Funding Restoration Amendments Are Rejected

Even More Cuts May Gouge Missile Defense Programs In Future Years, Lawmaker Warns

Both the entire House and a key Senate panel backed President Obama’s quest to slash $1.2 billion from ballistic missile programs, as amendments to continue full funding of the missile shield systems were voted down.

Further, this blood-letting for the missile shield may be just the opening salvo in a multi-year war against the missile shield programs, with one lawmaker predicting that further cuts of this magnitude may be imposed each year to hamstring the protective umbrella. (Please see separate story in this issue.)

These actions came even as nuclear-armed North Korea prepared to launch yet another missile and threatened to wipe the United States off the map, and as Iran has proven it wields intercontinental ballistic missile technology. Newly reelected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he envisions the world without the United States, and said Israel should be wiped off the map, and that Israel soon shall cease to exist.

The bleak House and Senate developments for U.S. missile defense authorizations also came as Congress made a final rush to adjournment for the Independence Day recess.

Proponents of a strong, multi-layered missile defense shield, while bloodied, aren’t quitting quite yet. They intend to make a further stand against the cuts on the Senate floor, when that chamber in two weeks considers the defense authorization bill for the upcoming fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010. And, after that, there will be a compromise version of the defense authorization bill, to be hammered out by a House-Senate conference committee.

Also, Congress hasn’t yet passed the final fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, which actually provides the money that each military acquisition program receives. To be sure, appropriations aren’t supposed to exceed authorizations.

And Obama has threatened to veto any legislation dropped on his desk that contains funds to increase purchases of the F-22 Raptor superstealth, supersonice cruise plane, the most advanced fighter aircraft on the planet.

These are the details of the separate actions by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), and by the full House:

Senate Committee Action

The SASC agreed with the Obama administration on the $1.2 billion overall cut in missile defense efforts, and also agreed to each of the Obama decisions on each of the missile defense programs.

For example, the SASC acceded to the president’s decision to place only 30 Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors in the ground, rather than the planned 44. The GMD, the only U.S. system designed to take down intercontinental ballistic missiles, is in Alaska and California.

As well, the senators bowed to Obama’s decision to cancel the Multiple Kill Vehicle program.

Too, Obama won Senate agreement to his plan to deep-six both of the missile defense systems that can take down enemy missiles shortly after they launch, in their vulnerable boost phase of flight. Senators decided to kill the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and to buy no more Airborne Laser (ABL) planes beyond the one existing prototype.

Annihilating an enemy missile in its boost phase is smart, because that occurs while its hot exhaust is flaming and easily tracked, before it can emit multiple warheads or confusing decoys or chaff. Further, if a hit in the boost phase doesn’t completely destroy the enemy weapon, there still are opportunities to take it down in its midcourse or terminal phases of flight trajectory. Also, for the ABL, using a laser to wipe out an enemy missile costs about $60,000 per kill, versus $500,000, or $1 million, or more to use an interceptor to make the kill.

While Obama proposes developing some other capability to hit enemy missiles later in their flight trajectories, in the ascent phase, the SASC budget document doesn’t list any funding for such a program/

At the same time, the SASC would provide $200 million to upgrade six Navy ships with Aegis weapon control systems so they can perform missile defense missions, and also would add $700 million to field more Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, Standard Missile-3 interceptors.

And the SASC would terminate the Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program, instead using $26 billion to to buy two more Advanced Extremely High-Frequency, or AEHF, satellites.

Each of those positions is in step with the defense budget that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates unveiled in the spring, which Obama then ratified and sent to Congress. (Please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, April 6, 2009.) While debate on these programs was said to be "spirited," the SASC writes its authorization bills behind closed doors, so details of the comments aren’t available.

House Action

On the House floor, however, debate was public and aggressive.

Democrats turned back Republican efforts to restore funding for missile defense programs to current levels, so that Obama cuts prevailed.

That was so even as Republicans asked how anyone might possibly wish to cut missile defense programs, at a time when North Korea is poised to launch another missile (perhaps toward Hawaii) and is prepared to produce more nuclear weapons, and at a time when belligerent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has just won reelection and is hurling insults at Obama.

The House floor action centered on Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a founder and co-chairman of the bipartisan congressional Missile Defense Caucus, who offered an amendment to restore all $1.2 billion that the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) had cut from missile defense programs for fiscal 2010, compared to outlays in the current fiscal 2009.

Franks criticized Obama, Gates and congressional Democrats who say they wish to focus more funding on missile defense systems that take out short- and medium-range enemy missiles, because rogue states have more of those weapons, while deemphasizing defense shields against long-range or intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

That is a false choice, Franks said, arguing that the United States must be able to overcome ICBMs, rather than focusing only on short- and medium-range missiles.

He also expressed amazement that Obama and congressional Democrats have come up with $787 billion for an economic stimulus package, but can’t find $1.2 billion to protect Americans from nuclear-tipped enemy weapons. Too, trillions of dollars have been handed to insurance companies, mortgage lenders, Wall Street brokerages and big banks.

"North Korea right now is planning a ballistic missile launch," he observed, a rogue state with leadership vowing to wipe out the United States.

But Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who chaired the HASC strategic forces subcommittee overseeing missile defense programs, opposed the Franks amendment, terming some missile defense programs "sinkholes" and "fatally flawed."

Similarly, Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) used those same words to describe missile defense programs, even those which have obliterated target missiles in tests.

Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, ranking Republican on the subcommittee, rebuked that sort of thinking. "While we have an increased threat" from enemy missiles proliferating globally, "we should not be cutting missile defense," Turner said.

"Given the current threats we face, I will continue to advocate for increased funding to protect America and the second and third tier suppliers we depend on to produce and sustain our missile defense system," he added. For example, the ABL requires mirrors that can be supplied only by a few suppliers.

Several more Democrats made similar arguments, and several other Republicans plus a Democrat said missile defense is urgently required in the fact of a growing threat.

But the Franks amendment was rejected by a vote of 244 nays to 171 ayes.

As columnist George Will observed recently, "Elections have consequences," referring to the Democrats taking the White House and larger majorities in both Senate and House in the election in November.

These were some other comments from Republicans opposed to the missile defense cuts:

Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, ranking Republican on the HASC seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, asked how missile defense can be cut now, of all times.

"The cutting of missile defense by $1.2 billion makes no sense, particularly when North Korea and Iran are both working on nuclear weapons and long range missiles. A cut of this magnitude is unacceptable.

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) pointed to the rising missile threat around the globe. "A quick read of the headlines is all it takes to realize that the world is still a dangerous place," he said. North Korea and Iran represent clear and present dangers to our national security. An unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan coupled with al-Qaeda’s stated desire to use nuclear weapons against our homeland should be enough to topple the scales in favor of funding a robust missile defense shield to protect the United States and our allies. I find it troubling that House Democrats chose to keep the President’s $1.2 billion cut to missile defense funding."

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), predicted the missile defense cuts will cause 11,000 workers to lose their jobs across the nation.