Byron Dorgan: “this debate and this vote are not about whether we support research on a missile defense system. I am on the…”

“this debate and this vote are not about whether we support research on a missile defense system. I am on the Appropriations Committee. I am on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The Defense appropriations bill has over $3 billion for research and development of theater and national missile defense programs. I expect all Members of the Senate support that. I do. But this bill presents us with a different question. This bill would put the Senate on record saying there must be a deployment of a national missile defense system--there must be a deployment as soon as ``technologically feasible.'' And we must then deploy. Well, 25 years ago, we had an antiballistic missile system in North Dakota. I guess that particular system was technologically feasible then. Of course, that system would have used nuclear bombs to intercept and destroy incoming missiles. But it was built, at the cost of over $20 billion in today's terms. Thirty days after it was declared operational, it was mothballed. That system was too expensive and too controversial. Let's keep that cautionary tale in mind as we consider this bill. If this bill were to pass, the question is, What is technologically feasible? What kind of technology? At what cost? Does cost have any relevance at all? How will the bill affect arms control? Will this bill crowd out spending on other ways of dealing with terrorism?”