Final Report to the IEEE-USA
Congressional Fellowship Committee

By Larry Chasteen
2000 IEEE-USA Congressional Fellow

Introduction

Due to requirements in my ongoing PhD program at the University of Texas at Dallas, I could only serve 6 months as an IEEE Congressional Fellow. Therefore, I chose a position where I could make the greatest contribution for 6 months. I felt this was at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) where I could work short-term projects. Due to a good set of circumstances, CRS needed someone to research and write a report on the technical details for the radars of the National Missile Defense (NMD). My background in radar was a perfect fit and since NMD was the "hottest" topic in Washington during the first nine months of 2000, I was also able to see much of the politics as well as the operations of Congress. Although the decision on deploying NMD has been delayed until 2001 due to technical problems with parts of the system, all work on NMD remains a top Congressional priority. This report will discuss CRS, my NMD work, and my other impressions of my Fellowship.

Congressional Research Service

I decided to work in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade (FDT) division of CRS. Charlette Preece was the manager of this division, and I worked with Ed Bruner who handled defense related issues that came to the division.

Legislation drives the CRS activities and its 700 plus employees. CRS works exclusively for Congress and its research products are available usually only to members of Congress (although Congressional offices can provide reports, etc. to constituents). At the request of Congress or on its own volition, CRS prepares reports and briefs on issues of concern to the legislature. CRS also provides phone consultations, one-on-one briefings in Member offices, general seminars, and workshops for staffers and officials on the Hill. CRS treats all requests from Member and committee offices as confidential and prepares materials exclusively for that office. General reports and issue briefs are available on the Congressional Intranet. In the legislative process, speed and timeliness are paramount and many requests are reported back within 24 hours. CRS also anticipates legislative priorities for the session and prepares reports, briefs, and updates in advance covering legislative issues.

The FDT Division employs about 40 people plus Fellows and summer interns. Most are analysts and in 1999 they produced approximately 50 written reports as well as consultations, hearings, briefings, and seminars.

CRS faces a crisis, of sorts, in the coming decade. More than 50 percent of the CRS employees will be eligible for retirement by the year 2006. In the FDT Division, only five of the 35 analysts are under the age of 40. With the declining budget limiting the hiring of new analysts, CRS faces a real challenge in maintaining its institutional memory beyond the next decade. Fellow and interns are interim steps to gain the required manpower. Hopefully, more IEEE fellows will decide to work there.

My Task - National Missile Defense and Early Warning Radars

The Clinton Administration was scheduled to decide by Fall 2000 whether the United States should begin deploying a limited National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Due to technical problems with parts of the system, the decision has been delayed until 2001. However, NMD remains a key political and legislative topic and work on NMD continues at a high level.

As originally planned, the limited NMD system could achieve initial operational capability by 2005 and would be designed to protect the United States from a limited attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). As currently envisioned, the NMD system would operate as an integrated system that would rely on a variety of sensors to detect and track incoming missiles. One key element is to upgrade the existing Early Warning Radars (UEWR) so that they can detect and track the incoming missiles sooner. These upgrades include both hardware and software modifications to the existing radars. The earlier detect and track allows a "shoot-look-shoot" scenario, i.e. launching multiple interceptors at each incoming missile to increase the probability of intercept. My task was to research the UEWR and to write a detailed technical CRS report that would provide background information and technical details of these planned upgrades as well as their cost and schedule.

NMD is one of the most controversial national security issues. An in-depth analysis of the NMD program and the debate on it is in other CRS reports (IB-10034). Although the UEWR had not yet generated much discussion, the upgrades could become controversial. Therefore CRS quickly needed a detailed report on the planned radar upgrades. Members of Congress might focus on the cost and technical capability of the upgrades, on the legality of these upgrades under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, or on the international aspects of the UEWRs that are located outside the United States. 

The early warning radars planned for the NMD system include the three PAVE PAWS radars at Cape Cod Massachusetts, Clear Alaska, and Beale California and the two Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) radars at Thule Greenland (Denmark) and Fylingdales UK. The current mission of these five radars is to provide the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) with early warning and assessment of incoming ICBMs and SLBMs.  The upgraded radars must support the new NMD requirements (earlier detection and track) without impacting their current mission.
The Administration believes that upgrading current radars provides effective, low-cost sensors for the NMD mission by reusing 80% of the equipment at the existing radar sites. Due to the UHF operating frequency, the upgraded radars could only provide accurate tracking information for a few warheads accompanied by simple decoys. Thus, the Administration says that these radar upgrades are only for limited defense against limited attacks, not total defense against more advanced ICBM attacks. 

I interviewed both BMDO and Raytheon to get background information. I then wrote a report that presented both sides of the argument. CRS’s function is to give a non-partisan view of all the issues. This report is now being used by members of Congress and their staffs to help them decide how to vote in upcoming defense legislation.

My impression of the Fellowship and my Time in DC

I feel that my Fellowship is a key phase in my technical and academic career. I learned many new things about how our government operates and made key personal contacts that will aid me in my future career. For example, I just went to a RAND conference on complexity theory for social scientists that was organized by a former Fellow. I was also able to take my colleagues at UTD to this conference, so the professional networking provided by my Fellowship is invaluable.

Some of the best things of my fellowship year were the House and Senate hearings on NMD. I was able to sit in on these and see first-hand how our government works. Also, I was able to attend the video presentation of the July 7^th NMD test at the Pentagon. This was a real highlight.

In addition to career highlights, the personal highlights were also great. Sitting on the Mall and watching the July 4^th fireworks is a most memorable event. The social network of other Fellows was also great. I feel new Fellows should go to as many of the group dinners and briefings as possible.

One improvement to my Fellowship year might have been more involvement with IEEE-USA while I was in DC. With 2 IEEE fellows in DC, monthly or quarterly meetings/briefings with IEEE-USA staff on IEEE/government issues could have been beneficial to both sides. Also, maybe there should have been a meeting with the IEEE-USA board to brief them on our activities. I feel the IEEE Fellowships are a major expense of IEEE-USA, so it seems that some accounting/PR would be beneficial. I did enjoy the dinner with the Fellows selection committee, but maybe this should have also included a meeting the next day to give formal feedback on our activities since it was hard to meet and talk to all the committee at the dinner.

Overall, it was a great experience. The only improvements I can think of is just requiring the Fellows to give more feedback on their work and possibly a closer interface with the IEEE-USA staff.

[TOP][ BACK]

Last Updated:  29 Sept. 2000

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States of America