I have been very engaged in the discussion about how much and when Congress should fund the European Missile Defense Site and discussed this with our allies when I traveled to their countries in the Czech Republic and Poland. I have been cautiously optimistic about Ms. Tauscher’s recent change of heart on the need to build this defense site. For a while people believed the Czech radar would be advantageous even without the interceptors in Poland, but I was pleased when in Prague it was reported that Ms. Tauscher said, “There is no such thing as a Czech radar without Polish silos.�

In response to questions about the cut in the funding she also insisted to reporters in Prague that “We did not say no. What we said is we have fiscal priorities.� She also said, “We encourage the talks to continue…we are dealing on a margin of weeks and months. Not years.� She also said Democrats would support a reprogramming request once agreements signed. Her exact words to reporters in Europe were, “Should Prague and Warsaw agreements be signed and ratified they can come back to us.�

When she returned from Europe she published a piece in which she recognized the real threat from Iran and also the need to build the GMD site. She wrote, “The U.S. intelligence community’s current estimate is that Iran is five to 10 years away from developing such a capability…plainly, this is a very serious threat about which we must be vigilant.â€? She also said GMD is worth the investment. She wrote, “A GMD system deployed in Europe could help deter a potential Iranian long-range ballistic missile threat if one emerges.â€? Ms. Tauscher also said the recent successful GMD intercept was a “step in the right direction.â€? Because of these statements, I have been greatly encouraged the chairwoman is going to lead this Congress and support funding for this site once bilateral negotiations are complete. In doing so, we will protect NATO countries, our war fighters, and Americans at home.

This is why I am disturbed, and quite frankly, exasperated by last week’s article in Defense News in which Ms. Tauscher allegedly said the U.S. Missile Defense Agency should work harder at protecting deployed U.S. troops against current missile threats with proven technology and “pull back” from “science projects” such as the European missile defense site. I do not believe Ellen thinks GMD is a “science projectâ€? and her recent remarks and publications reflect a desire to see GMD built in Europe.

I look forward to seeing the final marks for the defense authorization bill, and in particular, the language associated with the European Site. There is so much at stake here. As I have said before, missile defense is not only our last line of defense for an incoming ballistic missile, it is also our first line of defense to counter missile proliferation because it devalues these weapons as offensive military assets, which may ultimately keep nuclear technology in general out of the hands of terrorist-friendly nations. It is my hope Ms. Tauscher both substantiates her claims to support this critical defense initiative, and helps to lead our colleagues during conference to support our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am and is filed under Politics, Homeland Security .