Much to his credit, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently made what looks like a fateful attempt to stick a budgetary stake through the heart of the $11 billion Crusader artillery system. Unfortunately, weapons systems are a lot like vampires – they are pretty impossible to kill off.

The Crusader Artillery System is a gold-plated weapons system. Conceived more than a decade ago, this howitzer gun on steroids was designed to fight past wars. This forty-ton weapon that can fire at targets nearly 25 miles away is symbolic of ongoing problems at the Pentagon. Once a weapons program is born, it is nearly impossible to kill.

Rumsfeld should be applauded for his dogged efforts to transform the US military into a more nimble force that can fight the new wars of the 21st century. Giving the axe to programs that are relics of the Cold War will make room in the budget for other priorities. Sadly, even though this weapons program no longer has an enemy to fight, many lawmakers are crusading to keep the program alive.

In fact, late last night the big spenders in the House voted 359-58 to retain money for the embattled artillery cannon in the Defense Authorization bill. The Senate is expected to vote on a similar bill next week.

Not surprisingly, the staunchest Crusader supporters represent states that are home to its contractors. The system is planned to be built and housed in Oklahoma, but other parts of its development are spread across the country. The primary contractor, United Defense Industries, is owned by the Carlyle Group — a politically connected investment bank that has contributed over $460,000 to political parties and campaigns since 2000.

After September 11, newer threats to national security have fetched more funding than ever before for the Pentagon. However, even with a budget of close to $400 billion, it is more vital than ever that the agency transforms itself by prioritizing funding for programs that fit into our long-term national defense strategy.

The Pentagon's decision to kill the Crusader was a smart decision that enables taxpayer dollars to be directed towards weapons systems that better meet our 21st century defense needs. Congress is proving itself to be a lot less flexible with their business-as-usual mentality that places a high priority on meeting the needs of defense contractors who make large campaign contributions.

It has not gone unnoticed that this is not the first time that Congress has thwarted an attempt by a Pentagon chief to kill off a useless weapons program. Defense contractors have learned very well how to preserve lucrative contracts, regardless of cost overruns or faulty products. Their strategy includes garnering broad political support by spreading plants across the US – particularly in the districts of powerful leaders on Capitol Hill.

Other outdated weapons programs that are slated for elimination or reduction include the $26 billion V-22 Osprey and the $48 billion Comanche. In addition to being a waste of money, these programs have proven to be unsafe and their testing has cost dozens of lives.

Over the next few months, as the appropriations debate unfolds, Congress will have the opportunity to demonstrate fiscal responsibility by heeding the recommendations of the Pentagon administration and cutting funding for these wasteful and dangerous programs. It's time for lawmakers to start paying more attention to long-term strategic needs and the nation's pocket book when making decisions over controversial weapons programs.