Irate Senate Supporters of the ‘AEGIS Option’ for Missile Defense Demand Release of Favorable Pentagon Study

(Washington, D.C.): In the course of Senate debate today on the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense
Authorization bill, a colloquy occurred that may prove to be of enormous importance to the
future security of the United States: Several of that institution’s most influential figures on
defense, intelligence and foreign policy issues — Senators Jon Kyl
(R-AZ), Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
and John Warner (R-VA)⁽¹⁾ — raised hell
about the Clinton Administration’s apparent, deliberate
withholding of a study that may prove inconvenient to its policies, but invaluable to the effort to
protect the American people against ballistic missile attack.

The suppressed study addresses the contribution that the Navy’s AEGIS fleet air
defense
system could make to national missile defense and whether there are measures that
could be
taken to accelerate and maximize the performance of this system for anti-missile purposes.
Highlights of the colloquy, according to the unofficial transcript available this afternoon are as
follows:

Senator Kyl: Mr. President, many of us believe that the
AEGIS Option is the
most expeditious, capable and cost-effective way to begin providing ballistic
missile defense — not only for our forces and allies overseas but for the American
people, as well. This is the case because the Nation has already spent nearly $50
billion building and deploying virtually the entire infrastructure we need to field the
first stage of a world-wide anti-missile system.”

Sen. Inhofe: “I want to commend the Senator from Arizona for his
leadership in
identifying and encouraging this important program. I too, as a member of the
Armed Services Committee, have looked into the issue of our vulnerability to
missile attack and concluded — as has my friend from Arizona — that it is one of
the most serious shortcomings we have in our entire military posture.

“I too have concluded that there’s nothing we can do that could be faster and
more effective than the AEGIS Option in terms of defending our people
against all sorts of threats –…in addition to a national missile threat …. From
the 13 ICBMs that may be targeting us from China to threats from other parts of
the [world] — Russia, India, Pakistan and Iran …. I’d ask the Senator from
Arizona if he knows why we don’t have this information yet?”

Sen. Kyl: “…It is my understanding that this study has been complete
for some
time — well over a month. In fact, in early May, the President’s key NSC
staffer in the defense and arms control field, Robert Bell, told a public
meeting that it was “in the mail.” Of course, we have all heard that line used
to mean something different. But Mr. Bell seemed to be saying that his office, as
well as the Defense Department, had finished reviewing it and would be providing
it promptly — albeit three months [late].

Sen. Inhofe: “Has the Senator any indication about the cause of the
further
delay?”

Sen. Kyl: “…I am advised the study has been objectively
performed. As a
result, it confirms what the Senator from Oklahoma and I and others have
been saying for some time, namely, that the Navy’s AEGIS system can
contribute significantly to protecting the United States against a missile
attack — and do so relatively quickly and inexpensively.

“But, rather than provide this information to the Congress as requested and in
sufficient time for this finding to be reflected in action on the pending DoD
authorization bill, the Administration apparently has decided, first of all, to
impose very high classification on what was drafted to be — and should remain
— a largely unclassified document. Classifying it would, of course, significantly
constrain the use that could be made of this study for purposes of public
education and debate.

“And, second, the Administration has simply sat on the AEGIS study;
weeks
and months have now gone by. The Defense Authorization bill is nearly the end
of the legislative process. And frankly, the stonewalling has kept Members in the
dark about one of the most important opportunities that we have for adding
promptly and cost-effectively to our Nation’s defense.”

Sen. Warner: “I’d like to associate myself with the statements of my
two
distinguished colleagues here. I will personally take it upon myself, working
with the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Thurmond, to see whether or not
this report cannot be made available prior to the conferencing between the
Senate and the House on this important piece of legislation. For it may be that, as
a consequence of our study of this report, we may wish to incorporate
something in the last-minute draft of the conference report. So I thank my
colleagues for bringing this to our attention.”

The Bottom Line

It is bad enough that the Clinton Administration is actively pursuing policies that are resulting
in
the slowing down and dumbing down of the Navy’s ability to provide effective missile defense
from the sea. Insult to the Congress is now being added to injury to the American people, and
their forces and allies overseas, who are being denied the opportunity for early, effective and
affordable missile protection offered by the AEGIS Option.

The Center for Security Policy commends Senators Kyl, Inhofe, Warner and Smith for their
refusal to accept the Administration’s contemptuous disregard for both congressionally-mandated
reporting requirements and for the national interest evident in this episode. It urges them
and their colleagues to settle for nothing less than early release of both unclassified
and
classified versions of the AEGIS Option study — and to act on Senator Warner’s stated
willingness to consider in conference additional measures to realize the potential for near-term,
cost-effective and world-wide missile defense from the sea.

– 30 –

name=”N_1_”>1. A fourth member, Senator Bob
Smith (R-NH), the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee and principal author of the congressional requests
for the AEGIS Option study, was unable to participate due to an attack of laryngitis. His remarks
in support of his colleagues’ statements were inserted for the record, however.