By william matthews Defense News
After a rancorous argument over missile defense, Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee voted June 16 to limit the number of missile interceptor silos in Alaska to 30, scrapping 14 more that were planned when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.
Then they voted not to increase spending on the years-late, billions-over-budget airborne laser. Or to spend $400 million on a missile defense site in Europe.
The House committee spent most of the day again debating missile defense, a $9.2 billion morsel in the $680.4 billion defense budget for 2010. The protracted debate bogged down progress toward putting the finishing touches on the House version of the 2010 Defense Authorization Act.
And all the while, the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
Republicans on the committee want more spending on missile defense. Democrats don't.
Democrats have a dozen more members on the committee, so even on the occasions when two voted with the Republicans, it didn't matter.
Missile defense is budgeted $9.3 billion for 2010 - $1.2 billion less than in this year's military spending plan.
To Republicans, led by Reps. Michael Turner of Ohio and Trent Franks of Arizona, the decrease in spending threatens to leave the United States vulnerable just as North Korea and Iran are pushing aggressive ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.
To Democrats, led by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., years of lavish spending on poor-performing, ill-conceived programs is being brought under control.
The airborne laser, the kinetic energy interceptor and silo-based interceptors in Alaska and Poland are being reined in.
The sharpest debate came over 14 interceptor silos that are under construction in Alaska. If they are finished, they will bring the number of missile interceptors – missiles that shoot down attacking missiles – to 44.
But Democrats argued that 30 interceptors are enough. They said that for the first time, military commanders were consulted by Congress this year and the commanders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates concluded that 30 interceptors "will provide a strong defense against North Korea," Tauscher said.
Turner and Franks said that was before North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon and launching of a handful of missiles.
Almost daily news reports on North Korea and Iran indicate that the threat of missile attacks on the United States is increasing, not decreasing, they said.
Tauscher, who is chairman of the Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, insisted that, "No one has validated the number 44. No one could tell us the rationale for 44" interceptors versus 30.
She said the plan to build 44 silos was set sometime after 2002 during years that the Missile Defense Agency was free to operate with few checks from the Republican administration and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Under Tauscher's leadership for three years, the subcommittee has shifted the emphasis from ground-based interceptors intended to protect against intercontinental ballistic missiles to mobile- and ship-based interceptors intended to counter medium-range missiles.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., said Alaska's extra missile interceptors are strategically unimportant, but money should be spent on them anyway.
"Neither Iran nor North Korea will launch from their soil against us," Bartlett said. Missiles launched from those countries could be traced immediately and two things would probably happen: The United States would shoot down the missile, Bartlett said, and then the U.S. would "vaporize" the attacking country.
If either country attacks, it will be with a nuclear weapon smuggled into the United States, he said. Congress should be spending money to improve defenses along U.S. coasts, he said.
But the amount needed to finish building the 14 silos is $120 million. Having spent $780 billion on an economic stimulus bill to create jobs, spending $120 million on missile defense that will preserve thousands of jobs is "a trivial amount of money," Bartlett said.
The Democrats disagreed.