MissileThreat.com

Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation offers three criteria to appraise the presidential candidates' attitudes towards missile defense, as compared to other supporters currently in the House of Representatives.  The first criterion is whether a candidate would support an amendment introduced by Representative Trent Franks, to restore the $764 million that the House Armed Services Committee had cut from the missile defense budget. "The Franks amendment lost narrowly, but any presidential candidate who supports restoring these needed funds understands the need for robust missile-defense funding, and space-based defenses in particular," writes Spring.  The second criterion is whether they support Representative Duncan Hunter's amendment to increase our cooperative missile defense program with Israel.  "We have cooperative programs in place with Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom, among others. A new arrangement is being negotiated with the Czech Republic and Poland. ... Any candidate who tries to facilitate cooperation with our allies on this issue can fairly be described as a genuine supporter of missile defense."  The third standard Spring suggests is whether the cadidates support an amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions to clarify the President's authority to place developing systems on an alert or stand-by status.  "No genuine supporter of missile defense would deprive a future president of the option of putting the system on alert, a step President Bush took when North Korea launched a salvo of missiles in July 2006."