Democrats Slice Missile Defense

NewsMax ^ | May 24, 2007 | Dave Eberhart,

[Kaslin]

The House of Representatives has cut more than $764 million from the administration's proposed spending of $8.9 billion on missile defenses in the next fiscal year.

The development came as no surprise to Capitol Hill watchers who forecast that the Democratic majority in Congress was licking its chops to cut the legs out from under the administration's controversial plans to begin digging silos for 10 interceptors in Poland and ramping-up a tracking radar in the Czech Republic — all cogs in a system to defend Europe against the long-range ballistic missile threat from Iran.

Some $160 million was cut from funds proposed for the construction in Poland — enough to prevent breaking ground on the silos.

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, acknowledged the axing of funds for the proposed missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying that it was deemed better to target spending on technologies viewed as having more immediate promise.

"We want the Missile Defense Agency to deal with the near-term threats to the war-fighter, to the American people here at home, and to our European allies and deployed troops," she said. "Too much of the assets were for the future, for yet-to-be-defined science projects."

The bad news for the administration occurs on the eve of a scheduled launching of a ballistic missile from an island in Alaska early Thursday, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune.

First tracked by satellite and radars on land and at sea as it races over the Pacific Ocean toward California, the missile will hopefully be destroyed 20 minutes into its trajectory by an interceptor launched from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The attacking missile is designed to destroy the aggressor missile more than 100 miles above the earth by high-speed impact.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, NATO's supreme commander, U.S. Army Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, said that the overall cuts could significantly delay interceptor construction and cause allies to question U.S. commitment.

"Indirectly there could be some problems created with regards to the perceptions of how serious we — the United States — are about this program," he warned.

In the Senate, the Democratic majority is also cool on missile defense.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has been working its own version of the military-spending legislation. The House bill and what develops from the Senate will have to be reconciled before both houses of Congress vote on the Defense Department budget for the 2008 fiscal year, according to a report in The New York Times.

The Senate committee began considering spending bill markups May 22. Unlike its House counterpart, however, the Senate committee deliberates behind closed doors. As the closed sessions get under way, a key question is whether senators will agree with the big House cuts in spending on missile defense.

Recently the Senate committee heard testimony on the importance of going forward full throttle on missile defense from a variety of experts, including Brian R. Green deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Strategic Capabilities who advised:

"Iran has also claimed it is pursuing a space-launch capability. Although space launch vehicles can be used for peaceful purposes, if Iran were to achieve such a capability, it would also be demonstrating the key technologies needed to deliver payloads at intercontinental ranges."

What eventually happens in conference may be impacted by the strong opinions of lawmakers such as Rep. Terry Everett, R-Ala., who has criticized the missile defense cuts. "This is not the time to further reduce funding or slow down the development and fielding" of missile defense systems.

"I understand the need to focus on near-term capabilities, but as we go through conference with the Senate, we need to work together to identify the right balance between investments in near-term systems and future capabilities," Everett added, according to a report in DefenseNews.

As to the mindset of the Democratic majority in the Senate, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has not been known for unqualified support of missile defense, saying: "Funding should be prioritized . . . although the Bush administration has not done so. For example, many hundreds of short-range Scud missiles exist today in regions where U.S. military forces are deployed. Yet the administration has not placed sufficient priority on defending against such existing threats.

"We should make sure that our ballistic missile defense efforts are focused to ensure effective defense of our military personnel deployed overseas against such missiles. If a system will not work effectively, or will not add significant military capability against a real threat, we should not spend large sums of money on it."

In 2006, Congress enacted legislation supported by Levin to place a priority on the development, testing, and fielding of effective near-term missile defense systems, including the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, the Patriot PAC-3 system, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system — all of which are designed to defend against current and near-term regional missiles.

"Ballistic missile defense is one among many components of our overall defense effort. It needs to be evaluated in the context of the full spectrum of threats and risks to our security, and balanced against other defense priorities," Levin says.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, however, say the results from Thursday's key missile defense test will certainly have impact as they figure out how to vote on the anti-missile portion of the bill, according to the report in The New York Times.

[massgopguy]

Will they bring in Gorbachev as their expert witness?

[The Great RJ]

I hope Nancy Pelosi and Senators Boxer and Feinstein remember this vote the next time the North Koreans launch a long range missile toward California.

[Kaslin]

They will probably remember the vote, but they hope we will forget it