17 September 2001
Dems to Drop Missile Defense Provision
By CAROLYN SKORNECK,
Associated Press Writer

Republicans had vehemently opposed the provision, saying it tied President Bush's hands. It had been expected to trigger a fight on the Senate floor as lawmakers considered the $343 billion defense authorization bill for the year that begins Oct. 1.

Both parties are eager to approve the defense bill. So Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, in consultation with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., decided to postpone any consideration of missile defense money until later.

``There will be an appropriate time to bring this up for debate, but this week is not the appropriate time,'' Daschle's spokeswoman, Anita Dunn, said Monday.

The version of the bill approved by the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee in July contains no such provision.

In the House, meanwhile, a key Republican is pressing to boost defense spending next year to about $384 billion in light of last week's terrorist attacks, up more than $40 billion over the amounts approved by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said some of the money could come from the $40 billion approved by Congress last week to respond to the terrorist attacks.

The $384 billion for defense work by the Defense and Energy departments would represent a $73 billion increase over this year's spending level, up by nearly one-quarter.

Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House committee's research and development panel, said that along with including $34 billion to cover unfunded needs of the Pentagon - something the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, approves - it also would add $2 billion to the $8.2 billion the committee had approved for missile defense.

Two committee Democrats said after a closed-door briefing Friday on the attacks that they predicted the final bill would place a greater emphasis on short- and theater-range missile defenses.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said an emphasis on short- and medium-range missile defense systems could come at the expense of national missile defense that would guard against intercontinental ballistic missiles.

But Hunter said he would fight any such move.

``It's totally illogical for any member of Congress to say that since we were just attacked by terrorist-commandeered aircraft, we shouldn't be building defenses against the long-range missiles that North Korea, Iraq and others are developing,'' he said. ``That's akin to saying we were just hit on the right flank, so let's not protect the left flank.''

Hunter conceded he did not yet have the support of committee Chairman Bob Stump, R-Ariz., the House GOP leadership or the White House.

The proposal also would add $1.4 billion to build more Tomahawk cruise missiles and other precision munitions, and could include several billion for improved radar capabilities.

Skelton, reached by phone at his office in Blue Springs, Mo., said he had not been told about the proposal but he ``absolutely'' favors the overall increase. He was, after all, the one who elicited the list of $34 billion unfunded needs from the service chief.

But he said he wants to see the details: ``I want to make sure it's spent correctly.''