[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 22, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1359-E1360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              SPACE POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 22, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the important 
topic of America's space policy in the post-Cold War world. One of 
America's leading experts on this subject, Mr. James H. Hughes of 
Englewood, Colorado, has written many articles concerning this topic. I 
would like to submit Mr. Hughes' latest article entitled ``Space 
Policy'' for the Record.

       The end of the Cold War brought with it the dissolution of 
     the Soviet Union, and a euphoric victory, more completely 
     realized after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The U.S. sought to 
     convert its ``peace dividend'' from winning the Cold War, 
     into a new social order, rather than understanding the Cold 
     War and seeking a responsible victory, much like the Marshall 
     Plan after World War II.
       Aided by a minor downturn in the economy and third party 
     candidate Ross Perot who split the vote with George Bush, 
     Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election, and utilized 
     the ``peace dividend'' for an agenda of cutting spending for 
     defense, and funding social programs. Accelerated spending of 
     the ``peace dividend'' became a prominent theme in Bill 
     Clinton's first term of office (1993-1997).
       The Cold War victory of the U.S. was recognized by some as 
     an incomplete victory. The Cold War--communism--had cost the 
     Soviet Union dearly. The U.S. and Western Europe had won. The 
     Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc were in transition, coming out 
     of their socialist state economies and dictatorships. While 
     time has shown that the Eastern Bloc is becoming westernized 
     with the introduction of freedom, democracy, and private 
     enterprise (for example, East and West Germany have become 
     unified), Russia and many of the former members of the 
     U.S.S.R. remain in transition, ten years later.
       Today, Russia is vacillating between forces for democracy 
     and economic reform, versus a crime dominated underground 
     economy run by gangs and mafia, many of whom served in the 
     former communist government. In a sense, many of Russia's 
     economic woes derive from its unfamiliarity with free 
     enterprise, the market economy, and a very primitive 
     infrastructure, not the ``failure'' of reform.
       The Soviet Union collapsed because its economy had 
     collapsed. No country can devote itself to war forever, even 
     Sparta failed. In addition, communism in Russia had led to 
     the economically inefficient--the wasteful development--of 
     the Soviet economy. Stories were rampant about how a Sears 
     Catalogue was viewed as subversive propaganda because it 
     would show the Russian people how a free society lived.
       The Soviet Union was a world power, a superpower, because 
     of its warships, fighters, nuclear weapons, and ballistic 
     missiles. It was not a superpower because of any intrinsic 
     feature of its communist society. Only its vast mineral, oil, 
     and gas resources, and the very high degree of technical 
     training given to its scientists and engineers enabled the 
     Soviet Union to produce nuclear arms and ballistic missiles, 
     cloaking itself with military strength as a world superpower.
       To pursue its agenda of world communism, the Soviet Union 
     supported a defense establishment absorbing, toward the end 
     of the Cold War, upwards of 30-40% of its GNP, and most of 
     its industrial and scientific talent. In contrast, even at 
     the height of President Reagan's buildup, the Cold War 
     absorbed only 6% of U.S. GNP, and that within the context of 
     a sophisticated research and development program and free 
     enterprise economy. Thus, the failure of communism left the 
     Soviet Union with its legacy of an industrial base designed 
     for the inefficient production of weapons, rather than a 
     thriving economy as in the U.S.
       Leaders in Congress, recognizing the tremendous investment 
     the Soviet Union made in the production of nuclear weapons, 
     including the training of thousands of nuclear missile 
     scientists and engineers, sought to avert the sale of this 
     talent and its stockpile of nuclear weapons by means such as 
     the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Nunn-
     Lugar sought to find ways to gainfully employ talented Soviet 
     engineers and scientists outside the production of nuclear 
     weapons and ballistic missiles. Without such steps, it was 
     feared, and correctly so as events proved out in, for 
     example, Iran, that other nations hostile to the U.S. would 
     siphon off Russia's scientists, using them for their own 
     weapons production programs.
       The broader context of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat 
     Reduction Program needs to be addressed. It was developed 
     within the context of defending U.S. national security 
     interests. A broader viewpoint should look at the role of 
     Nunn-Lugar in U.S. foreign policy toward Russia, and U.S. 
     defense and immigration policy.


                         1991 Persian Gulf War

       The 1991 Persian Gulf War deserves some understanding. For 
     it was after this war the U.S. felt itself vindicated in its 
     application of advanced technology for defense (our high-tech 
     weapons worked in the Gulf War), and in the development of 
     war-fighting doctrine and training that reflected the lessons 
     of Vietnam. The leaders of the Persian Gulf War, General 
     Colin Powell, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and others of their 
     generation, had served their time in Vietnam. They were 
     dedicated to reforming the U.S. military from the inside, and 
     did not wish to repeat Vietnam.
       Our victory in the Persian Gulf War came through the 
     coalition building efforts of President George Bush and 
     Secretary of State Jim Baker, and the defense buildup 
     initiated by President Reagan in the 1980s.
       It is no small matter to realize we won the Persian Gulf 
     War on the shoulders of the military force we had built to 
     fight the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Bush had already 
     begun the process of spending the ``peace dividend'' without 
     respect to learning the main lesson of President Reagan's 
     defense strategy--the importance of developing advanced 
     technology with commercial applications, and the importance 
     of ballistic missile defense to warfighting.
       In this respect, the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s passed 
     largely unnoticed and unstudied by the West. The Iran/Iraq 
     war featured carnage and attrition. It also featured the use 
     of ballistic missiles--Scuds--to attack each other cities in 
     a war of terror. Thus, the Iran/Iraq war was a precursor, a 
     warning, to Iraq's heavy of ballistic missiles during the 
     1991 Persian Gulf War.
       Congress responded to our vulnerability to ballistic 
     missiles seen in the Gulf War (videos of incoming Scuds made 
     an impression) by passing the 1991 Missile Defense Act. But 
     this act, by itself, was not enough to prompt the U.S. to 
     build a national missile defense, even though the warning 
     bells were already being sounded over the proliferation of 
     long range ballistic missiles, such as China's sale of 
     intermediate range ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia.
       It does little good to criticize the past, but three 
     lessons do stand out from the Gulf War that we need to 
     absorb. First, U.S. military strength needs to be rebuilt. We 
     have been in decline and decay for over a decade. Second, 
     U.S. military strength needs to be redeveloped in the 
     research and development of advanced technology. We need to 
     fund new initiatives for advanced technology. Third, the U.S. 
     needs to complete the plan of the Strategic Defense 
     Initiative by deploying ballistic missile defenses in space.
       We have yet to fully appreciate the role of space in our 
     defense. It has been said the 1991 Persian Gulf War was a 
     one-sided space war where the U.S. was able to freely use its 
     satellites in space to give it leveraging over Iraq, in 
     intelligence, communications, weather, and navigation. It is 
     not as clearly recognized the Gulf War was also a one-sided 
     space war from Iraq's side, where Iraq was able to launch its 
     Scud ballistic missiles traveling through space. While the 
     Air Force was successful in suppressing Iraq's use of

[[Page E1360]]

     Scuds, once a Scud was launched, the U.S. had no means to 
     stop the Scud except for the short-range Patriot. Iraq was 
     able to effectively use space for its ballistic missiles as 
     the U.S. had no ballistic missile defenses in space.


                           Heavy Lift Booster

       The U.S. has needed a heavy lift booster capability for 
     decades. While the Space Shuttle comes close to meeting this 
     need, its payload has been cutback for safety considerations. 
     Lockheed Martin's Titan IV-B is still proving itself, and 
     lacks the capability for launching large, very heavy payloads 
     such as a laser for missile defense.
       The opening of the international space launch market to 
     international consortiums has resulted in the development of 
     heavy lift booster capability by Russia, China, and Europe's 
     Ariane. Free trade issues would call for laissez-faire. In 
     some respects, the application of Nunn-Lugar to the Proton 
     launch vehicle has blurred free trade and defense issues for 
     the goal of softening Russia's economic collapse.
       Concern over the transfer of critical ballistic missile and 
     satellite technology to Russia can be tempered with the 
     knowledge that Russia has developed sophisticated ballistic 
     missile technology. U.S. policy, however, needs to take on 
     broader view.
       1. We need to clarify our foreign policy goals with Russia. 
     The support of free enterprise and democracy must continue in 
     this country in transition.
       2. We need to develop a U.S. heavy lift booster, if only 
     because we will not be able to rely on international 
     consortiums in time of war.
       The class of heavy lift booster we need should be capable 
     of putting into orbit a payload of the same size and weight 
     as a chemical Space Based Laser. This would call for a 
     payload bay capable of supporting an 8 meter diameter mirror 
     (possibly larger), and a payload weight of nearly 80,000 
     pounds. Furthermore, this heavy lift booster will need to be 
     capable of launching this payload into Medium Earth Orbit, at 
     altitudes of about 600-750 miles.


                              Space Policy

       Space is a medium for the projection of global power, a 
     theater for deploying ballistic missile defenses, and a 
     frontier for development. German rocket scientists in World 
     War II recognized the potential of space for world-wide 
     domination, developing the German V-2 as a precursor to 
     building intercontinental ballistic missiles, and developing 
     plans for a large solar lens and spaceplanes such as the 
     Sanger glide bomber that would use the upper atmosphere to 
     coast to targets aroung the world.
       The threat of long range ballistic missiles armed with 
     nuclear weapons became obvious to defense leaders and 
     scientists in the 1950s. They wanted to use space for 
     intercepting and destroying long range ballistic missiles. 
     The 1958 ``Argus'' experiment, exploding small nuclear 
     warheads in space to energize electrically charged particles, 
     was an attempt to devise a global approach to ballistic 
     missile defense using space. On another track, Project 
     Defender anticipated the use of space for deploying 
     interceptors to defend against long range ballistic missiles.
       Development of a U.S. heavy lift booster is essential for 
     the U.S. to realize its future in space. Space is essential 
     for deploying ballistic missile defenses, especially high 
     energy lasers that can take advantage of the long lines of 
     sight found in space, and offer a boost phase defense 
     capability with their speed of light operation.
       Space is at the edge of being developed as a medium for the 
     projection of global power, a theater for operating defenses 
     against intermediate and long range ballistic missiles, and 
     an economic frontier, especially with the discovery of water 
     on the moon.
       How we develop space is critical. We will need to deploy 
     ballistic missile defenses in space, and we will need to 
     defend our investment in space against the encroaching 
     programs of China and Russia. Space also offers itself as a 
     medium for applying and developing advanced technology, and 
     can restore our leadership in defense and advanced 
     technology.
       It will do very little good for the U.S. to deny itself the 
     use of the Russian Proton heavy lift booster, especially when 
     the Clinton administration has not taken the lead in creating 
     a U.S. heavy lift booster. For the sake of its future in 
     space and its defense, the U.S. needs to build its own heavy 
     lift booster.

  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hughes has provided insightful considerations and 
recommendations for the development of future U.S. space policy. Such 
informed and practical forward-thinking by American men and women is 
what made our nation the world's economic, political, military, and 
industrial superpower.

                          ____________________