Bush Missile Defense Wins First Round in House

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In a succession of 8-6 votes, Republicans on a House subcommittee yesterday beat down several initial Democratic efforts to curb the Bush administration’s newly revealed plans to expand its planned missile defense system and fund space-based interceptor development and testing (see GSN, Feb. 4).

In a markup session for the fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee approved legislative language that would cut $177 million overall from the administration’s requested Missile Defense Agency budget for fiscal 2005, including $75 million for developing a new interceptor intended for launch from land, sea and space.

Republicans, however, defeated Democratic amendments to block a controversial second fielding of ground- and sea-launched systems in 2006 and 2007, which would include building up to 20 new missile interceptors and silos (see GSN, Feb. 26).

The approved language gives the administration authority to use research and development funds to procure systems for the second fielding. U.S. law forbids full-rate production of systems for deployment without operational testing, but the administration has maintained the two fielding efforts are for testing, while providing a limited defensive capability.

Plans to develop and begin testing space-based interceptors by 2010, and to conduct a test in 2006 that could lead to a space-based interception, also were untouched (see GSN, April 29).

Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) sought an amendment to require the Pentagon to realistically test the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system before additional missiles are funded. An initial batch of 20 interceptors, designed to destroy long-range enemy missiles, are currently scheduled for fielding by 2006 and the administration plans to activate some this year.

Lacking key components, the system so far has not been tested to intercept a target under operationally realistic conditions, Tauscher said.

Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said the military should pursue the traditional “fly-before-you-buy” approach to acquisition. 

Representative Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) countered that the military should pursue an evolutionary “shoot-look-shoot” approach to buying the system, implementing a Bush administration military procurement method called “spiral development.”

The spiral development approach involves fielding systems before they are fully developed, with the idea that they will be improved over time. Critics say it risks expensive purchases of systems that may ultimately not work or be safe.

The Republicans also defeated a challenge to that plan by Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.), who proposed redirecting tens of missiles of dollars for the second GMD fielding to programs intended to protect U.S. forces abroad from shorter-range missile threats: the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense program, the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 interceptor and the Navy Area Wide program.

Spratt charged the administration is investing aggressively in uncertain missile defense concepts to the disadvantage of systems showing more immediate promise.

“Many of the systems the Missile Defense Agency funds are birds in the bush. This is a bird nearly at hand,” he said of the U.S. Army THAAD system.

Representative Curt Weldon (R-Penn.) said he opposed Spratt’s move, noting the committee added funds those three programs in previous years. He said further he trusted Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, who heads the Missile Defense Agency, to balance funding levels for the various missile defense programs.

“I take Kadish’s word on where the levels of funding should be,” he added.

PAC-3 and Navy Area Wide, though, are not MDA programs over which Kadish would have control. They are, respectively, Army and Navy programs.

Democratic amendments to block funding for early development and eventual flight-testing around 2010 of space-based missile defense interceptors also failed.

Language proposed by Representative Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) would have blocked development and eventual testing of new sea- and space-based models of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (see GSN, April 20). The subcommittee’s language already required a $75 million reduction in the KEI program, the main component of which is a land-based system, but did not specify where cuts would be made. 

Ryan’s proposal also would have blocked $21 million requested by the administration to help foreign corporations develop technologies for that interceptor.

“This money would be the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent” for more than $1 billion budgeted over the next five years for funding for foreign corporations, Ryan said.

“It is questionable why we would spend more than $1 billion on work that is not critical to the deployment of the initial system,” he said.

A similar amendment by Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) to block only the funding for the space-based KEI development also was defeated.

Facing potential defeat, Sanchez proposed and then withdrew language that also would have prevented a possible space-launched intercept during a scheduled 2006 data-gathering test known as NFIRE.

The planned test involves aiming a normally sea-launched interceptor, lacking a maneuvering rocket, from a satellite toward a missile-launched target. The Pentagon has said the two objects could collide, but that gathering data, not interception, is the point of the test. Sanchez said an intercept could be a step toward an arms race to dominate space.

“The NFIRE could very well become the tipping point for the weaponization of space,” Sanchez said.

Committee technical staff differed on whether Sanchez’s recommendation would measurably add risk to the success of the data-gathering objective. One said he was told by the Missile Defense Agency that by seeking to better avoid a collision, there was potentially a greater risk the target would not come close enough to the kill vehicle for sufficient data gathering.

Representative Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said the interceptor would not have the capability to act as a weapon, lacking a maneuvering rocket, but noted also “a fundamental disagreement [with Sanchez] on where we should go with defending space.”

The congresswoman said she planned to draft new language for full committee consideration.

Sanchez urged a committee and congressional debate over putting weapons in space, arguing weaponization could “compel other countries” to make the same effort.

Defending the administration’s research and testing plan, Thornberry said it would be “shortsighted” to “not ever think about having a space-based system.”

Weldon argued that putting defensive weapons in space should not be controversial. Critics have charged that defensive interceptors inherently have offensive capability.

Subcommittee Chairman Terry Everett (R-Ala.) said, “The gentle lady’s correct that Congress should have this debate. Hopefully, all of us will be here next term to have this debate,” he said.

The subcommittee did not address requests for continued funding of two other controversial Bush administration initiatives: to study modifying earth penetrating nuclear weapons and to conduct research and development of new low-yield and other nuclear weapons capabilities. 

Reyes said those issues would be addressed at the full committee markup, which is scheduled for Wednesday.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.