NEW YORK, May 5 (OneWorld) - In a gesture of defiance to the Bush administration, lawmakers responsible for deciding budgetary allocations for defense from both major political parties have decided to cut some of the funding for the controversial National Missile Defense (NMD) system and space weapons research.

Completing its markup of the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization bill this week, members of the House Armed Services Committee slashed $184 million from the administration's funding request for missile defense programs.

The bipartisan move comes as proponents have consistently failed to provide sufficient evidence that the the NMD system works. Over the years, the military has spent billions of dollars on research related to building missile defenses, but without any major breakthrough.

Having received an annual amount of $7 billion to $9 billion for missile defenses in previous years, this year the administration wanted the Congress to approve $10.4 billion, even though tests have repeatedly failed to produce desirable results.

Proponents say the missile defenses will prove to be more effective in protecting U.S. territory from attacks by long-range ballistic missiles, but critics have long argued that such a project is not only technically infeasible, but could also hinder efforts to stop the global arms race.

Mindful of such dangers, many former military generals and independent defense industry watchers have repeatedly urged the administration to reconsider its defense priorities. They think that under the given circumstances, the administration's priority should instead be combating the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Experts also argue that even if the technology worked, the systems being deployed will remain vulnerable to countermeasures that are easier to build than the long-range missile on which they would be placed.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an independent think-tank based in Boston, for example, suggests that the United States should cooperate with Russia and China on a range of nonproliferation and security issues. Getting that cooperation, experts say, will be easier if the United States does not proceed with a missile defense program that Russia and China find potentially threatening.

The Russians had long relied on the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the United States, but in its pursuit to build missile defenses the Bush administration has abrogated that treaty.

Those critical of the administration's approach say they consider the bipartisan response to Bush's request for more funding for missile defenses to be a step in the right direction.

Expressing its skepticism over the administration's increasing emphasis on research related to missile defenses, the Armed Services Committee has asked for a report on the need and consequences of space-based programs.

"The Committee has wisely restricted space-based interceptors and advanced laser technology that could lead to war in space and called for understanding the implications of going forward," said Dr. Laura Grego, a scientist with the Global Security Program of the UCS.

"The United States will be the big loser if we go forward with space weapons," Grego added.

Though cuts in the opposed amount for spending on missile defense are not much compared to the overall budgetary allocation, observers see a significant shift in the perception of this issue on Capitol Hill.

"It simply makes sense to cut back on spending for the missile defense systems when programs to counter more urgent and more likely threats are underfunded," said Robert Gard, a retired military general who works with the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.

Gard sees the Republicans and Democrats "finally exercising their oversight responsibilities by forcing the Missile Defense Agency to slow down and shift away from the more pie-in-the-sky technologies."

Philip Coyle, a former assistant defense secretary agrees with Gard.

"The Committee showed that supporting and protecting our troops is their priority, not an ineffective, scarecrow missile defense," he says.

"Missile defense doesn't work against rocket propelled grenades, car bombs and improvised explosive devices, the threats that are killing and maiming thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq," he adds.

The Bush administration's overall 2007 budgetary allocation request for defense stands at about $440 billion, which exceeds the combined military expenditures of the world's 25 next most powerful nations.