Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Armed Services Committee Democrats Reject Republican Efforts to Restore Funding for European Missile Defenses
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee today overwhelmingly rejected Republican attempts to restore $372 million in funding for European missile defense capabilities that would protect the American people, our allies in Europe and forward deployed forces. An amendment offered by Strategic Forces Ranking Republican Terry Everett (R-AL) was blocked by a largely partisan vote of 34-24. Everett’s amendment would have restored $372 million in funding for European missile defense that was cut during subcommittee consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The Strategic Force Subcommittee cut $232 million in research, development and testing funding, while the Readiness Subcommittee cut $140 million for military construction.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Armed Services Committee Ranking Republican: “Sadly, the Democrats don’t understand how critical missile defense is to America’s security. With the Iranians and the North Koreans testing new and more capable missiles every year, and the Chinese fielding new ICBM’s, missile defense is one of the most critical aspects of America’s national security. Yet, we see Democrats cut this vital funding for European missile defense.”
Rep. Terry Everett (R-AL), Strategic Forces Subcommittee Ranking Republican: "I'm disappointed with the Committee's votes on 2 key strategic forces issues. Restoring funding for European missile defense and studying our options for future active space defenses are common sense amendments, and I believe that our friends on the other side of the aisle simply got this issue wrong."
"We must understand how to protect our vital space assets, and this study would have gone a long way toward gaining a knowledge of the steps necessary to provide for our future defense."
"The cuts proposed by House Democrats to European missile defense will send a terrible signal to our allies and our adversaries overseas, and I look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to keep full funding in the bill."
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee Ranking Republican: “The defeat of this amendment has two very bad consequences. First, it sends a terrible message to our NATO allies, and in particular to the Czech Republic and Poland, for this Committee to renege our national commitment to extend ballistic missile defense in Europe from the threat of ballistic missile proliferation. The United States face a daunting challenge to our leadership in science and technology. I hold twenty patents and I am dismayed that most of the patent applications to the United States Patent Office are now filed by companies and individuals based in Asia. I am very disappointed that the Democratic majority have rejected restoring a trifling amount of money compared to the whole budget that represents a significant cut in our country’s ability to maintain our supremacy in space-based research, development and testing.”
Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA): “I am disappointed that the Democrat majority refused the Republican-proposed improvements to our national missile defense. Unfortunately, the threat from Iranian ballistic missiles is a very real one and by refusing to fund the European Site now, we are effectively sending a message to our European allies, and to Iran, that we are not committed to the initiative. One of our greatest military leaders, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has empathically requested the funding, because this missile program adds a necessary line of defense and illustrates our commitment to the program.”
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC): “A strong European missile defense is vital to ensuring the security of our allies in the region. With the development and proliferation of long range missiles – particularly by unfriendly nations like Iran – we need to work with our NATO allies to meet our responsibilities. This program is purely defensive and poses no threat.”
Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA): “By failing to adopt this amendment to restore crucial funding to the Missile Defense Agency, the Democrat Majority put a chink in the armor of our national defense. The European Site is a critical component in establishing a robust and layered defense to provide protection of our homeland, especially for near-term threats such as Iran. After all that we have invested in this program and garnering support from our allies, now is not the time to signal that the United States is backing away from its commitment to missile defense. Considering Iran's nuclear ambitions and animosity toward the U.S. and Israel, cutting funding for the European Site is extremely short-sighted, but has potentially devastating long-term ramifications also.”
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): “We are currently at an extremely critical juncture with regard to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities and whether or not we will be able to field a European missile defense that stays ahead of the threat. Poland’s decision could still go either way with regard to the interceptor site, and our failure to send a confident message today may endanger the entire project. The consequences of today’s politically motivated funding cuts may be far more extensive than Democrats realize.”
In an April letter to Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates implored the committee to fully funded European missile defense systems. Excerpts of the letter follow:
“I urge you to support full funding of $712 million, without restriction, for [U.S. missile defense sites in Europe]. Full funding is vital to the conclusion and implementation this year of the bilateral missile defense agreements necessary to allow the United States to begin to deploy capabilities critical to the defense of the homeland and U.S. Allies”.
“After working intensively and successfully with our Allies to achieve this consensus, we would not want to signal that the United States is backing away from its commitment to this program by providing less than full funding or placing restrictions on it.”
“Full funding without restrictions would signal to Poland and the Czech Republic that congressional support for the U.S. proposal is strong, and would give added impetus to their efforts to conclude and implement the necessary bilateral missile defense agreements. Full funding would also send a strong message to Iran that the United States and NATO are serious about developing effective missile defenses, and to Russia that there is bipartisan support for going forward with or without Moscow’s cooperation…”
At its Bucharest Summit in early April, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) issued a strong statement in favor of U.S., Czech and Polish efforts to deploy a robust and layered missile defense capability in Europe. Excerpts from the NATO statement follow:
“Ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies’ forces, territory and populations. Missile defence forms part of a broader response to counter this threat.
“We therefore recognise the substantial contribution to the protection of Allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of European-based United States missile defence assets.
“We are exploring ways to link this capability with current NATO missile defence efforts as a way to ensure that it would be an integral part of any future NATO-wide missile defence architecture.”
###