The Hill
Congress continues to support investments in defense technologies that give our warfighters a shield against battlefield missiles. The U.S. Army’s Patriot Missile System has carried out that mission for more than two decades and will continue into the future with firm support from Congress and our allies.
So it is troubling that a single Senate committee has unilaterally decided to cut funding needed to update the system that the Washington Post recently called “the workhorse of the Pentagon’s missile defense system.”
Because Patriot is the Army’s system of record for the next several decades, the Pentagon must steadily modernize the system to ensure its technology stays ahead of emerging threats. To support that essential task, President Obama requested Congress fund a modest $106 million in 2016 for Patriot upgrades.
In today’s austere economic environment, it’s no surprise Congress looks to defense budgets for savings. But those savings must not come at the cost of the safety of our warfighters. Cutting funds for modernizing a system that will continue to give the Army and our allies a defense against battlefield missiles for many years makes neither military nor economic sense.
The good news is that Patriot enjoys broad bipartisan and bicameral support in Congress. Three congressional committees – the House and Senate Armed Service Committees and the House Appropriations Committee – have championed Patriot modernization funding over the last few years, and did so again in their spending bills this year.
However, the challenge is that an outlier committee – the Senate Appropriations Committee – has repeatedly ignored the Army’s need-based requests and has consistently slashed Patriot funding.
It was more of the same this year. In its 2016 defense bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee cut Patriot funding by 73 percent, funding only $28 million of the requested $106 million. Such a substantial cut may jeopardize an upgraded Patriot radar that provides 360-degree coverage and gives troops the ability to see threats at greater distances.
The reason for the Committee’s budget reduction is unclear, especially given the support for Patriot in the U.S. Army and key congressional committees. And such domestic political squabbling contrasts poorly with the international Patriot partnership…
