By Emelie Rutherford
The defense policy bill the Senate is expected to debate this month calls for the Pentagon to craft detailed plans for two much-debated aspects of the Ballistic Missile Defense System: its testing regimen and its ground-based missile interceptor sites.
The fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill that cleared the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) June 25 proposes such increased scrutiny of the Pentagon’s missile- defense planning while also heeding the Obama administration’s proposed curtailment or elimination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and Airborne Laser programs.
The SASC bill, made public yesterday, supports the administration’s request to field just 30 of 44 planned ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California. Still, the measure states it is the “sense of Congress” that the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system should be “capable of defending the United States from the threat of long-range missile attacks from nations such as North Korea and Iran, and adequate resources should be available to create and maintain such a capability.” The GMD inventory levels should be determined by Pentagon officials, the bill says.
The legislation would require the defense secretary to conduct an assessment of the current need for and capabilities of the GMD system, along with future options for it, as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Ballistic Missile Defense Review. This assessment–which Congress would receive a report on when the Pentagon’s FY ’11 budget request is submitted early next year–would weigh if 44 interceptors should be deployed.
The SASC-approved legislation additionally calls for the defense secretary to submit a five-year plan for the GMD system next year with the FY ’11 budget proposal. This plan would detail items including the deployment and testing schedules for the silos and interceptors; the funding scheme for the GMD setup; and maintenance plans for keeping it operationally effective.
The Senate panel’s bill at the same time seeks from the defense secretary a “comprehensive” five-year plan for developmental and operational testing and evaluation of the entire Ballistic Missile Defense System. A report on the plan would be sent to Congress not later than March 1, 2011, under the legislation.
The report would include detailed and specific data on testing objectives, procedures, data requirements, and testing activities. The SASC also wants the report to describe additional test and evaluation plans for the GMD system, including salvo tests and multiple simultaneous engagement testing.
Regarding ground-based U.S. missile defenses overseas, the SASC-approved legislation seeks a report from the Pentagon on options for working with Russia and NATO on ballistic missile defense. The report would be due 120 days after the bill’s enactment.
The Senate is expected to take up the defense authorization bill as soon as next week. It remains to be seen just what kind of offensive will be mounted by Republicans angered by President Obama’s $1.2 billion proposed dip in missile-defense spending.
“I will obviously support restoring the cuts” during floor debate, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) told reporters yesterday at the Capitol.
“I think it ironic that at the very time that the North Koreans are firing missiles and the Iranians clearly have the capacity to do so, we’re cutting back on missile defense,” Kyl said. “We’re even talking about undercutting our European allies by pulling out of the discussions about a third site in Europe. That’s very distressing to me.”
Kyl was quick to note the Senate debate over missile defense isn’t completely partisan, pointing to support from SASC member Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska).
SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said last month his panel “shifted the emphasis” on missile defense. While it supported Obama’s proposed ground-based interceptor curtailments, he said, it also backed the administration’s request to increase funding for Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors, near- term capabilities that counter existing threats to troops in theater.
The SASC steered clear of influencing current policy on the proposed third site in Europe before the administration works on the matter, Levin and Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.
The committee did make some tweaks to Obama’s missile defense request. For example, its bill proposes reducing by $30 million the administration’s $1.7 billion request for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program and its SM-3 interceptor; the SASC believes all of the funds could not be executed. That $1.7 billion request is a $600 million boost over FY ’09 funding.
The Senate panel also proposed increasing by $25 million the administration’s $45.8 million request for the U.S.-Israeli David’s Sling short-range ballistic missile defense system.
The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill on June 25 after Democrats easily defeated Republican attempts to reverse Obama’s proposed $1.2 billion missile defense cuts (Defense Daily, June 26).
Former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) on the House floor quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates as saying, “the security of the American people and the efficacy of the missile defense system are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs that in terms of their operational concept are fatally flawed or research programs that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars.”
Tauscher, the former chairwoman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee, later in the day on June 25 was confirmed as the under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs.
The House-passed defense authorization bill seeks an array of new missile-defense efforts from the Pentagon, including a review of the integrated air and missile defense system project, a sustainment and modernization program for the GMD system, a strategy for ascent phase missile defense, and a study on the missile defense system’s discrimination capabilities. The House legislation also puts limits on the availability of some missile defense funds.