[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            PRESIDENT BUSH'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ABM TREATY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 18, 2001

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's decision to withdraw from 
the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) deserves the applause of every 
American. For too many years our country has been left undefended from 
the threat of a ballistic missile attack because of the ABM Treaty. 
Even Soviet Premier Kosygin supported a ballistic missile defense when 
he remarked, ``Defense is moral, aggression is immoral.''
  We need to defend our country from ballistic missile attack. 
Withdrawing from the ABM Treaty with its special prohibition against 
space-based defenses is a major step toward that goal. The terrorist 
attacks of September 11 should have taught us that we should not let 
our guard down.
  We need to act decisively to build a ballistic missile defense, 
especially a space-based defense, taking advantage of the benefits of 
an orbital defense with its global coverage, multiple opportunities for 
intercepting a ballistic missile, and boost phase interception 
capability.
  Our lack of a space-based ballistic missile defense reflects a lack 
of political will to build such a defense. The ABM Treaty limited the 
United States to an inferior defense using ground-based interceptors. 
The technology for building a space-based ballistic missile defense has 
been available for years, even decades, but not the funding.
  We need to fully fund our ballistic missile defense programs, 
particularly for space. This will require an increase in spending. This 
increase is justified. Our lack of ballistic missile defense is not 
justified. Freedom has a price. The ballistic missile threat is 
increasing, whether seen in North Korea's missile program, or China's 
buildup of its road-mobile DF-31 ICBM and other missiles.
  Increased funding, for example, is justified for the Space Based 
Laser. Instead of being funded annually at between $50 and $150 
million, the Space Based Laser should be funded an order of magnitude 
greater at $500-$1500 million. This will enable the Space Based Laser 
to be tested and deployed well before 2010, instead of after 2010 as 
currently scheduled.
  Lack of funding, not technology, keeps us from building Space Based 
Lasers. In 1995, three major aerospace contractors wrote the Chairman 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Strom Thurmond, 
pointing out how funding of about $1.5 billion over four years could 
result in a test launch of a Space Based Laser. The Space Based Laser, 
moreover, with its boost phase interception capability and global 
coverage, will provide a more effective defense compared to the Mid 
Course Phase ground-based interceptor currently under development.
  We need a robust ballistic missile defense encompassing a variety of 
technologies and layers. A defense made up of several layers will more 
easily defend against countermeasures such as China's plan to attack 
U.S. radar and communication nodes, or Russia's use of ballistic 
missiles as platforms for launching hypersonic scramjets that travel in 
the upper atmosphere.
  Funding is needed to re-start the Brilliant Pebbles space-based 
interceptor program that was successfully ground-tested under the elder 
Bush's administration. Additional spending for research and development 
into high-energy laser technologies is called for. Nor should high-
energy particle beams be neglected, which showed promise as in the 1989 
BEAR experiment. Particle beams as well as lasers can provide effective 
mid-course phase discrimination of decoys from warheads.
  With defense spending at one of its lowest levels since before Pearl 
Harbor, the political will is now needed to ask for an increase in 
funding for a space-based ballistic missile defense. Do we need to wait 
for another September 11 using ballistic missiles before we defend our 
country?

                          ____________________