国会记录：2002年6月25日（参议院）第S5983-S5995国防授权法案财政年度2003年 - 继续[...]伯德先生。主席先生，美国完成了从反弹道导弹条约于2002年6月13日撤出，而五角大楼在2004年这种导弹的司机转移到高挡努力，部署一个基本的反导弹系统国防热 - 棒都尽最大努力使它看起来尽可能的好，他们的测试赛道上传播其最新的成功之道。但我并不孤单在想这是什么车，与它的$ 100十亿购买价格，真的有[[页S5995]引擎盖下。它有各式的引擎，我们被承诺，或者这又是一个精心打扮的老爷车？而且，更重要的是，这个导弹防御热棒收费的道路，其油门踩后视镜开阔和反弹道导弹条约，是被留在灰尘国会和美国人民的监督？作为其正常监督职责的一部分，军事委员会已要求有关的成本估算，为导弹防御研究计划，正在进行中的各个组件性能的措施国防部的信息。这种信息是为了让国会来呈现这些程序是否按预算和达到预期自己的评价是至关重要的。随着军事委员会于2002年2月开始的2003财年国防预算申请的听证会，我们要求就其建议的导弹防御计划从国防部的基本信息。我们要求的成本估算，开发进度和性能里程碑。 But the committee has not received the information. It is as though the Department of Defense does not want Congress to know what we are getting for the $7.8 billion in missile defense funds that were appropriated last year. On March 7, 2002, at an Armed Services Committee hearing, I questioned the Pentagon's chief of acquisition, Under Secretary Pete Aldridge, about the delays in providing this information to Congress. He answered my questions with what I believed was an unequivocal statement that he would make sure that Congress gets the information it needs. Three and a half months later, we still have not received the information that we requested. It also seems that the Pentagon is developing a new aspect of its strategy in its consultations with Congress and the American people. On June 9, 2002, The Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, "Missile Data To Be Kept Secret." The Washington Post ran a similar story on June 12, "Secrecy On Missile Defense Grows." The two articles detail a decision to begin classifying as "secret" certain types of basic information about missile defense tests. These missile defense tests use decoys to challenge our anti-missile system to pick out and destroy the right target, which would be a warhead hurtling toward the United States at thousands of miles per hour. According to the newspaper articles, the Pentagon will no longer release to the public descriptions of what types of decoys are used in a missile defense test to fool our anti-missile radars. This information will be classified. Independent engineers and scientists who lack security clearances will have no means to form an opinion on the rigor of this aspect of missile defense tests. No longer will the experts outside the government be able to make informed comments on whether a missile defense test is a realistic challenge to a developmental system, or a stacked deck on which a bet in favor of our rudimentary anti-missile system is a sure winner. I do not think that it is a coincidence that independent scientists have criticized the realism of past missile defense tests because the decoys used were not realistic. I cannot help but be left with the impression that the sole reason for classifying this kind of basic information is to squelch criticism about the missile defense program. Should this basic information about our missile defense program be protected by the cloak of government secrecy? If the tests are rigorous and our anti-missile system is meeting our expectations, would it not be to our advantage to let our adversaries know how effective this system will be? But perhaps this national missile defense system is not progressing as rapidly as hoped. Then would it not be to our advantage to encourage constructive criticism in order to improve the system? In either case, I cannot see how these secrecy edicts will promote the development of a missile defense system that actually works. The bottom line is that Congress and the American people must know whether the huge sums that are being spent on missile defense will increase our national security. Since September 11, we have been consumed with debates about homeland security. What is this system intended to be but a protection of our homeland? Do we believe that American people can be entrusted with information about their own security? I certainly think so. Without a doubt, we need to carefully guard information that would compromise our national defense, but public scrutiny of our missile defense program is not an inherent threat to our security. In April, the Appropriations Committee heard testimony from a number of people with expertise in homeland security. We heard many warnings about the peril of losing public trust in our Government. No matter if the threat is terrorists with biological weapons or rogue states with missiles, we must not jeopardize the trust of the American people in their Government. If the missile defense system does not work as it is supposed to do, and we hide its shortcomings inside "top secret" folders and other red tape, we will be setting ourselves up for a sure fall. We ought to have more, not fewer, independent reviews of our antimissile system. So I oppose the amendment to increase missile defense funding in this bill by $812 million. The Department of Defense has shown it is more than willing to delay and obfuscate details about what it is doing on missile defense, and I cannot understand the logic of increasing funds for an antimissile system that is the subject of greater and greater secrecy. It does not make sense to devote more money to a system of questionable utility before there is a consensus of independent views that an antimissile system is technologically feasible. The missile defense system that we are developing needs more scrutiny, not more secrecy, more assessment, not more money. In the next few days, the Senate will vote on this bill and authorize billions of dollars in missile defense funds. While the Pentagon will continue to portray these programs as a hot rod that is speeding toward success, one thing is certain: this hot rod is running on almost $8 billion in taxpayer money this year. Talk about a gas guzzler! If Congress is not allowed to kick the tires, check the oil and look under the hood, this rig could fall apart and leave us all stranded. ____________________