Hagel might have final say on controversial missile defense program

That throws the fate of the missile defense
program — a joint venture between the U.S., Italy and Germany — into doubt,
congressional aides say, as contradicting interpretations of the two measures will
likely mean the Defense Department has the final say.

{mosads}Pentagon officials aren’t tipping their hand yet.

On Tuesday morning, spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda Morgan said
it would be “premature” to discuss the measure because it was not yet signed by the
president. She did not respond to a request for comment after the bill was
signed by Obama in the afternoon.

Officials at Lockheed Martin, the main U.S. contractor for
MEADS International, say they are expecting the money will be used to fund the
program in 2013, although the company has not yet received any guidance from
the Pentagon.

“Clearly we were very pleased when Congress passed the FY13
omnibus,” Marty Coyne, director of business development for MEADS
International, told The Hill.

“We haven’t
been told anything yet, but we’re optimistic that we’ll be authorized those
funds to complete the development.”

MEADS was intended more than a decade ago to replace Raytheon’s
Patriot Missile system. The Army decided in 2011 it was not going to put the
system into operation, but it still wanted to complete the project’s “proof of
concept” development for the technology and to fulfill obligations to Italy and
Germany.

Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have engaged in an intense
lobbying battle over MEADS as lawmakers have attempted to kill the project,
industry sources say.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) lambasted the program last week
as the “missile to nowhere,” as she launched an unsuccessful attempt on the
Senate floor to remove funding from the appropriations bill. Her amendment was
not allowed a vote.

Her nonbinding amendment to eliminate funding for MEADS was
included in the Senate’s 2014 budget resolution, which passed 94-5.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate Defense Appropriations
subcommittee chairman, argued on the floor that the costs of terminating the
program were roughly equal to the costs to finish development, because the U.S.
would have to pay Italy and Germany for breaking its contract. Thus, the
Pentagon might as well fund the program, he said.

MEADS is funded by unused 2012 funds through the end of
March, meaning the Pentagon will likely need to make a decision soon on what to
do in 2013.

DOD won’t get much help from Congress. The congressional
committees that handle defense issues disagree over what the Pentagon can do
with the $380 million it’s been given for MEADS.

House appropriators say that the NDAA has precedent because
it sets Pentagon policy, and therefore the money can only cover termination
costs. Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) made a point of stating that during debate on the House floor earlier this month.  

But Senate appropriators argue the CR gives the Pentagon
discretion. An aide to Senate Defense Appropriations ranking member Richard
Shelby (R-Ala.) — one of five senators to vote against Ayotte’s budget
amendment — said the appropriations bill has precedent because it was the latest measure passed by Congress.

Even the Armed Services Committees, which initially passed the
prohibition on funding MEADS, are split.

A House Armed Services aide said that the funding tables in
the CR were made “binding,” which means they are considered legislative
language and have equal weight as the authorization bill provision that banned funding for
the medium-range missile program.

But a Senate Armed Services aide said the appropriators
could not overrule the prohibition.

“That provision is in the law and DOD has to abide by law —
they’re not going to ignore the fact that this is the law, even if there’s money
in CR-Appropriations bill,” the aide said.