Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of Senator Lieberman's and Senator Sessions' amendment No. 2616 which will provide $151 million for the research and development of the two-stage ground-based interceptor missile.

I have always believed in having a plan B. Throughout my life I have learned the colloquial wisdom found in the saying ``do not put all your eggs in one basket'' has great merit.

In fact, in its most simplistic form, our Nation's strategic deterrent has been based upon the principle that you always need a backup plan. Specifically, for over 45 years our Nation's ultimate security guarantee for ourselves and our allies has been our Nation's nuclear triad composed of intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers and submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles. The idea was simple: If one leg of our defense system was knocked out or somehow rendered inoperable, the two other legs would maintain a more then credible deterrent.

Times have changed. But the continuing need for the triad was recently reaffirmed by Dr. James Schlesinger who was one of the principal members of the recently published final report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.

However, the events of September 11 only underscored a new threat phenomena that is referred to in military circles as the asymmetric threat. Simply put, an asymmetric threat is the tactics which are used by our new adversaries, such as terrorists and rogue regimes, to counterbalance our Nation's traditional strengths in conventional warfare. The example which is seared in the mind of each American was the hijacking and crashing of civilian airliners on September 11.

Asymmetric threats are not just limited to terrorist activity and those nations which support it. It is also found in those nations which are developing ever more sophisticated ballistic missiles and even the ultimate weapon, the nuclear bomb.

But the asymmetric threat that I wish to discuss today is Iran's ballistic missile program. Though the President argues the Iranians are a decade away from deploying an intercontinental ballistic missile, this was not what our military experts were telling us just a few months ago. Specifically, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center published an unclassified version of its Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat report in April 2009--just 5 months ago--that ``Iran has an ambitious ballistic missile and space launch development programs and, with sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could develop and test an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015.''

The report goes on to say ``in late 2008 and early 2009 it launched the Safir, a multi-stage space launch vehicle, that can serve as a test bed for long-range ballistic missile technologies. The [Iranian] 2009 test successfully placed a satellite in orbit.''

These conclusions are supported by the testimony of General Craddock, who while still Commander of U.S. European Command stated this March that ``Iran already possesses ballistic missiles that can reach parts of Europe and is developing missiles that can reach most of Europe ..... By 2015 Iran may also deploy an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of reaching all of Europe and parts of the U.S.''

These are serious assessments and no doubt the President has good reason to believe the threat has changed and therefore made the decision to drop plans to deploy our ground-based midcourse interceptor, called GBI, to Europe. However, I am also mindful of the point the distinguished Senator from Connecticut made when he introduced his amendment. He astutely reminded the Senate that in 1998 the North Koreans tested their long range Taepodong missile just 7 days after our intelligence community concluded that North Korea was 3 years away from having that capability.

Which brings us back to the question: should we have a plan B?

We did until 2 weeks ago.

That plan B was to deploy a European-based GBI system to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles fired from the Middle East at the United States and our European allies. According to the Bush administration this system was scheduled to be completed by 2013--2 years before our intelligence estimates, until recently, believed Iran would have an intercontinental ballistic missile.

However, under the new strategy, which relies on the continued development of the SM-3 missile, we and our allies must wait until 2018 to have a similar capability as planned by the previous administration and offered by the GBI in 2013. We also must remember the 2018 SM-3 deployment date can only be reached if everything goes according to plan--an all too rare occurrence in modern weapons development.

Not much of a plan B when one remembers that Iran has received extensive outside assistance in developing their ballistic missiles. For example, the National Intelligence Center concluded the Iranian Shahab-3, which has a range of 1,200 miles is based on the North Korean No Dong missile. In addition, Anthony Cordesman and Martin Kleiber in their 2007 book titled ``Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities'' wrote that as early as October 1997 ``Russia began training Iranian engineers on missile production for the Shahab-3.'' The authors also pointed out that allegations have been made that various Chinese companies had assisted in Shahab-3s final development.

This, of course, begs the question what other outside assistance could the Iranians receive which could speed their development of an intercontinental ballistic missile?

That is why Senator Lieberman and Senator Sessions' amendment is so important. It provides us with a plan B. It continues the deployment of a two-stage GBI. This is not a pie-in-the-sky plan. Our Nation has already deployed a three-stage GBI in Alaska and California and until 10 months ago the Department of Defense believed the two-stage system could be deployed by 2013.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Lieberman-Sessions amendment to provide funding for a plan B which could provide us with capabilities to intercept Middle East ICBMs launched against our interests and allies years before the President's plan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source