Committee votes down missile defense increase - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Committee votes down missile defense increase

House Republicans failed Tuesday in an effort to restore funding for missile defense programs.

Despite arguing that the world is less safe as a result of Iran and North Korea trying to get long-range nuclear weapons which could be used to attack U.S. cities, the House Armed Services Committee voted 36-26 against an amendment to spend an additional $1.2 billion on missile defense programs in 2010. The vote restores the $9 billion current budget the administration has proposed cutting.

The votes came as President Barack Obama said North Korea poses a “grave threat” to the world by threatening to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Also, Pentagon officials predict North Korea could, within three years, develop the capability to strike the U.S.

There were a series of missile defense-related votes, all decided by about the same margin, as the armed services committee worked on the 2010 defense authorization bill, HR 2647.

The chief amendment to restore funding, by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., would have undone a proposed cut in missile defense funding. The $1.2 billion would have been taken from environmental cleanup programs.

Franks said he, and the American public, thinks the missile threat to the U.S. is not declining, and that Obama acknowledged that in his remarks at the White House during a meeting with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.

Debate included discussion about whether the U.S. needs 44 missile interceptors — the goal during the Bush administration — or the 30 interceptors that Pentagon officials now say is sufficient.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., who led opposition to Franks’ amendment, said missile defense capability is based on more than just the amount of money spent.

“What we have been trying to do for three years is to rescue missile defense from its advocates,” she said, arguing that spending vast amounts of money doesn’t make sense if you are not also spending money to maintain the systems you have.

“For too many years, we have not taken a balanced approach to missile defense,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman. “We have spent far too much money on programs that do not protect us from the threats that truly exist.”