Over to You, Mr. President: Congress Enacts Policy to Defend America; If Clinton Doesn’t Veto, Will Hill Implement?

(Washington, D.C.): Yesterday, the House of Representatives completed action on the
Missile
Defense Act (MDA) of 1999, which declares the policy of the United States to be to
deploy an
effective, limited defense of the American people as soon as technologically
possible. This
represents the most important single missile defense initiative taken since the enactment in 1991
of the National Missile Defense Act — legislation that required for the deployment within five
years of the first elements of a system designed to protect the territory of the United States.

The question is: Assuming President Clinton declines to exercise a veto that is (given the
overwhelming bipartisan support the MDA enjoys in both bodies) certain to be overturned,
will
Congress take steps to ensure that anti-missile systems are actually deployed, or once again
allow a missile defense law to go unimplemented?

A Flexible, Affordable Near-term Alternative: the ‘AEGIS
Option’

The answer should become evident very shortly as the House and Senate consider the Fiscal
Year
2000 defense authorization bill. This legislation offers the most near-at-hand and appropriate
vehicle for taking steps to bring on-line an effective, limited missile defense — for both the
United States and its forces and allies overseas — as soon as technologically possible.

Those steps have been authoritatively spelled out in a study recently released by a
blue-ribbon
Commission on Missile Defense 1 sponsored by the
Heritage Foundation. They would, if
implemented, result in the acceleration and deployment of wide-area anti-missile
systems at
sea via rapid evolution of the Navy’s existing AEGIS fleet air defense system. Thanks
to the
more than $50 billion investment already made in fifty-five AEGIS cruisers and
destroyers, this
approach to defending America is not only the most near-term one available; it is also the least
expensive. According to the Heritage commission, an initial capability could become operational
for as little as $2-3 billion.

To realize the potential of this defensive capability as soon “as technologically possible”will
require not only an increased investment in the Navy Theater Wide Program
in FY 2000
(according to the Heritage study roughly $214 million over the President’s budget request). It
will also necessitate direction to the Pentagon not to “dumb-down” this system
by not
imposing artificial limitations on the SM-3 interceptor’s velocity, on targeting data, radar
performance or command and control arrangements. Last but not least, the management
of this
top priority program must be streamlined — removing bureaucratic obstacles interposed
by
short-sighted, risk-averse or hostile political appointees and “business-as-usual”-minded
bureaucrats.

The Bottom Line

The Congress is to be commended for advancing the ball on missile defense with the Missile
Defense Act of 1999. They must not allow it to drop now, by failing to give
programmatic
direction and impetus to the realization of the Nation’s splendid new policy.

1See Center’s Decision Brief entitled
National Missile Defense Act To Hit Senate Floor: Will
the Nation Be Defended, At Last?: Blue-Ribbon Heritage Commission Shows How To Do
It
(No. 99-P 32, 11 March 1999).