Dear Members and Friends,

“While the military need for missile defense continues to increase, funding for the Missile Defense Agency has been on the decline, and is projected under this budget request to decline further over the next five years… The share of MDA funding devoted to research and development has decreased by 28 percent from Fiscal Year 2008 to Fiscal Year 2016… Future years’ requests continue the overall trend of reducing both Missile Defense Agency funding and the R&D share of that funding.” – Senator Jeff Sessions, Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee

In the midst of provocative Russian flybys of our Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Ship, the USS Donald Cook, (Video link) and continued provocation from North Korea with a failed North Korean missile launch yesterday (Article link), our Congress held hearings on Ballistic Missile Defense Policies and Programs for next year.  In representing the American Public and fulfilling their elected responsibility to bring balance to the Presidency, members of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces challenged President Obama’s budget request for 2017 in their opening remarks with charts, percentages and facts that show a $800 million cut from last year,  a significant 14% decrease since 2008 from 8.8 billion to 7.5 billion for 2017 on the Missile Defense Budget, and a shocking 28% decrease over that same time in research and development for missile defense. (Link to charts) During this exact time period and this past year, the ballistic missile threat to the United States, its Allies and forward deployed troops, along with the proliferation of ballistic missiles has exponentially exploded in capability and intent. North Korea is at the highest state of readiness, capability, intent and nuclear capability since it was founded on the Armistice in 1953 and an empowered Iran is continuing to overtly break United Nations resolutions on ballistic missile testing.

Senator Sullivan, U.S. Senator from the state of Alaska: “Should our missile defense budgets be flat-or really going down-when there’s no doubt that the threat is going up? Seems to me that we have no doubt that the threat is increasing.”

Admiral Gortney, Commander, U.S. Northern Command And Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command: “I think what you’re seeing…is reluctance of investing dollars in the capability using the current technology that we’re using. That, even though we’re investing in it…it’s not able to outpace the threat.”

Senator Sullivan: “If that were the case, wouldn’t we want to increase budget…?”

Admiral Gortney: “I’m in vehement agreement with you sir.”

In defense of President Obama’s 2017 budget request and his declining missile defense spending four key leaders that command, develop, and procure our nation’s missile defense systems, testified before Congress. These leaders included Admiral Gortney, Commander, U.S. Northern Command And Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command; the Honorable Brian P. McKeon, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Lieutenant General David Mann, Commanding General, U.S. Army Space And Missile Defense Command / Army Forces Strategic Command And Joint Functional Component Command For Integrated Missile Defense; and Vice Admiral James Syring, Director of the Missile Defense Agency.

The public optics of the United States Government reducing funding support for systems that are being counted on and required to defend the American population of 300 million and its troops forward from nuclear ballistic missiles of North Korea and Iran while stating high confidence in the systems in place and no additional need for any more resources sends a strategic message to North Korea, Iran, China, Russia and the American public.

An additional and maybe more credible perspective on why the declining budget on missile defense is taking place with a increased demonstrated threat is laid out best by the NORTHCOM Commander Admiral Gortney and his reference to the joint letter from the CNO and Chief of the Army laying out the ballistic missile defense strategy released two years ago in hope of a change of policy. (Link to letter).

Admiral Gortney: “I was in the meeting that generated that particular article and in that, at the time I was the force provider for the United States Navy and Fleet Forces Command down at Norfolk. And the fundamental issue is because of our current strategy, we are wearing out, our our Patriot, soon to be THAAD, and our Aegis capable platforms, low density, high demand, the threat is increasing and we are on an unaffordable path, spent very expensive rockets to shoot down maybe not so expensive rockets. And so that’s why the necessary investments, that Airborne Laser, the laser being one of those to get us on the correct side of the cost curve. Not just relying on midcourse, midcourse kinetic engagement, the whole trying to knock down the threats throughout the whole entire spectrum is absolutely critical.”

In moving towards Admiral Gortney’s and the Military’s position to have a new policy that would enable them to engage in more complex threats and move away from expensive kinetic solutions to less expensive solutions, the 28% decline of research and development for MDA has to be  addressed or else the threat will continue to outpace the solution, as this letter stated.

It was subtly suggested by Vice Admiral Syring in his response to Senator Shelby: “There is one area that I would like to focus on, in terms of support needed to adequately fund technology demonstrations and prototypes of advanced technology to augment the kinetic solutions that we’re fielding today. And that’s the one area that I see in the future with regards to advanced technology that I’ll need support for coming forward. The other area is space, and we’ve talked about space in the past, and the need for our country, our department, not just the Missile Defense Agency, to come together and field a space solution in the future that has missile defense requirements in it and missile defense capability in it.”

The future missile defense investment in space and directed energy for development and acquisition along with a vision to combine the kinetic systems we have today to defend ourselves against limited complex threats beyond rouge nations is a reach too far for this Administration and its untouchable missile defense policy and declining budgets, but it is with our next Presidency that this vision cannot be ignored and dismissed, for the survival of our nation and that of our allies will depend on it.

Link to Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Hearing

Link to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Hearing

Link to House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Hearing