[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 9, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E168-E170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      END OUR VULNERABILITY TO LONG-RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 9, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, long-range ballistic missiles are the only 
weapons against which the U.S. government has decided, as a matter of 
policy, not to field a defense. Few Americans are aware the U.S. 
military--the most powerful, most technologically-advanced, and most 
lethal military force ever assembled--could not stop even a single 
ballistic missile from impacting American soil today.
  Just last year, the bipartisan Commission to Assess the Ballistic 
Missile Threat to the United States, led by former Secretary of Defense 
Donald Rumsfeld, asserted the United States may have little or no 
warning before the emergence of specific new ballistic missile threats 
to our nation. This, coupled with the fact some 20 Third World 
countries already have or may be developing both weapons of mass 
destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and 
ballistic missile delivery systems, is cause for serious alarm.
  Yet President Clinton and many in Congress have chosen to adopt a 
posture of purposeful vulnerability to these weapons. Mr. Speaker, the 
topic of America's national security is regularly and thoughtfully 
debated before Congress. However, whether our country chooses to field 
a national ballistic missile defense could very well determine the 
survival of the United States of America.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit for the Record, the full text 
of the letter I recently sent to U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, 
urging him to join me and other Members of Congress in ending our 
vulnerability to long range ballistic missiles.

                                     Congress of the United States


                                      House of Representatives

                                                  January 25, 1999
     Hon. Bill Cohen,
     Secretary of Defense,
     The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cohen: Our lack of ballistic missile defense 
     is a serious and growing vulnerability extending an unwelcome 
     invitation to ballistic missile attack from rogue nations 
     such as North Korea. We must build a defense against long 
     range ballistic missiles.

[[Page E169]]

       A majority of Americans want a ballistic missile defense, 
     and would want to quickly build a strong defense if they 
     understood our vulnerability. General Charles A. Horner, Air 
     Commander in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and former commander 
     of the U.S. Space Command, noted a majority of Americans, 
     even after finishing a tour of NORAD's warning complex in 
     Colorado Springs, do not know we have no defense against long 
     range ballistic missiles, believing instead we already have 
     such defenses. I have found that to be the case with my 
     constituents.
       Our vulnerability to long range ballistic missiles is 
     widely misunderstood even in Washington. A week after General 
     Shelton claimed the Intelligence Community could provide the 
     necessary warning of a rogue nation ICBM threat to the United 
     States, North Korea surprised the Intelligence Community by 
     launching on August 31, 1998 a three-stage ballistic missile 
     with the potential of striking the western United States.
       I believe we should end our vulnerability to long range 
     ballistic missiles by vigorously building an effective 
     ballistic missile defense employing space-based defense and 
     accelerating Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide). 
     Furthermore, the just purpose of saving lives requires us to 
     end our reliance on a treaty against our defense--the ABM 
     Treaty.
       The administration's proposal to spend $7 billion for 
     ballistic missile defense over six years period should 
     instead spend $2-3 billion over three years in an accelerated 
     Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide) program, and $4-5 billion 
     over three years in an accelerated program for space-based 
     defenses, including Space Based Interceptors like Brilliant 
     Pebbles.
       Other proposals can build other elements of an effective, 
     multiple layer defense. We should pursue the Space Based 
     Laser Readiness Demonstrator, recognizing the Space Based 
     Laser program has successfully completed ground testing of 
     its major components. We are ready to proceed and test the 
     Space Based Laser in space.
       Clearly, our best defense against long range ballistic 
     missiles will be in deploying space-based defenses and 
     accelerating Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide). I urge you 
     to build those defenses. An extensive reliance on ground-
     based interceptors will neither be effective nor provide the 
     best solution for our defense.
       Ground-based interceptors inherently lack the boost phase 
     defense capability we will need to counter bomblets or 
     submunitions carried by long range ballistic missiles. In 
     contrast, space-based defenses offer the potential for a 
     boost phase defense, and will complement theater missile 
     defense programs.
       It is well known China is engaged in an aggressive military 
     modernization program including the development of the road-
     mobile DF-31 and DF-41 long range ballistic missiles. The 
     United States is the likely target of these missiles. 
     Moreover, Russia still has approximately 756 ICBM and 424 
     SLBMs it can launch against us.
       Will you join me and the other members of Congress in the 
     noble endeavor to end our vulnerability to long range 
     ballistic missiles by quickly building an effective defense 
     against long range ballistic missiles? We must defend our 
     freedom.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Bob Schaffer,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. Speaker, there are several other points I ask our colleagues to 
consider. Congress must be knowledgeable regarding the history of 
Spaced-Based Ballistic Missile Defenses.
  Beginning with Project Defender in the late 1950s and including the 
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) begun by President Reagan and 
continued by President Bush as GPALS (Global Protection Against Limited 
Strikes), defense planners have long understood the advantages of 
deploying ballistic missile defenses in space, using interceptors or 
directed energy weapons such as high energy lasers.
  The advantages from deploying ballistic missile defenses in space 
accrue from inherent characteristics of orbital platforms in space. 
These advantages include:
  Global Coverage. Constellations of orbital platforms can cover all 
parts of the earth, providing a defense against ballistic missiles 
launched by any country.
  Continuous Operation. Constellations of orbital platforms provide 
constant coverage, every day, without the need for additional or 
special deployments.
  Boost Phase Defense Capability. By being higher than a boosting 
missile rising through the atmosphere, orbital platforms have the 
opportunity for a boost phase defense.
  A boost phase defense capability is critical for an effective 
ballistic missile defense. The boost phase is the most vulnerable 
moment of a ballistic missile. A boost phase defense can intercept a 
missile before it releases any warheads, decoys, or submunitions.
  Space-based defenses also offer the opportunity for post boost phase 
defense and midcourse phase defense. Ground-based interceptors, in 
contrast, tend to be for terminal defense, or late midcourse phase 
defense. Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide) offers an early midcourse 
phase defense with flexible basing.
  Advances in computers and sensors since the 1960s have brought us to 
the point of deploying space-based ballistic missile defenses. Instead 
of nuclear weapons, we can rely on precision guided interceptors, and 
rapidly retargetable high energy lasers. In addition, we can protect 
space-based ballistic missile defenses against electromagnetic 
disturbances from nuclear explosions through hardening, the use of 
infrared sensors, and battle management plans able to function without 
centralized nodes.
  GPALS is the most comprehensive ballistic missile defense 
architecture recently developed. It featured global protection. GPALS 
based its capability for global protection on the deployment of Space 
Based Interceptors (SBIs), and Space Based Lasers (SBLs). A program for 
deploying an effective ballistic missile defense must include space-
based defenses as a critical component.
  Long range ballistic missiles are a global problem requiring a global 
solution.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about defending our country we must 
insist upon Streamlined Acquisition Procedures.
  Critical national defense programs have long used streamlined 
acquisition procedures. The Manhattan Project, combining the scientific 
talent and person of J. Robert Oppenheimer with the drive of General 
Leslie Groves, produced the atomic bomb in a few years. Air Force 
General Bernard Schriever successfully developed the Thor, Atlas, 
Titan, and Minuteman missile systems in under eight years.
  Streamlined acquisition procedures are useful for both programs 
developing new technology, and for accelerating programs where we 
already have the technology in hand, but need to apply, test, and 
produce it. Streamlined acquisition will be important for deploying a 
ballistic missile defense quickly.
  In using streamlined acquisition procedures for ballistic missile 
defense, we need to remember that we already have the basic technology 
for deploying effective defenses against long range ballistic missiles. 
We do not need to be paralyzed by the goal of developing the best 
technology possible--we already have the technology we need.
  We have already tested interceptors, kinetic energy weapons, and high 
energy lasers. While there is the need for practical field engineering, 
testing, and production of ballistic missile defense technologies, we 
have no need to continue basic research before reaching a decision to 
acquire a ballistic missile defense.
  This is not to say, however, that we should not continue basic 
research. Rather, we can and should continue basic research without 
delaying other programs to acquire a ballistic missile defense based on 
research already done.
  Accelerated funding and streamlined acquisition procedures are in 
order for Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide), and Space Based 
Interceptors such as Brilliant Pebbles (The Pentagon approved Brilliant 
Pebbles for acquisition in 1992). These are programs for which funding, 
not technology, is the primary constraint.
  In addition, while the acquisition of Space Based Lasers for 
ballistic missiles defense will require substantial engineering and 
design work, we have already developed and tested the primary 
components for the Space Based Laser. We are ready to proceed with its 
development and acquisition.
  We may expect accelerated funding and streamlined acquisition 
procedures to shorten timeframes for developing and deploying a 
ballistic missile defense. Timeframes for initial deployment may be as 
short as three to five years.
  Accelerated funding for programs such as Navy Upper Tier, Space Based 
Interceptors like Brilliant Pebbles, and Space Based Lasers can bring 
us closer to quickly deploying a ballistic missile defense.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must consider Proposals for an ``ABM Treaty 
Compliant'' Ballistic Missile Defense.
  Proposals for an ``ABM Treaty Compliant'' Ballistic Missile Defense 
constrain themselves to a defense using ground-based radar, and ground-
based interceptors deployed at a single site with a maximum of 100 
interceptors.
  It is time we view proposals for deploying an ``ABM Treaty 
Compliant'' Ballistic Missile Defense from the context of providing the 
best defense possible for the American people.
  Thus, we need to compare an ``ABM Treaty Compliant'' defense with the 
effectiveness and availability of other ballistic missile defense 
programs such as Navy Upper Tier (Navy Theater Wide) and Space Based 
Interceptors.
  While an ``ABM Treaty Compliant'' defense may seem attractive from 
the viewpoint of being able to recycle Minuteman missiles by equipping 
them with a Kinetic Kill Vehicle rather than nuclear warheads, such 
proposals must be kept in their proper context.
  First, the most effective defense possible against long range 
ballistic missiles will be a boost phase defense. A boost phase 
defense, whether using interceptors or high energy lasers, will 
intercept a ballistic missile when it

[[Page E170]]

presents itself as a large, visible target, and is susceptible to 
destruction.
  In addition, a boost phase defense, will prevent a missile from 
releasing its warheads, decoys, or submunitions. Yet, an ``ABM Treaty 
Compliant'' defense will never be able to offer us a boost phase 
defense capability, in contrast to programs such as Navy Upper Tier 
(Navy Theater Wide), Space Based Interceptors, or Space Based Lasers.
  Furthermore, an ``ABM Treaty Compliant'' defense, limited to a single 
site, will be unable to protect the entire United States. It will put 
at risk Alaska, Hawaii, and many of our Pacific Island Territories such 
as Guam.
  Moreover, an ``ABM Treaty Compliant'' defense, by relying solely on 
ground-based interceptors, leaves itself open to its defeat through the 
use of decoys, multiple warheads or submunitions.
  Our best defenses will be found in putting themselves as close to the 
point of attack--as close or at the boost phase--rather than waiting 
for the last moment. Intuitively, this gives the defense the most room 
for maneuver, and restricts the offense.
  Our best defenses against long range ballistic missiles will thus be 
found in programs such as Navy Upper Tier, Space Based Interceptors, 
and Space Based Lasers, not in an ``ABM Treaty Compliant'' defense.

                          ____________________