Tough Battle Ahead, But Not Hopeless, Sessions Says
President Obama’s plan for dramatic cuts in funding missile defense programs likely will be challenged in the Senate, especially among authorizers on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), but the ultimate fate of those programs will rest partially with others, including House Democrats.
That was the grim assessment of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), responding to a question from Space & Missile Defense Report at a Capitol Hill breakfast forum of the National Defense University Foundation and the National Defense Industrial Association.
Clearly, averting the deep cuts in some missile defense programs will be difficult, but the battle isn’t lost yet, Sessions said, adding that he is concerned by Obama’s budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates delivered body blows to several programs: he proposed no further aircraft for the Airborne Laser (ABL) missile defense system beyond the existing prototype plane; no more interceptors for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), or National Missile Defense, system; no fiscal 2010 funding at all for the planned European Missile Defense (EMD) system; and a hazy future for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). (Please see separate story in this issue for details of the Pentagon missile defense budget proposal.)
In all, Gates said his plan would take $1.4 billion out of the roughly $9.6 billion yearly missile defense effort, or roughly 15 percent of funds for all programs, a sizeable chunk.
But actually, the cuts are far more dramatic, because only some programs would be cut, while others such as the sea-based Aegis weapon control system and its companion Standard Missile-3 interceptor would actually receive increased funding next year, along with the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD. (Please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, April 6, 2009.)
Beyond the $1.4 billion of cuts that Gates mentioned in programs such as ABL, GMD, EMD and KEI, those funding increases for a few favored programs would force corresponding further cuts in programs out of favor.
Both Sessions in his presentation, and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), have said the true cut from out-of-favor missile defense programs actually will be something like $2.3 billion, out of a $9 billion-plus annual undertaking.
Cuts Unjustified
Those cuts are jarring and unjustified, an irrational move, coming in the face of rising missile threats confronting the United States and its allies, Sessions said.
“Recent missile defense cuts, coming on the heels of a successful Iranian satellite launch and a more recent test of a North Korean long-range ballistic missile, are particularly concerning,” he warned.
“How do you explain to the American people: [the Obama administration continues] to cut back significantly on missile defense, at the very time our potential adversaries are demonstrating the ability to reach the United States and … our allies with ballistic missiles?” Sessions reasoned.
“So in light of all that our nation has done to develop, and now to begin to deploy a National Missile Defense System, which is working now, and which provides protection now, it makes no sense at all to me to starve this program in this way. [It] looks too much like an abandonment. … I don’t agree with that.”
For Sessions, there is only one response to make to the Obama budget plan for missile defense: accept the increased funding support that Obama would provide for some programs such as sea-based systems, but fight hard against the cuts in other programs.
“I will oppose it,” Sessions vowed, “and do my best to make sure that we properly defend the security of the United States of America.”
When we asked him about chances that the Obama missile defense cuts may be approved by Congress, Sessions said that there is risk in the situation. But he sees some allies among Democratic senators who may not necessarily agree with Obama on every budget item he proposes, even though the president is a fellow Democrat.
“On the [Senate Armed Services] Committee, we’ve got some Democrats who have been thoughtful about missile defense for quite a number of years, and they have proven that they are independent enough,” Sessions said.
He cited a few Democratic senators on the committee who chart their own course, such as “Mark Begich from Alaska. We benefit there. He appears to be … knowledgeable” about missile defense. The GMD system is located partly in Alaska, as well as California.
Sessions also praised the independence of “people like Sen. [Joseph] Lieberman” of Connecticut, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, “or Ben Nelson [of Nebraska], and Evan Bayh [of Indiana], and there are a number of Democrats I think will give an independent review to that.”
Beyond that, he said the full Senate won’t just rubber-stamp the proposed missile defense reductions.
“The Senate would have some ability, I hope, to question some of those cuts,” Session said.
However, he noted, beyond the SASC, which writes authorizing legislation, the question of whether missile defense cuts prevail also is up to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its defense subcommittee, which write the defense appropriations measure that actually provides funds to the missile defense programs.
Beyond that, of course, there are the authorizing and appropriating committees in the House. And finally, there would be conference committees to iron out differences between bills passed by the House and Senate.
With the defense authorization bill for fiscal 2010, “You know, you have to go to conference,” Sessions observed. “You’ve got the House, and [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi, and [Senate Democratic Leader] Harry Reid [who] pick the conferees. And then you’ve got the appropriations committee. And all of [them] play an important role.”
While that’s a lot to consider, Sessions said this is a fight that can be won.
“I do think it’s a matter that is not at all hopeless,” he said. “I do think it’s a matter that we need to lift up, and have a national discussion about. And as you’ve indicated, some of [those cuts] individually — a lot of them may not sound too significant” in isolation. “But taken as a whole, you create a picture of a lack of commitment to defense. And I think the American people will not be happy with that.”
The fight for missile defense will be made even more challenging, Sessions cautioned, by the fact that such procurement programs are being crowded by soaring spending in other areas of the defense budget, such as pay raises for personnel, and an increase in the number of personnel to help lessen the exhausting strain of war on existing troops.