Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to scrap a long- range, European-based missile defense shield was not only met with concern among our European allies, but more importantly has sounded alarms here at home where the President's…
Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to scrap a long- range, European-based missile defense shield was not only met with concern among our European allies, but more importantly has sounded alarms here at home where the President's action will leave the Nation vulnerable to Iranian long-range missile attack.
Three years ago, in response to growing threats from Iran, the U.S. developed plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe to protect Europe and the United States from potential long-range missile attack. Under the program, 10 interceptor missiles would be located in Poland and a radar station would be built in the Czech Republic by 2013. The European-based missile defense system would add an additional layer of defense to the continental United States, which already has a small network of interceptors on the west coast.
The European-based missile defense shield was endorsed by our NATO allies, who called it a ``substantial contribution to their collective security.'' Now, the Obama administration has taken the unusual and highly questionable position of canceling the planned European-based missile defense system in favor of a scaled-back program that will not be ready until 2020.
The threat represented by Iran is real and growing. Last February, Iran launched a satellite, demonstrating substantial progress toward achieving a reliable long-range missile program. A month later, the head of the U.S. European Command testified before the House Armed Services Committee that Iran would be able to deploy an intercontinental ballistic missile, an ICBM, capable of reaching all of Europe and parts of the United States by the year 2015.
The President stated his decision was based upon reduced threats from Iran and greater cost efficiency of his alternative defense system--and anyone watching the news knows that there is no diminished threat from Iran. However, a July 2008 classified report produced by the Institute for Defense Analyses concluded that the European-based missile defense system that the administration now wants to cancel would, in fact, be the most cost effective. I have called on the administration to declassify this report so that all of the facts can be known and we can have a robust debate.
Moscow has made no secret of its opposition to the European-based missile defense system and has repeatedly called for its elimination. Furthermore, European leaders have heard from Russian leaders. The Russians have continually shown that they have no intention of pressing Iran to drop its nuclear and missile programs. For its part, Iran also shows no willingness to be deterred by Russia. Yet, the administration, in courting Moscow assistance in halting Iran's nuclear missile ambitions, has effectively chosen to surrender America's bargaining position with its shelving of the proposed missile defense system.
While the Obama administration's decision to reverse course on European missile defense is being met with smiles in Moscow, Americans have real reason to be concerned. By the administration's own admission, its alternative missile defense system will not be able to be fully capable until 2020, with intelligence indicating Iran will have ICBM capability by 2015. This means the United States could be vulnerable to Iranian missile attack 5 years before the administration gets its new missile defense system ready.
Not only is Iran near its goal of launching ICBMs, reportedly, it has already the ability to construct a nuclear bomb. Last Thursday, a group of experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency stated, in a report obtained by the Associated Press, that Iran is already capable of building a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system capable of carrying an atomic warhead.
Remarkably, in the face of Iran's blatant actions to develop a nuclear weapons program, the administration continues to pursue a course of unilateral disarmament. Earlier this year, the President cut funding for missile interceptors to be based in Alaska as part of the ongoing construction of a homeland missile defense system, reducing the number of interceptors by one-third. I opposed that move and offered an amendment in the House to restore the funding. Unfortunately, the President's cuts were sustained by a Democrat majority of the House.
The administration's record on missile defense at a time when both North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States is troubling. This year, the administration has cut missile defense by $1.2 billion, reducing by one-third our intended west coast shield which would protect us from North Korea's advancements and has stopped a European-based system intended to protect the U.S. from Iranian missile threats. In the face of known threats, this administration needs to rededicate itself to defense of the United States' mainland.
It is now my honor to recognize our ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon, who represents California's 25th District, was elected in 1991, has been a leader in ensuring the United States has adequate defense, both that our troops have adequate equipment in their conflicts but also in ensuring that the United States has adequate defense systems.
With that, I would like to recognize Representative McKeon.
Well, I want to thank you, Representative McKeon, our ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. I want to thank you for your leadership on the committee, certainly for your leadership of ensuring that we have a quality defense for the United States and also for your highlighting this important issue.
The issues that you've raised concerning Iran are very important. It should not be lost on anybody that, the very day the administration released its decision to drop the European site--to walk away from the Czech Republic and the Poles--the International Atomic Energy Agency released its statement that Iran was nuclear-capable, that they were capable of making a nuclear weapon.
This was on the very same day, as you were saying, that the President said that there was a downgraded threat when, in fact, there is no evidence that the threat has been downgraded. I keep asking the administration to provide us any evidence that the threat is diminishing from long-range ICBM threats from Iran, and we have no information which would indicate that.
Representative Akin, I appreciate your work on this.
Mr. Akin, you raised a very good point. I'd like you to speak for a moment on this issue:
The European missile defense shield that was intended for interceptors in Poland and for the radar in the Czech Republic was not just intended to protect the United States. Although, it would have provided protection to the United States by 2013, with the President's plan not providing protection to the United States, by their own Web site admission, until 2020.
You make an important point that it wasn't just to protect us; it was also to protect our European allies. In addition to that, the Czechs and the Poles had gone out on a limb.
There had been tremendous pressure on them not to agree to work with the United States.
For a moment, talk about what the unilateralism of the Obama administration does to those allies.
Representative Akin, to piggyback on what you're saying here, you're making the point that the system that was intended to be in Europe was the system that would provide the greatest capability at the lowest cost.
You have a great reputation with your leadership in the House and for being the ranking member of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces for the Armed Services Committee. You were elected in 2001, and you've got a great record of service.
One thing that, I think, is important is that we don't just have to take your word for it. There is the Institute for Defense Analyses' unclassified excerpt of the executive summary for the independent assessment of the proposed deployment of the ballistic missile defense system in Europe. This was presented to our subcommittee at the beginning of this year. This was asked for by the Democrat leadership to do an assessment of exactly what you just said--to compare the system that's being proposed by the administration and the system that was intended to go into Europe. This report, which is an independent assessment, reads that the most cost-effective way to protect the United States was the system that this President just scrapped.
Representative Akin, reclaiming my time, I appreciate your comments.
I would like to yield to Representative Bishop, who is from Utah's First District. He was elected in 2003. He is the former speaker of the House of Utah, and is a great champion for national defense on the Armed Services Committee.
I know you have thoughts about this, and I would like to yield to Representative Bishop.
Before we move on, I would like to go to Representative Trent Franks who is the Chair of the Missile Defense Caucus of Arizona's Second District, elected in 2003. We were elected at the same time.
Representative Franks was talking just today about the covert issue of Iran and what they have announced with their secondary site. You have been a leader on this, both in highlighting the issue, making sure that the technical discussion goes forward so people know what's at risk and what we have the capability of.
But on the threat side, this administration has stepped forward and said that we have a threat that is not the same as we thought. They say it's lessened. Everybody else that I talked to believes that it's either increasing--but no one will say that it is actually diminishing.
Representative Franks, I would love for you to talk about the threat issue to our families.
The important point, I think, for the IAEA's, International Atomic Energy Agency, statement is that they are saying it's no longer theoretical. I mean, we are not standing on the House floor, the four of us, saying that we are ringing a bell of the threat to the United States. This independent International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has the capability now, today. It's not as if someone is saying in projecting the future, this independent agency, which is charged for overseeing this, being the agency that is supposed to know what capability that countries have, has made this announcement saying that they are today capable of making a bomb.
When you couple that with what Iran has accomplished with their missiles, having already put a satellite into orbit, again, we are not talking theoretical again. This is not as if we are projecting that some day Iran is going to have a missile. Iran used a missile to place a satellite in orbit, the same technology that you would be utilizing in order to reach the continental United States.
Those two technologies, the nuclear capability and the missile technology capability, are coming together to be a real threat to the United States. Now, here is the thing that just confuses me most about the administration's statements.
We know that the plan that they just scrapped would have placed interceptors and radar in Europe that would have been available to protect the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles projected by 2013, could be 2014; 2013 is when it was projected to be completed.
The President comes forward with his plan and says Iran is going slower--no indication that anyone has or that we have that Iran is going slower--but all intelligence says that Iran could have this capability to reach the United States with their nuclear weapon by 2015. The President comes forward with a plan that says we are going to be ready and able to protect the continental United States by 2020?
This is a gap of 5 years there, even if you use the President's numbers. You use their numbers, you go to their Web site and you see 2020. You see Iran's capability from all intelligence agencies is 2015, and they could be sooner. As Ranking Member McKeon said, they could buy it, or they could have advances.
But this President, sitting here in 2009 says, I don't have to be prepared. The next generation isn't going to be prepared for the next 11 years; 2020 is 11 years away; and he says, I am not going to have the capability, I don't need the capability. I don't need the capability to protect ourselves from a country that the International Atomic Energy Agency says has the capability to produce a nuclear weapon and where our intelligence agencies say will have the capability of a missile.
Representative Franks, I know you have some thoughts on that.
You are right, the deterrence, the deterrence effect it would be.
Speak for a minute, Representative Franks, on Russia because this also amazes me. This President has had Russia say to him abandon your missile defense of the country. He has done so without a concession from Russia. At the same time he is on the eve of going into the START negotiations where Russia is going to be asking for additional concessions from the United States. But there are those in the press, because I was on a couple of talks shows, and they said, well, this really isn't about Russia because this missile defense system was no threat to Russia.
Why is it, if it's no threat to Russia, that Russia would be asking or that we should be conceding? Do you really think the administration is going to be able to advance our security by putting our missile defense system down for Russia?
Representative Bishop, you were talking about the issue of our industrial base. It has a huge impact when we defund programs because then we lose capabilities that we currently have. If we are not making these interceptors anymore, or if we are lessening the number of interceptors, then we are diminishing our capabilities to defend ourselves.
But we pay a really great cost in the issue of innovation. When you defund a program, not only do you lose the intellectual capital that's there, but what we want to do next suffers. I know you have been a big advocate for ensuring that we invest in our industrial base and for ingenuity in the future.
What are your thoughts on what actions that the administration has taken, its impact now?
One of the things I find fascinating about this administration's funding requests is that they've cut ground-based missiles in Alaska. They've cut the ground-based missiles that were planned to go into Europe. They have done so by trying to sell that they're committed to Aegis and THAAD as defensive systems. And in their plan that they put out upon canceling the system in Europe, they said we're going to invest more heavily in those systems.
Well, let's look at what they really did. Because, obviously, if they say they're going to do it, we'd all think here that in this body, the legislation that's coming through this body would reflect the administration's commitment to that.
However, although this administration has talked about increasing theater missile defense inventories, Aegis and THAAD, and have added $900 million in the budget, we're not seeing the sizable inventory increases reflected in the budget. For example, in FY 2010, the budget acquires less Aegis SM-3 interceptors than the initially projected FY 2009.
So what does that mean? It means that in FY 2009, when the budget came through this House, there was a certain level of purchases that had been indicated for the SM-3 interceptors. And what did the administration do? They came in asking for less. The FY 2009 budget projected that 24 additional SM-3s would be required in FY 2010; yet the FY 2010 budget requests only 18.
Budget documents indicate that the SM-3 inventory will grow from 133 interceptors to 329 within 5 years. Let's do that again. The budget documents indicate that the SM-3 inventory is supposed to grow from 133 interceptors, what we currently have, to 329 within 5 years.
Where will the additional SM-3s come from in the out years? If so, what other programs are going to be squeezed? How are they going to go from 133 to 329 when they're buying less than what was proposed? Where's the big request for the additional ones?
The FY 2009 budget indicates three additional THAAD batteries will be acquired; yet the budget requests no funds for additional THAAD radars. According to the contractor, major suppliers could go cold in FY 2010. So for the administration to say, We're not against missile defense. We're not eliminating missile defense. We're just shifting focus. They're not shifting focus. They're not even buying what was planned.
Representative Franks, I know you have been a big advocate for all of these systems.
Thank you, Representative Franks. I appreciate your comments on that. It's very important we look at this through the lens of the administration's policies with respect to Russia.
There is no historical perspective where conceding to Russia early has ever gained anything at the bargaining table. When you concede to Russia prior to entering into negotiations, they say, What else am I going to get when I get to the negotiating table? They never say, Well, that was very great of you, and I appreciate what you have done. I'm now going to do something, too.
In this instance, the President had already signaled in a letter that allegedly went out in the beginning of the year that he was willing to look at conceding on missile defense for Russia's help on Iran without any indication whatsoever that Russia is willing to help. In fact, as you have pointed out, Representative Franks, they have done the opposite. They have been active in selling technology and providing technical assistance to Iran.
But also, Iran has shown no indication of their interest in being dissuaded, and, in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency said, Time for persuasion and time for dissuading is over; that Iran is now declared by the International Atomic Energy Agency to have the capability to create a nuclear weapon. That was announced the very same day the President decides to
abandon the nuclear shield that we should have had with our missile defense shield, with the President moving from what would have been a 2013 deployment for a missile defense shield in Europe to a 2020 protection.
So I appreciate your points with respect to Russia. As we enter the START negotiations, obviously we have a significant amount of concern as to what this administration is going to be doing with respect to our strategic assets, having already compromised on our missile defense.
Representative Franks, thank you for being with us and participating in this.
Just to recap for a moment as to where we are timewise, the President has put forth an alternative plan for missile defense that he says is going to be available for protection for the United States for intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2020. He scrapped the plan that was intended to provide protection for the United States from ICBMs by 2013.
All the intelligence that we have to date shows that Iran could have ICBM capability by 2015. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran already has nuclear capability. Let's put that into a calendar.
We would have had a system that would have protected us by 2013. The President has taken that off the table. The intelligence agencies say that Iran could have nuclear capability, coupled with missile technology, that could reach the United States by 2015. The President says, That's all right. We'll wait for another 5 years and have capability to protect the United States by 2020.
That's an unreasonable time period to put the United States at threat with this threat, and it's one that we should all be concerned about.
I have asked the President and the Secretary of Defense to declassify this report from the Institute for Defense Analyses. It's an unclassified excerpt, executive summary, which I'm holding here, of an independent assessment of the proposed deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Europe that said that, actually, the system that he scrapped would have been the most cost effective. It would have been a system that would have provided 24-hour coverage at the least amount of cost and, by the calendar that we just have discussed, would have been available as early as 7 years earlier than the President's plan for protecting the United States.
While the administration has dismantled our capabilities in Europe, at the same time they have cut missile defense overall by $1.2 billion, lessening our capabilities in some very important systems, including diminishing, by a third, our capabilities in Alaska.
The administration has indicated that they can use our Alaska ground- based missile systems to protect the United States if Iran should get capability earlier than their system is available in 2020, but to show their commitment to that system, they've cut it by a third. So we're actually going to have less capability there.
Now, in addition to the lessening capability in Alaska, we are losing the opportunity for what would have been an integrated system. With THAAD and Aegis and the European system and Alaska, we would have had opportunities for multiple shots if the United States should have a threat that is posed to us. And, as Representative Franks indicated, this system, once in place, would have acted as deterrent to stop the advancement of missile technology and hopefully say to countries that the United States is advancing the type of technology that would provide us the important protection that we need.
The impact of the President's decision on our European allies is one of which many people have grave concern. Both Poland and the Czech Republic are very concerned that this administration unilaterally made the decision to abandon the missile defense shield and to leave them having taken the step of agreeing with the United States, in the face of Russian opposition, without a United States partner there, without a system moving forward; both of those countries having made statements indicating their concern of a continuing strong relationship with the United States.
I know that we all remain concerned about showing to our NATO allies that we remain committed to a strong missile defense for this country, strong deterrence in the area of nuclear proliferation, and this administration, by taking this step backward, weakens, overall, our capabilities and certainly those relationships.
Representative Bishop, I know one of the areas that you spoke on at the House Armed Services Committee as we were moving forward with the National Defense Authorization Act was this overall cut to missile defense of $1.2 billion. When we look at what it's doing to Alaska, it is lessening our capability. The missile shield that was there was intended to have 40 interceptors. The administration has cut it to 30.
They've significantly diminished the airborne laser. They have reduced the other programs that they've indicated that they're going to rely on with Aegis and THAAD, actually lessening the amount of investment that was projected in FY 2009.
I know you're concerned about what that cut represents, and so am I. Perhaps you could speak for a moment on that $1.2 billion cut that this House and Senate and this administration is advancing at a time that we know that North Korea and Iran are getting increased technology.
Thank you, Representative Bishop. I appreciate your tenacity on this and your advocacy for national defense.
To give a recap of the time frame that we're dealing with, this administration scrapped a plan that would
have provided a missile defense capability to the United States mainland from Europe that would have been available as early as 2013. All of our intelligence agencies are indicating that by 2015, Iran could have missile technology to reach the United States. That's why we needed that missile defense technology in 2013. They were going to have ICBM capability by 2015.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said just last week that Iran already has the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. So when we're talking about 2015, and they are going to have the ICBM capability to reach the United States, we are talking about a missile perhaps with a nuclear warhead. This administration scraps that plan and, instead, proposes a plan that will not be available until 2020.
So by all the information we have right now, this administration's action has a 5-year gap that has developed in the time period where the administration is accepting the capability by Iran without having the missile defense technology to protect the United States.
What else are we hearing from Iran? Today there was an announcement that Iran has a covert uranium enrichment facility. This should come as no surprise. This is a country that has continued to seek missile technology, nuclear technology and nuclear capability. We understand that Tehran is not just trying to do this for civilian purposes, that it actually represents a threat to the United States, and that's why people have been such advocates to ensure that this country has the appropriate missile defense technology to protect the country.
So the administration responds and says, It's not just 2020. We have capability in Alaska. That will be our backup plan. We can use our missiles in Alaska to protect the United States from Iran.
The problem with that is that this administration, through this House just this year, cut Alaska's missile defense capabilities by a third. So we would have had our AEGIS and THAAD capability, we would have had our European capability, and we would have had our Alaska capability, perhaps for multiple shots that could have occurred in order to protect this country from Iran's quest for an ICBM with it, as is now said by the IAEA, to have a nuclear capability. Instead, this administration says, We're taking Europe off the table. We are going to rely on what we have, and we're going to take our Alaska capability and cut it by a third.
It puts our country at risk. It puts our families at risk. The President should reverse this decision and should proceed with supporting our allies in NATO, supporting the Czech Republic and Poland, who have been there for us, and put the system in place, protecting the United States.
The President said that the system that he is doing is more cost effective. There is a classified report--I have an unclassified version of it--an independent assessment of the proposed deployment of ballistic missile defense system in Europe. This report says that the most cost-effective plan was the one that he just scrapped. I will end with reading a letter that I sent to Secretary Gates, requesting that he make this independent assessment and study available. We hope that he releases it so we can have a robust debate on that.