Home Page
May 21, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/congress-missiles.html
WASHINGTON -- After two decades of debate over whether to create a Star Wars defense program, the House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to enshrine in national security policy the intention to field a system to protect the country against ballistic missiles.
With a vote of 345-71, the House approved the bill that was passed by the Senate in March. The measure now goes to President Clinton, who "in all likelihood will sign it into law," a White House official said.
However, the strong bipartisan support for the bill, with 132 Democrats voting with the 213 Republican majority, was based in part on the vague nature of the measure. The bill does not authorize the construction of the antimissile system nor does it appropriate any money for it. Instead, the bill commits the government to deploying a missile defense system whenever it is technologically feasible.
Citing new threats from North Korea, which launched a missile over Japan last summer, and from China, the House approved the legislation even though the technology does not exist to build a network of radars and interceptor missiles to shoot down enemy missiles heading for the continental United States.
In its most recent assessment, the Pentagon said such a system could not be deployed before 2005, two years longer than previous estimates.
President Ronald Reagan first raised the possibility of a far grander Star Wars defense against a major missile attack by China or the Soviet Union 16 years ago, at the height of the Cold War. The idea drew withering attacks questioning whether the technology could ever be built and whether it would be worth the hundreds of billions of dollars required to build it.
In Thursday's debate, Rep. Dick Armey of Texas, the Republican majority leader, gave his party credit for winning the debate that "Ronald Reagan began in 1983."
"The missile threat to the U.S. is real," Armey said. "This threat and our recent intelligence failures leave us no choice but to do our best to pre-empt rogue dictators with their fingers on the button."
Unlike Reagan's original proposal to create a defense against a large attack from the Soviet Union, this more modest system, if it is built, would only defend the country against a few missiles fired by nations like North Korea. The Pentagon favored those limitations and the bill's refusal to impose a deadline for deployment or to include specifications for the design of a system.
The Pentagon has budgeted $10.5 billion over the next six years to create a workable system.
Moreover, the bill passed Thursday included an amendment adopted by the Senate in March that softened earlier concerns of the Democrats, including Clinton, that the measure would undercut arms control treaties with Russia.
It also requires that any money spent developing the missile defense system must be voted on each year in the congressional appropriations process.
With so many of the potentially divisive issues blunted by compromise, the largely Democratic opposition was left to emphasize the high costs of the plan -- it has already cost $60 billion over the last 15 years -- and the questionable results from the tests of the missile system. One opponent of the bill compared the Star Wars missile system to the special effects in the "Star Wars" movie prequel opening across the country.
"Like the movie, this is a phantom solution -- hitting a bullet with a bullet in outer space," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.
Critics of the program questioned the need for such a defense system since the United States' sizeable nuclear force has been an effective deterrent for the last 50 years.
"People are not going to launch missiles against the U.S. because they know we will blow them up," said John Pike, director of space programs for the Federation of American Scientists. "We are spending $30 billion a year on nuclear forces to enable us to turn any other country on the planet into a radioactive parking lot on half an hour's notice. That's why no country will attack us."
Rep. Vernon Ehlers of Michigan was the lone Republican voting against the measure. As a trained physicist, Ehlers said he could not vote for something that cost so much -- perhaps an additional $75 billion -- and seemed to have such a small chance of succeeding.
May 20, 1999
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990520/V000251-052099-idx.html
WASHINGTON -- Legislation approved Thursday by the House and sent to the White House would commit the United States to an anti-missile national defense system. President Clinton was expected to sign the measure, which the Senate modified to meet administration objections.
The legislation, passed 345-71, states that it is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective system capable of defending U.S. territory against limited ballistic missile attack.
It also states there will be continued negotiations with Russia on arms reductions. Russia has opposed construction of a U.S. missile defense system, saying it violates the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
The administration has said it will not decide until June 2000 on firm plans for an anti-missile system.
Clinton vetoed similar legislation in 1995. He also opposed an earlier House version passed March, saying it did not make clear that the defense system would be limited and focused against threats from rogue states rather than existing nuclear powers.
The Senate changed the bill to reflect those concerns and the House agreed to the revised version Thursday, despite some reluctance by supporters of the original House plan
"I'm not happy with the legislation," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., chief sponsor of the House version. The changes, he said "are simply cover for liberal Democrats who don't support missile defense."
Weldon and Rep. Floyd Spence, R-S.C., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it should be clear that when the president signs the bill he is changing U.S. policy and committing the nation to a national defense system.
"The threat of ballistic missile attack is real, and it is here today," Spence said.
But Rep. Norman Dicks of Washington, a leading Democratic defense expert, cited military testimony that it will be at least 2005 before tests can determine whether a credible defense system can be build. "We ought to be very sober about any of these exhortations ... from people who want to wish this into existence."
The administration has budgeted $10.5 billion between 1999 and 2005 to develop a limited national missile defense system. It became more positive toward eventual deployment of such a system after North Korea last year tested missiles that flew over Japan.
The system envisioned by both Congress and the White House is a scaled-back version of the space-based Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars" program, proposed by President Reagan in 1983.
Reagan's plan was aimed mainly at stopping an attack from the former Soviet Union, while current research is designed more to stop a limited attack from a rogue or terrorist state. It would not be space-based.
May 21, 1999
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990521/V000609-052199-idx.html
WASHINGTON -- House proponents of a national missile defense system say they will make sure that President Clinton lives up to legislation committing him to build a system capable of stopping attacks from rogue and terrorist states.
The House approved and sent to the president Thursday a Senate-modified bill that would commit the United States to a limited anti-ballistic missile defense system. Clinton is expected to sign it.
The vote was 345-71, but many of the chief sponsors said they were dissatisfied with the final compromise worked out by the Senate to meet administration objections. Their concern was that it was not strong enough to force the administration, long lukewarm about missile defense, to move ahead with deployment.
If Clinton signs the bill, said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, "we can by rights conclude that he agrees with the plain English language of that bill, and that is that the United States is committed to deploy a national missile defense as soon as is technically possible."
The administration has said it will not decide on deployment of a defense system until June next year.
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., who has led efforts to build a system to defend the nation against the growing missile threat from rogue nations, contended the administration would wait until next year to help the presidential campaign of Vice President Al Gore. "It doesn't say, Mr. President, next year. It says today."
But Rep. Norman Dicks of Washington, a leading Democratic defense expert, cited military testimony that it will be at least 2005 before tests can determine whether a credible defense system can be built. "We ought to be very sober about any of these exhortations ... from people who want to wish this into existence."
Clinton vetoed a similar measure in 1995 and strongly opposed a House version passed in March, saying it did not make clear that the defense system would be limited and focused against threats from rogue states rather than existing nuclear powers.
The Senate changed the language to state that deployment would come only after it is technically possible, that budgets must be approved annually by Congress, that the system would be limited and that negotiations with Russia on reducing nuclear arms would continue.
Russia has objected to U.S. proposals to build a missile defense system, saying that violates the U.S.-Soviet 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
President Reagan challenged that treaty, based on "mutually assured destruction" in 1983 when he proposed the space-based Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars."
That system was never built and current proposals are for a land-based system that would provide defenses against missile attacks from such states as North Korea.
The Clinton budget calls for spending $10.5 billion between 1999 and 2005 on developing a national defense plan. The administration has become more positive about eventual deployment since North Korea last year tested a missile that flew over Japan.
Home Page