Space

[Page: E1190]

-

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, a near-term defense against ballistic missile attack can be achieved by upgrading existing Navy AEGIS cruisers, destroyers, and standard missiles.

Opponents of defending America against missile attack have long argued that (1) it can't be done and (2) even if it could, it's too expensive. Meanwhile, proponents of missile defense of late have been squabbling among themselves about the pros and cons o f their individual pet projects.

But now, under the auspices of the Heritage Foundation, a group of 16 eminent scientists and former military and civilian Defense officials have put aside their differences and joined to come up with a proposal that is doable and affordable. Better yet, i t would work.

At the core of the Heritage Team B plan is an upgrade of the Navy's Aegis air-defense system to allow it to shoot down long-range and short-range ballistic missiles. The Aegis is a shipboard radar-tracking and interceptor system that directs surface-to-ai r missiles, also on ships, against enemy aircraft and cruise missiles. It is intended for use in combat theaters--for example, to defend the Marines from attack as they storm a beach.

The Navy is already working on an upgrade that would allow it to intercept missiles outside the atmosphere, in the `upper tier.' The Upper Tier system would also be for theater use, though the upgrade would vastly expand the territory it could protect. Th e Team B proposal calls for Upper Tier to be upgraded even further, to shoot down missiles of any range. Given such a capability, if Upper Tier were deployed on ships scattered around the American coast, it would provide a protective shield against strate gic missiles aimed at the U.S.

And therein lies the rub. For, incredibly, the United States has agreed not to defend itself against missile attack. This was the mad promise made 23 years ago in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union. It is an even more reckless pledge today considering the growing threat of missile attack. A full upgrade of Upper Tier would violate the ABM Treaty since it could be used to defend the U.S. against attacks by strategic missiles.

If we proceed along the current track, Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Defense official and a member of Team B, points out that a Navy Aegis commander in the Sea of Japan would be in the absurd position of being able to shoot down a missile the North Korea ns aim at Tokyo, but incapable of shooting down one heading for Chicago. How on earth could it possibly be in our national interest to dumb down the Upper Tier system so that it can be used to protect our allies and our troops abroad, but not one heading for our homeland?

The experts on Team B say a fully upgraded Upper Tier system could begin to be deployed in three years at a cost of only about $1 billion. For a total cost of between $2 billion and $3 billion, 650 interceptors could be deployed on 22 Aegis cruisers by 20 01. The reason this is so cheap is that the U.S. has already invested close to $50 billion in the Aegis system; most of the necessary infrastructure is already there.

A fully upgraded Upper Tier alone wouldn't provide a perfect national defense, but it's a start. Team B also wants to expedite work on Brilliant Eyes, a space-based sensor capable of detecting missile launches and tracking missiles in flight. And it calls for putting more money into research on space-based defenses, which in the long run are the most effective and cheapest way to defend against missile attack.

It is hardly controversial to assert that it won't be all that many years before a pirate in a place like Baghdad or Pyongyang gets hold of a nuclear bomb and the means with which to deliver it. When that capability exists, it will of course be too late t o start slapping together a national missile defense.

The House National Security Committee took a step in the right direction when it marked up a defense spending bill that would authorize more money for Upper Tier, Brilliant Eyes and missile defense in general. Similar legislation is making its way through the House Armed Services Committee.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the House bill makes it clear that all this must be done within the confines of the ABM Treaty. Even worse is the possibility that the ABM Treaty might be expanded to cover some theater missile de fenses, as suggested in the agreement President Clinton signed in Moscow earlier this month. Some Members of Congress ought to ask their constituents whether they really want their government to consciously retard its defensive capability because of an an tique Cold War treaty. It's now time for this country's political establishment to admit that future missile technology is likely to be carrying something much nastier than communications satellites.