missile defense. I believe that this is a reasonable and fair compromise that will allow the bill to move forward on a bipartisan basis. The gap between the two sides on the missile defense issue is substantial. I recognize that. This amendment is an honest and fair attempt to bridge that gap in a manner that can satisfy both sides. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank my subcommittee chairman on the Strategic Subcommittee on Armed Services for his leadership. On this particular subcommittee, we do not always see eye to eye, and I appreciate his willingness to reach out and work with us. I value our working relationship with my chairman on the subcommittee. There is certainly much in the committee bill I am able to support. One of my particular interests for several years has been the use of commercial imagery to help meet the Nation's geospatial and imagery requirements. I do not believe the Department of Defense has been aggressive enough either in crafting a strategy or in providing funding for this purpose. I am gratified that the committee bill includes a substantial increase for commercial imagery acquisition and some very helpful words in report language that I suspect will drive the Department toward establishing a sound relationship with the commercial imagery industry. I also appreciate the support of the new Department of Energy environmental cleanup reform initiative that will incentivize cleanup sites to do their important work faster and more efficiently. The accelerated cleanup initiative will reduce risk to the workers, communities, and the environment, shorten the cleanup schedule by decades, and save tens of billions of dollars over the life of the cleanup. The bill adds $200 million to this initiative, and I expect the Department of Energy will make tremendous strides. In both of these areas, I believe the bill makes excellent progress. However, early in the process of crafting this bill, I made it very clear that one of my top priorities was to assure that ballistic missile defense programs are adequately funded. I am deeply disappointed that the committee bill, by the margin of one single vote, reduces missile defense programs by more than $800 million. This represents an 11-percent decrease to the missile defense request for fiscal year 2003, a request, I might add, that was already less than what was appropriated for fiscal year 2002, by some $200 million. I believe reductions of this magnitude are unjustified and will do deep and fundamental harm to the effort to develop and deploy effective missile defenses as efficiently as we can. In the wake of the events of September 11, I believe missile defense is more important than ever. As the Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before our subcommittee, we don't have the luxury of choosing the threats to which we respond. Missile threats have a way of developing faster than we expect. I opposed the bill in committee because of these reductions, and I intend to support, as vigorously as I can, efforts on the floor to restore the funding. I am disappointed we could not find an acceptable compromise on this issue in committee, and I look forward to working with my chairman in a continuing effort to find an acceptable resolution to this disagreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wanted to speak to the Defense authorization bill and was curious as to whether we are back to regular order on the Defense authorization. We are back to regular order?

Mr. ALLARD. My understanding is they actually did not get into the spending, because we were in session late last year, until the second quarter. So when you get into second-quarter spending on a full year's allocation, obviously you are not going to have the opportunity to spend all the dollars. It is not because the need is not there, it is just because we were in session so late last year, in December, and that is the reason those dollars that were budgeted did not get spent. I have all the confidence in the world we probably will catch up with that.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield on that point?