President Obama’s plan to slash or eliminate some missile defense programs survived handily in the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), but missile defense proponents are expected to launch a new offensive against authorization cuts on the House floor.
Further, an opening for missile defense advocates also will appear this week, as the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) meets to write its version of the defense authorization bill for the upcoming fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010.
Generally, for the past several years, the SASC and the full Senate have provided far better support to missile defense programs than has the HASC and its strategic forces subcommittee.
And that may continue to hold true. For example, in a SASC hearing on the Missile Defense Agency budget for fiscal 2010, several senators expressed support for various missile defense programs. (Please see full story in this issue.)
But in the House panel, missile defense programs, as usual, faced a long, hard slog.
Several Republicans mounted a vigorous and valiant effort to reverse the Obama cuts and obtain full funding for programs defending the United States against missile attack. But the GOP proponents were greatly outnumbered by Democrats, who increased their numbers in the House in the election last November.
In the hours-long HASC bill-writing session, even when Republicans proposed amendments that involved little or no funding increases, Democrats opposed them.
For example, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) proposed an amendment that would say to Europeans that the United States still supports the future European Missile Defense (EMD) system, even though the Obama plan provides but $51 million for it in fiscal 2010. The EMD would be built in the Czech Republic (radar) and Poland (interceptors in ground silos). “The Czech government and the Polish government took tremendous risks” to provide administrative endorsement of the EMD, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) observed, going against popular citizen opinion in those countries.
NATO said the EMD protection against long-range Iranian missiles would be a perfect complement to the NATO anti-missile system effective against enemy short- and medium-range weapons, Franks added.
Cutting and stalling the EMD system is risky business, he warned. “In four or five years, Iran will have the ability to reach this country with a nuclear warhead,” Franks predicted, recalling some comments by newly re-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has said he envisions a world without the United States.
The Iranian leader also has said Israel should be wiped from the map, and that it soon shall cease to exist.
Franks stressed that the United States can’t drop plans for EMD and decide to send some Navy missile defense ships to the area instead. “Aegis ships cannot defend” the United States from long-range Iranian missiles, he observed.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), in her final days chairing the strategic forces subcommittee before she takes a State Department post, rebuffed Wilson, saying she opposed his amendment. The EMD can be a shield against long-range missiles fired by Iran toward Europe or the United States.
Tauscher objected that most of the missiles in the Iranian arsenal are short- or medium-range weapons.
Franks asked what the alternative might be, if the EMD isn’t built to defend against Iranian missiles. The Aegis-Standard Missile sea-based system “costs twice as much and doesn’t defend the homeland,” he said.
“Iran is watching closely,” and will take note if the United States doesn’t have the fortitude to fund and build the EMD, he warned.
Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, the subcommittee ranking Republican, offered an amendment to provide $400 million for the EMD, saying Europeans took a chance in backing the U.S. missile defense system, and the United States shouldn’t leave them hanging.
But Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) offered a substitute amendment that said simply that Iranian short- and medium-range missiles are a threat, while asserting that “Iran does not currently possess a long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States and, if it were to develop such a capability in the near future, the long-range Ground-based Midcourse Defense … interceptors currently deployed in Alaska have sufficient range to protect the United States.”
Republicans, however, noted that the GMD system wouldn’t protect U.S. allied nations in Europe.
No matter. The substitute Larsen substitute amendment — limiting funds usage to research, development, test and evaluation of a missile defense for Europe — was accepted 36- 26, meaning the Turner amendment was rejected. Then the Larsen amendment passed on a voice vote.
Turner also offered an amendment to provide $120 million to pay for installing the remaining 14 ground silos planned for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, so that interceptors can be placed in the silos. The EMD interceptor would be a two-stage variant of the three-stage GMD interceptor.
That amendment too was turned down on a largely party-line vote, as was an amendment by Reps. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) to take a breather before killing the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program, which would annihilate enemy missiles shortly after they launch, in their vulnerable boost phase, before they have the opportunity to emit multiple warheads or confusing decoys or chaff. Also, taking down an enemy missile over enemy territory means any radioactive, chemical or biological materials in the warhead rain down on the enemy, not on allies. Further, if a hit on an enemy missile shouldn’t completely disable it while it is in the boost phase, other U.S. systems can attempt to kill it in its midcourse or terminal phases of trajectory flight.
The Bishop-Lamborn amendment at least would permit authorities to use already-appropriated funds in the current budget to conduct a test of the KEI system, to see whether it works.
But Tauscher again rose in opposition, terming the KEI program “a sinkhole.” So the amendment was defeated on a voice vote.
Similarly, a Franks amendment to provide $237 million to the Airborne Laser (ABL) program so that it would have the same funding next year as this year was rejected. ABL, too, would hit enemy missiles early, in their boost phase of flight while they are most easily tracked by their hot exhaust plumes.
The Obama budget would cancel plans to buy any more ABL aircraft, leaving the one heavily modified 747-400F as a research platform. Thus the Obama budget eliminates both the boost phase missile defense systems.
Why should the ABL program be cut off now, when the ABL just successfully completed two consecutive missile tracking tests? Franks asked.
But Tauscher stiff-armed the Franks amendment, going back years into the past to say that the ABL program is eight years behind schedule and $4 billion over budget.
Franks, however, is pointing out that the ABL in recent years has met its targets, and is poised for a missile shoot-down test later this year.
The ABL supporting amendment was shot down on a largely party-line vote.
Franks — a cochairman and founder of the bipartisan congressional Missile Defense Caucus – also offered a sweeping amendment to increase missile defense funding by $1.2 billion, eliminating all of the missile defense cuts in the Obama budget. But that was rejected, too, on a 36-26 vote.
If those cuts ultimately are approved by Congress, it will harm national security and create vulnerabilities to enemy missiles, Franks said. But the cuts also will harm the economy, he argued. “According to industry analysts, the cuts will result in the loss of 11,000 American jobs,” he said.
Democrats argued that most missiles held by rogue nations or terrorists aren’t long-range, and therefore it’s all right to cut U.S. missile defense programs to protect the nation against long-range or intercontinental enemy weapons.
The Obama budget backed by HASC Democrats focuses instead on defeating more prevalent short- and medium-range missiles, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the HASC chairman, said.
“For too many years we have not taken a balanced approach to missile defense,” he said. “We have spent far too much money on programs that do not protect us from the threats that truly exist. Democrats support a missile defense system that actually works and will keep Americans safe. Today’s legislation accomplishes that goal.”
Tauscher said the missile defense authorization bill “represents the culmination of my work [chairing] the strategic forces subcommittee for the past three years, refocusing the missile defense program on proven, operationally effective systems designed to counter the most likely threats.”
While the Obama budget that the HASC approved deeply slashes some missile defense programs, some other programs received authorization increases, Tauscher noted.
“The bill increases funding for the proven Aegis BMD and THAAD systems by $900 million over the Fiscal Year 2009 level,” she said. “It also provides over $1 billion to continue to researching, developing, testing and sustaining missile defense systems like the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and the Aegis Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor designed to counter long-range missiles. [The bill] dramatically improves the security of the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.”
But Franks asked how Obama and congressional Democrats can think of cutting missile defense, just when the missile defense threat is soaring worldwide.
“There has never been a time in history when the correlation of ballistic missile proliferation, nuclear weapons programs, and jihadist terrorism so imminently threatened the peace of the entire human family.” Franks stated. “America faces a growing threat in the rising belligerence, instability, and technological advancements of rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. Both have made their resolute commitment to a long-range missile and nuclear capability, their hatred of the United States, and their hostility toward our allies unmistakably clear.”
The missile defense funding cuts pose “potentially grave consequences for America’s national security,” he warned.
Other Republicans joined in excoriating the bill.
“Considering the threat that exists, it’s ludicrous to me that we would cut funding for critical national defense capabilities,” said Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.). “Iran and North Korea both have demonstrated the capability and intent to pursue intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapon programs in the last year. It’s critical for the United States to provide a comprehensive missile defense system that protects the U.S. homeland, as well as our forward-deployed troops and allies. Are we so confident in our diplomatic efforts with Iran and North Korea that we can afford a nearly 90 percent cut in European Missile Defense and a 35 percent cut to our homeland missile defenses in Alaska and California?”
Turner, too, said the cuts are reckless in the face of growing missile threats.
“With near-term and increasing threats from rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran, the need is greater than ever to strengthen America’s national missile defense programs,” Turner said. “This is essential to protect our homeland and forward-deployed troops and allies. Now is not the time to play politics with our nation’s missile defense programs. I was disappointed that the majority would not even agree to my amendment to restore a modest level of funding to missile defense. Given the increasing threat and uncertainty surrounding the intent from North Korea and Iran, a policy that reduces defense of our homeland is unwise and unacceptable.”
Wilson asked how missile defense funds can be slashed, just as North Korea is detonating nuclear bombs and testing long-range missiles, and Iran is conducting a nuclear program and launching a satellite: “It is troubling that in the face of provocative missile tests being performed by North Korea, the Obama administration and their allies in Congress would seek to cut funding for our missile defense. The development of a missile defense has been and should continue to be a vital part of the strategic cards we hold. When we diminish that capability, we unilaterally raise the threat of long-range missiles to our nation and to our allies.”
Bishop asked why Obama can find money for bailouts and economic stimulus funds, but can’t fully fund national defense. “The Obama Administration’s priorities are misplaced when they can find $800 billion for so-called stimulus spending but can’t properly fund our national security. The investments we make in missile defense today ensure our homeland security against these threats now and a decade from now.”