Space

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

May 29, 1996

Dear Colleague:

Last week, H.R. 3144, the "Defend America Act," was pulled from the House floor. My understanding is that H.R. 3144 will be redrafted in an effort to cut its cost of $30-$60 billion, per CBO's estimate.

Strategic or national missile defense ("NMD") has been a bone of contention since its inception. We have an opportunityfor bipartisan consensus if those rewriting H.R. 3144 will keep three basic principles in mind:

1. Keep NMD on the ground. A ground-based system is more affordable and attainable than any space-based system, and once it has been developed, tested, and proven, ground-based interceptors can protect the United States against a limited accidental, unauthorized, or rogue nation attack.

2. Fly before you buy. National missile defense should be treated like any other weapon system the Pentagon buys, which means proving it through testing before committing billions to deploying it.

3. Stay within the ABM Treaty. Staying within the ABM Treaty will help Russia ratify START II. START II will take out some 5,000 Russian warheads, more than any missile defense system now on the drawing board can hope to counter. START II will take a similar number of warheads out of our nuclear arsenal, and spare us the billions of dollars it will take to keep our arsenal at Cold War levels. If ground-based interceptors prove that they are up to the mission, we can amend the treaty when and if it is in our interest to do so. There is no need to force the question now.

The substitute I was ready to offer to H.R. 3144 is based on these three principles. I think these principles can be the basis for bipartisan agreement on national missile defense.

Respectfully,

John M. Spratt, Jr.