Republicans to use authorization markup to mount security offensive

Republican lawmakers hope to gain some ground -- at least politically -- on hot-button national security issues such as missile defense funding and the closure of the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center when the House Armed Services Committee meets Tuesday to consider the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill.

The committee ultimately will approve the typically bipartisan measure by a wide majority, as it does every year, and the minority lacks the votes to win many of the legislative battles it plans to wage during what is expected to be a marathon markup.

But Republicans -- led by their new ranking member, Rep. Howard (Buck) McKeon of California -- are prepared to make the markup their latest stage from which to portray Democrats as failing to keep America safe from rogue nations and terrorists.

"It's like handing something on a platter," McKeon said in a brief interview last week. "Politically, why [are Democrats] even considering some of this stuff? It just does not make sense. If they're going to dish it up, we're going to take our shots."

President Obama's fiscal 2010 budget request includes $9.3 billion for missile defense programs -- an amount that, Republicans are quick to point out, is $1.2 billion below fiscal 2009 levels.

"I can't conceive of cutting missile defense when you've got [North] Korea shooting off missiles," McKeon said. "It's ludicrous to me."

Indeed, Republicans are drawing attention to North Korea's recent demonstration of its Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missile and Iran's successful test of a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel and parts of Europe.

"Instead of a missile defense cut, we must invest in capabilities that protect the U.S. homeland, our forward-deployed troops, and allies," said Strategic Forces Subcommittee ranking member Michael Turner, R-Ohio.

But Democrats counter that the money provided in the chairman's mark for missile defense -- the same amount requested by the Obama administration -- is adequate to defend the United States against any potential threats of ballistic missiles.

"We've given them $9-plus billion," Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said last week.

The missile defense funding in the bill focuses on what Defense Secretary Robert Gates has described as proven or successful technologies, boosting funding for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense and Theater High Altitude Area Defense by a total of $900 million over fiscal 2009 levels.

But it terminates several futuristic programs, including the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the Multiple Kill Vehicle. And it cancels Boeing Co.'s second Airborne Laser aircraft, essentially turning the existing platform into a technology test-bed.

Gates has said those technologies were either not needed or were having too many problems to continue. Republicans, who held their fire during subcommittee markups last week, counter that there needs to be more investment in long-term capabilities.

"Let me only say that some of the more mature programs that we now tout were once research and development programs such as these," Turner said.

Republicans also plan to battle Democrats on the administration's plans to limit the ground-base interceptors for the midcourse defense program to 30, instead of pursuing the 44 once planned.

"The 30 silos that we have now, or are under construction, are fully adequate to protect us against a North Korean threat for a number of years," Gates told the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee last week. "Now the reality is that if that threat were to begin to develop more quickly than anybody anticipates, or in a way that people haven't anticipated, where the 30 interceptors would not look like they were sufficient, it would be very easy to resume this program and expand the number of silos."

But Republicans don't like the wait-and-see approach.

Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Todd Akin, R-Mo., have said they want to restore funding for the interceptors, as well as for the Airborne Laser program. Amendments on other programs are planned, Turner signaled at Thursday's Strategic Forces Subcommittee markup.

The missile defense issue has become such a rallying cry for Republicans that Akin said he would rather expend his political capital on efforts to restore funding for those programs than attempt to reverse the administration's decision to cancel the manned ground vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat Systems.

The program, for which Akin has been a relentless supporter, is managed by Boeing, whose defense headquarters are near Akin's district.

"It pains me a little bit, but a lot of things have been cut," Akin said.

Meanwhile, Republicans are lining up amendments to prohibit detainees held at Guantanamo from being transported to the United States. Among the language expected to be offered is a bill by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, that would require governors and state legislatures to approve the transfer or release of any detainees to their states.

House aides said other amendments are possible, including ones that are more specific to individual states.

A vote on Guantanamo amendments could put Democrats in a difficult spot, as many have come out against transferring detainees to U.S. soil despite the administration's plans to close the facility by early next year.

Democrats were weighing whether to offer alternatives that would be more palatable to the administration, but no decision had been made by late last week.

Meanwhile, debate on the authorization measure could also become the next battleground for language banning the release of detainee abuse photos.

That language was dropped last week from the conference report on the fiscal 2009 supplemental spending bill after Obama issued a letter assuring Senate Democrats he would appeal to the Supreme Court to prevent the release of the photos.

But Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a member of the Armed Services panel, introduced stand-alone language last week and "stands ready to offer this language in the form of an amendment" to the authorization measure, according to a statement released by Armed Services Republicans.

Many members of the Progressive Caucus oppose the language, which they believe is too broad and would weaken government transparency law. But Democrats on the Armed Services panel, most of whom are not members of the caucus, may ultimately approve it.