Interceptor missile Alaska.JPG

The Pentagon is considering whether to build a missile-interceptor site at Fort Drum or three other East Coast sites. The photo shows a ground-based missile interceptor as it is lowered into its missile silo at the Missile Defense Complex at Fort Greely, Alaska. Eighteen interceptors are emplaced in two fields on the 800-acre complex. Photo by Sgt. Jack W. Carlson III, USA

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik last week touted her success at securing $30 million for an East Coast missile interceptor site that she wants built at Fort Drum.

But White House officials are singling out the project - unwanted by Pentagon leaders -- as an example of misguided spending priorities.

Stafanik's amendment is among more than 40 specific items listed by the White House as a reason why President Barack Obama would likely veto a $612 billion defense authorization bill passed Friday by the House.

The Office of Management and Budget said the Obama administration objects to spending the $30 million because other missile defense requirements have a higher priority. And the leader of the nation's missile defenses says the East Coast site is not needed to protect the homeland.

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is in the middle of a 30-month study ordered by Congress to evaluate potential East Coast missile interceptor sites. Environmental impact studies will look at sites in Maine, Michigan, Ohio and Northern New York's Fort Drum.

If the Pentagon moves forward with construction, the East Coast site would cost an estimated $3.6 billion and employ up to 1,800 military and civilian personnel and contractors, according to defense officials.

Stefanik, R-Willsboro, who represents Fort Drum's sprawling Army installation near Watertown, wants the $30 million to be used for the planning, design and construction of the missile interceptor site.

Her amendment, passed by the House as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2016, is part of a long-standing effort by House Republicans to build the nation's first missile interceptor site on the East Coast.

The two existing missile interceptor sites are on the West Coast, at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Fort Greely in Alaska.

Stefanik, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, is among members of Congress who say an East Coast missile defense site is necessary to counter emerging threats from Iran and North Korea.

"Simply put, missile defense shields our nation from hostile incoming warheads, and with the escalation of threats by rogue nations, like North Korea and Iran, the United States must be ready -- not just to retaliate, but to actually stop an attack," Stefanik said in a late April speech on the House floor. "We must be able to defend our nation and shoot it down."

Video of Rep. Elise Stefanik's speech about missile defense

Over the past two years, the top brass at the Pentagon repeatedly made it clear to Congress that an East Coast site is not a priority.

"We currently can defend the entire United States from an Iranian long-range missile threat," Arm Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., former head of the U.S. Northern Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2013.

Stefanik and other members of Congress note that Jacoby is not opposed to an East Coast site. She cited testimony from Jacoby in which he said a third missile defense site would provide "increased battle space, more decision time, increased reliability, more inventory and a different angle of intercept."

But Vice Admiral James D. Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency, told the House Armed Services Committee on March 19 that existing interceptor sites "provide capability necessary to protect the U.S. homeland against the current and projected ICBM threat from North Korea, as well as the future Iranian ICBM threat should it emerge."

Syring added, that "a decision to construct the new site would come at a significant material development and service sustainment cost." He said money would be better spent in the near-term on upgrading the capabilities of the existing missile interceptors.

The Senate is expected to begin considering its version of the National Defense Authorization Act in June. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he will advocate for the Fort Drum site if surrounding communities make it clear they would welcome the new neighbor and "military experts determine that a new system on the East Coast is necessary, workable and cost effective."



In August, the Missile Defense Agency held a public hearing in Carthage to ask for public comments about the potential Fort Drum site before the start of the environmental impact study. That study, at a cost of up to $5.5 million, should be complete by the end of summer 2016, according to the Missile Defense Agency.

Contact Mark Weiner anytime: Email | Twitter | Facebook | 571-970-3751