Posted on 07/01/2002 7:22:06 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Democrats gained a political argument, but President Bush got the Senate to agree to his $7.8 billion request for development of a missile defense program in a $393.3 billion defense authorization bill.The Senate overwhelmingly approved the legislation June 27 after working out a compromise on the divisive issue of missile defense. The vote was 97-2. (Senate Vote 165, p. 1773)
Bush´s success in the Senate removes at least one dispute facing House and Senate conferees, who will work next month to come up with a final version of the fiscal 2003 bill.
In broad terms, the missile defense deal underscored the weakness of political opposition to the Bush administration´s push to develop and field quickly - possibly as early as 2004 - an anti-missile program intended to protect U.S. territory.
Since the House-passed version of the authorization bill (HR 4546) would add $21 million to Bush´s anti-missile request, the final version of the legislation is all but certain to authorize at least as much as the administration requested.
Last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee, on a party-line vote, had cut $814 million from Bush´s missile defense request, approving a provision that would shift the money to shipbuilding and improved security at nuclear facilities.
Faced with a presidential veto threat, Republicans and Democrats settled the issue by agreeing June 26 to give Bush the discretion to spend that amount either for missile defense or counterterrorism. Bush would be able to restore the funds by using savings available from other programs due to lower-than- expected inflation.
During a June 27 hearing in the House Armed Services Committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz complained that the Senate formula put the program at the mercy of future economic trends. John W. Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said that Pentagon budget analysts fully expect the funds to materialize.
The Senate deal, approved by voice vote, would give the Democrats a political argument against the administration if, as seems certain, Bush uses the money for missile defense. The compromise stated the view of the Democratic-controlled Senate that the highest priority in spending the money should be combating terrorism rather than building missile defense.
"What we have won, against significant efforts to fuzz it up or water it down, is a clear statement that fighting terrorism is the number one priority for these funds," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters after the deal was reached.
"How could anyone think . . . we are more likely to be the target of a ballistic missile attack than another terrorist incident," Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., asked on the Senate floor.
Free Hand for Bush
Republicans had balked at the Democrats´ insistence on labeling terrorism a higher priority, insisting that some hostile regimes were trying to acquire ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
"We are looking into the future," Warner said. "There are many signs that clearly justify . . . a limited system of defenses against a limited attack of missiles."
Initially, Warner offered an amendment that would have given Bush the discretion to use $814 million for missile defense or to fight terrorism at home and abroad. Levin insisted on amending that language to stipulate that counterterrorism was the higher priority.
For nearly two days, Republicans rebuffed the Democratic approach. In the end, they took the money and let the Democrats have the rhetoric, but only after administration lawyers assured them that the compromise language would give Bush a free hand on missile defense.
Democrats on the Armed Services Committee had justified each of the cuts that added up to the $814 million on the grounds that the project being scaled back was premature, duplicative or ill-defined.
But the administration and its Senate allies assailed the committee´s action as an effort to eviscerate the missile defense program.
"In almost every instance, [the cuts are] so carefully crafted to damage the entire missile defense program that [they have] an effect that´s vastly greater than the dollars involved," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said June 26 at a Pentagon news conference.
Republicans were particularly critical of the committee´s $362 million cut from the $1.1 billion that would go to develop the overall architecture that would link weapons and sensors in an integrated anti-missile network.
Although many liberals warn that efforts to deploy an anti-missile shield will provoke China and other countries to beef up their nuclear arsenals, the Senate Democrats did not challenge the overall thrust of Bush´s program.
Having eliminated the chief diplomatic obstacle to the program by abandoning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the administration apparently faces no significant domestic opposition, as veteran arms control lobbyist John D. Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World acknowledged in a June 26 interview.
"They eliminated the ABM Treaty. The Russians and Europeans have muted their objections. They´re not getting blocked in Congress. What remains is technology: There is no missile defense system that works," Isaacs said.
Critics also complain that Rumsfeld is trying to shield the program from tough technical scrutiny by exempting it from some of the detailed Pentagon and congressional oversight that apply to other major weapons programs.
In early June, the Pentagon revealed that it would greatly reduce the amount of information released about future tests of the ground-based interceptor missile slated for deployment in Alaska. The purpose of the program is to defend against long-range missiles launched from North Korea.
"No longer will the experts outside the government be able to make informed comments on whether a missile defense test is a realistic challenge," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said June 25.
His impression, Byrd said, is "that the sole reason for classifying this kind of basic information is to squelch criticism about the missile defense program."
On June 27, the Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment by Armed Forces Strategic Subcommittee Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., that would require the Pentagon to send Congress a report in both a classified and unclassified form within 120 days of a test.
The administration had vowed to fight provisions of the Senate bill that would restore some of the oversight requirements for missile defense. However, Republicans did not challenge them. Warner did express confidence that they would be eliminated in conference.
Kennedy Amendment Defeated
Two Democrats - Max Baucus of Montana and John B. Breaux of Louisiana - joined a solid Republican bloc June 25 to table, and thus kill, an amendment to the defense bill by Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that would have made it harder for the Pentagon to continue its longstanding policy of contracting out to private companies work currently done by federal employees. The vote was 50-49. (Senate Vote 162, p. 1773)
Such decisions are based on competition between private firms and in-house organizations under the so-called A-76 process, named for the Office of Management and Budget regulation that governs them. Public employee unions and private contractors have complained about the process for years, with each group arguing that the rules tilt in favor of the other side.
Kennedy´s amendment would have required the Pentagon to conduct public-private competitions for many contracts that it now routinely awards to private companies. It also would have required that private companies project a 10 percent cost savings to win the competition.
"We are depriving loyal and dedicated public workers the chance even to compete for their own jobs," Kennedy said.
Opponents of the amendment contended that it would increase costs by $100 million annually because the Pentagon would not get the savings that, while considerable, would not meet the 10 percent threshold. Moreover, they said, it would cost an additional $100 million to conduct the required competitions, the cost of which would discourage some small businesses from bidding for Pentagon work.
"This is intended to make contracting out as difficult as possible," said Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo. "This is a direct shot at small business."
By a vote of 93-0 on June 24, the Senate adopted an amendment by Robert C. Smith, R-N.H., that would prohibit any military superior from requiring or pressuring female service members stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear an abaya, a traditional religious garment that enshrouds a woman from head to toe. (Senate Vote 161, p. 1773)
The Pentagon had required female personnel in Saudi Arabia to wear the garment when leaving their base on grounds that it would respect local customs and protect the Americans against being singled out by terrorists.
The State Department does not require its female employees in the country to wear the abaya nor does Saudi law require it of female tourists. The Pentagon had dropped the requirement after Air Force Lt. Col. Martha McSally sued the Defense Department in 2001 on grounds that the order was an unconstitutional infringement of her freedom of religion.
However, female service members stationed in the Saudi kingdom still were "strongly encouraged" to wear the abaya when outside their base.
"When you are `strongly encouraged´ to do something by your superiors, you do it," Smith said. "It is no different from a direct order."
On May 14, the House adopted by voice vote HR 4714, which also would prohibit service members from being pressured to wear the abaya. (CQ Weekly, p. 1337)
International Anti-Terror Aid
The Senate adopted by voice vote June 26 an amendment that would beef up the Energy Department´s programs to help other countries prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear material.
Of the $1.2 billion that the bill would authorize for anti-proliferation activities, the amendment would allow the department to reallocate $100 million for new initiatives. One of the new programs would earmark $15 million to develop ways to detect and deal with a so-called dirty bomb, a conventional explosive device used to scatter radioactive debris.
The amendment, sponsored by Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., also would broaden the scope of non-proliferation programs, allowing any country to participate in programs that had been created to help former Soviet states.
Also adopted by voice vote was an amendment by Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Max Cleland, D-Ga., that would give the services discretion to increase their active-duty manpower by 12,000 - just under 1 percent over the level of 1.39 million requested by Bush. The amendment did not address the $500 million cost of such an increase.
I always worry that the competition factor for military items almost insures shoddy manufacturing. Why not a lottery and a cost plus basis with supervised quality control and penalties for over-allowance rejects? Our troops deserve the best. Don't cut on costs, cut down on laziness, inattention to detail and incompetance.
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.