Funding Star Wars: Senate hearings and the Strategic Defense Initiative, 1984-1993

Democratic government requires some measure of popular control over the military. Decisions regarding the development of weapons systems largely determine the military strategies a nation can pursue. Yet most of the literature on weapons acquisition attributes a small role to Congress. Past studies of Congress describe a legislature deferential to the White House and Pentagon, or more concerned with fiscal or management oversight than policy. Yet the specialization provided by its committee system and its control over appropriations provide Congress with the means to both understand and influence weapons policy. This study assessed the extent and nature of policy oversight of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) over 1984-93.;Hearings are a means by which the legislature communicates its policy concerns to the executive branch. Thus hearing transcripts provide a rich source of behavioral data for investigating congressional policy oversight. This study employed content analysis to determine what issues consumed Senate committee attention to SDI.;Transcripts from 47 hearings before subcommittees of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee were analyzed. Each issue raised by a Senator during a hearing was coded using one of 38 variables previously identified as associated with SDI during its ten-year history. All 3,678 pages of SDI hearing transcripts generated over the period were coded. For analysis, the issues were grouped into seven issue domains: the ABM Treaty, alliance relations, arms control, cost, program management, strategy, and technology.;Strategic issues drove the congressional debate on SDI. Proponents and opponents of missile defense disagreed on two fundamental issues: the nature and severity of the threat, and the efficacy of arms control. Proponents of missile defense perceived a real and near-term threat from sources that could not be trusted to abide by, or accede to, arms control. Opponents of defense did not perceive an imminent threat and believed that arms control provided the best way to promote a safer future.;Hearings were dominated by only a few Senators. In terms of hearing time, the SDI debate over 1984-93 was largely a conversation among ten Senators, six of whom served in committee leadership positions as chairs or ranking minority members.