[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DEFENDING AMERICA FROM BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACKS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 18, 2001

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, we need to defend our country from 
ballistic missile attack. President Bush has taken a major step toward 
that goal by withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty. President Bush has 
our sincere thanks and congratulations for removing the United States 
from a treaty that inhibited our defense and was repeatedly violated by 
Russia.
  We need to act decisively to build a ballistic missile defense. The 
fact that our country is undefended from ballistic missiles is a 
reflection of our lack of political will to build a defense. The 
technology for a ballistic missile defense is available, and has been 
for years and even decades, as noted by the Director of the Strategic 
Defense Initiative Organization under President George H.W. Bush's 
administration.
  I strongly urge the President to fully fund a robust ballistic 
missile defense program encompassing a variety of technologies and 
defenses. A robust defense made up of several layers will more easily 
guard against countermeasures such as those planned by China to attack 
U.S. radar and communication nodes, or by Russia to use ballistic 
missiles for launching hypersonic scramjets.
  Full funding for a robust ballistic missile defense will call for 
increases in spending. This spending is justified. Our lack of 
ballistic missile defense is not justified. Freedom has a price, 
including a strong defense, and the ballistic missile threat is 
increasing, whether measured by North Korea's ballistic missile 
program, or China's buildup involving its road-mobile DF-31 ICBM.
  Funding, for example, needs to be increased for the Space Based Laser 
program. Instead of being funded annually at between $50-150 million, 
the Space Based Laser should be funded an order of magnitude greater at 
$500-1500 million. This increase in funding will enable the Space Based 
Laser to be tested and deployment begin sooner than after 2010 as 
currently scheduled.
  Lack of funding, not technology, keeps us from building a 
constellation of Space Based Lasers. In 1995, three major aerospace 
contractors wrote to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Strom Thurmond, on the Space Based Laser, pointing out how 
additional funding of approximately $1.5 billion over four years could 
result in a test launch of a Space Based Laser.
  While this estimate for testing the Space Based Laser in space was 
prepared nearly seven years ago, it clearly illustrates how the level 
of funding for the Space Based Laser should be on a billion-dollar 
level rather than $50-150 million. (The Space Based Laser, 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.)
  Additional money for research and development into other high-energy 
laser technologies is called for. In October 2001 key defense 
scientists recommended a substantial cash infusion into laser 
technology. Over and above funding for the Space Based Laser, 
additional funding is needed for research into high-energy lasers. 
These lasers could include chemical gas lasers such as the DF laser 
(the Space Based Laser uses an HF chemical reaction), excimer and free 
electron lasers, or even solid-state lasers. Nor should high-energy 
particle beams be neglected, which showed promise in the 1989 BEAR 
experiment. (Particle beams as well as lasers can provide effective 
mid-course phase discrimination of decoys from warheads.) This research 
into lasers and particle beams would be invaluable, and result in 
commercial applications. Funding, similar to the Strategic Defense 
Initiative, should be on a billion-dollar level.
  In addition, funding is needed to re-start the Brilliant Pebbles 
space-based interceptor program that was successfully ground-tested 
under President George H.W. Bush's administration, and successfully 
flight-tested in the Clementine lunar mission. Annual funding for this 
program should be expected at around $500-1500 million to deploy a 
constellation of at least a thousand interceptors. Brilliant Pebbles 
can provide a boost phase interception capability, as well as mid-
course phase interception. This space-based defense is not far off into 
the future, but was approved to enter its acquisition phase under the 
Bush Senior administration in 1992. To supplement the mid-course 
interception capability of Brilliant Pebbles, funding for the SBIRS-low 
constellation of missile launch detection and tracking satellites 
should be accelerated.
  The funding increases needed for ballistic missile defense are in 
line with any other major arms acquisition program. But the political 
will is now needed to ask for this funding. It is worth noting that 
current U.S. defense spending is at one of its lowest levels since 
before Pearl Harbor.
  I urgently request that President Bush prepare a ballistic missile 
defense budget that will enable the United States to exploit its 
technology in high-energy lasers and hit-to-kill interceptors. Much of 
this technology should be deployed in orbit where it can provide global 
coverage, multiple opportunities for interception, and a boost phase 
interception capability.

                          ____________________