Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Democrats Seek to Shift Funds From Missile Defense to Cooperative Threat Reduction
NTI Global Security Newswire ^ | 11/11/2005 | NTI Staff

Posted on 11/11/2005 7:21:26 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity

Five Senate Democrats have proposed an amendment to the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill that would transfer $50 million from missile defense spending to threat reduction projects in former Soviet states, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 1).

Introduced Friday by Senators Carl Levin (Mich.), Jack Reed (R.I.), John Kerry (Mass.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.) and Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), the measure would cut $30 million from procurement of ground-based interceptors and $20 million from GBI silo construction. Those funds would be moved to the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, according to Inside Missile Defense.

“I believe this amendment properly reallocates scarce resources so we can deal with an immediate threat,” Reed said. “That immediate threat is the proliferation of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons.”

“No one will argue that the development, in a deliberate way and in a technically feasible way, of a missile defense system is not a good thing for the country, but what has happened over the last several years has been this rush to failure,” he added (see GSN, Oct. 7).

Only about 25 percent of the 150 to 210 nuclear weapons sites in Russia have received security upgrades in the past five years, Reed said.

“At the rate planned in the fiscal year 2006 budget request, it would be around 2011 or 2012 before work at only a portion of the sites would be completed to bring them up to the levels of security and safety that we would feel confident this nuclear material would not be stolen, misplaced, or somehow diverted into the wrong hands,” he said.

Reed added that the decrease in funding would not interfere with deployment of the first 30 U.S. ground-based interceptors.

Senate Republicans argued against the amendment.

“The money they are taking here is going to another program that hasn’t spent all the money we gave it last fiscal year. I don’t see a need,” said Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.).

In addition to $415 million in planned CTR funding, the authorization bill includes $1.6 billion for Energy Department nonproliferation programs, said Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

“We have a lot of money being spent in these issues. These accounts are fully funded. … They do not need additional funding, especially not by taking money from our ballistic missile defense system,” Sessions said.

Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) warned that the amendment would “cause a break in the production of ground-based interceptors ... that would cost the government $270 million to restart” (John Liang, Inside Missile Defense, Nov. 9).


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS:
“I believe this amendment properly reallocates scarce resources so we can deal with an immediate threat,” Reed said. “That immediate threat is the proliferation of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons.”

Uh huh. Funny how the Democrats think that the govt. has all the money in the world for "entitlements" but when we spend money on Defense, suddenly money is scarce.

1 posted on 11/11/2005 7:21:27 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Demoncrat Imbeciles BUMP!
2 posted on 11/11/2005 7:26:43 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

This is fitting. Clinton allows China to get nuclear technology. That makes a missile shield even more necessary. Now, the RATS want to cut the funding for it. And they have no idea why we question their patriotism.


3 posted on 11/11/2005 7:27:23 AM PST by doug from upland ("Susan Estrich...get off your kneepads" - Juanita Broaddrick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Slick did a great job of Cooperative Threat Reduction!

Ok students.

Can you name all the countries that became nuclear during 8 years of Jimma Cartier-style appeasement?

4 posted on 11/11/2005 7:27:26 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

I want a rider on that bill that the congressional evacuation force will have two sets of helicopters. One set will be reserved for the Senators and Reps opposed to missile defense. Their operating instructions will be to dump their passengers at ground zero.


5 posted on 11/11/2005 7:28:55 AM PST by NonValueAdded ("To the terrorists, the media is a vital force multiplier" Brig. Gen. Donald Alston (USAF) 10/31/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Cooperative Threat Reduction

Democrat Method:
Give a dictator nuclear energy plants with the promise they will not use the waste for weapon developement.

Republican Method:
Send a guided missile through the dictators front door!

Who has dis-armed and who hasn't?

6 posted on 11/11/2005 7:32:50 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
“I believe this amendment properly reallocates scarce resources so we can deal with an immediate threat,” Reed said. “That immediate threat is the proliferation of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons.”

...guess taking money from the military back in the 90's and reducing our ability to secure covert information and successfully block intelligence was a good move then too..spending money for the horse and pony show otherwise known as the 911 commission that tried to cover up even more negligence on behalf the US Congress and Senate was brilliant... These hot air blow-hards have failed us time again, blame anyone but themselves,don't take any responsibility...and still go on and on....they should all resign in shame.

Doogle

7 posted on 11/11/2005 7:36:25 AM PST by Doogle (USAF...7thAF ..4077th TFW...408th MMS..Ubon Thailand.."69",,Night Line Delivery..AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

As far as I'm concerned, Congress should not have a nuclear-attack bunker to evacuate themselves to. Then maybe they'd introduce more realistic policies concerning defense.


8 posted on 11/11/2005 7:38:26 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity ("Sharpei diem - Seize the wrinkled dog.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
By cooperative threat reduction, do they mean dumping hundreds of billion of dollars in aid and fuel oil to North Korea in the 90's.....to stop them from developing a nuclear bomb?

I would rather have my tax money spent on BMD, please.

9 posted on 11/11/2005 7:39:40 AM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

These people went to the Jimmy Carter school of foreign policy. Their forte is signing unverifiable agreements and having the nerve to act surprise when the other side reneges on them.


10 posted on 11/11/2005 7:41:23 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity ("Sharpei diem - Seize the wrinkled dog.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

The amendment simply transfers money from defending ourselves to those who might attack us. Consider who is proposing it and it becomes as clear as day.


11 posted on 11/11/2005 7:48:02 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
As far as I'm concerned, Congress should not have a nuclear-attack bunker to evacuate themselves to. Then maybe they'd introduce more realistic policies concerning defense.

Preserving our government in time of attack used to be a good idea. Now it depends on who is in power. The Dems would surrender rather than fight and work against us if an attack occured.

12 posted on 11/11/2005 7:52:15 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson