Hearing of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee - Defense Intelligence Programs

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD (R-CO)

WITNESSES: STEPHEN CAMBONE, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE; LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH ALEXANDER, USA DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G-2, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; REAR ADMIRAL RICHARD PORTERFIELD, USN DIRECTOR OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE; MAJOR GENERAL RONALD SAMS, USAF, DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; MICHAEL DECKER, ACTING DIRECTOR FOR INTELLIGENCE, MARINE CORPS; BRIGADIER GENERAL DONALD WURSTER, USAF DIRECTOR FOR INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION OPERATIONS

LOCATION: 222 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. REED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Cambone, you've been a promoter of the space-based radar system to develop a global persistent surveillance. We are having a difficult time funding space systems in general-many of them are difficult in terms of cost overruns. And the modest version of the space-based radar being proposed has a substantial cost already-likely to grow.

What are you doing to ensure that we will have not only a feasible alternative,e but one that we can afford?

MR. CAMBONE: Yes, sir, three things, none of which may seem to be critical, but I think in fact is where we have to be focused if we're going to get to affordable systems, no matter whether they're in space or on the ground or at sea.

First, the contract proposal that has gone out is seeking not a point solution by a single contractor, but is looking for a first cut at the range of alternatives, trying to calculate the needed capability over against a range of metrics and measures about its application and use. So we'll have a better sense about the applicability of the system, its mission effectiveness, than we might otherwise have, and be able to define and refine its performance, because we have a habit of saying to ourselves space systems are expensive, so let's hang every Christmas tree bulb we can think of onto that platform, and that drives the cost up substantially. So the first thing is to work closely with the contractor community to make sure we understand the range of capability over the range of applications.

Secondly, we are working with that same contractor community to develop a new set of metrics to measure how this system should be analyzed-evaluated. And let me give you an example. Today we essentially have a single-shot camera approach to taking imagery. It takes a picture and it takes a picture and it takes a picture and it takes a picture. And so you could come up with some metrics: How many pictures can you take in a day, over what area, and so on and so forth. That's not how the space-based radar is going to work. The space-based radar will be about managing an output of energy, and that energy output will be relatively continuous. And so the area to be covered is sort of known. The question is: How much information are you going to be generating as that beam sweeps across the area of interest? And how do you understand its value? We've never done this before, and so we need to apply a new set of metrics back against the performance and the applications that I mentioned earlier.

And then, thirdly, Mr. (Teets ?) has written into the specifications for the contract that he wants the senior management for the program to be of long-serving managers. We have a habit of seeing people both on the government side and the contractor side move through the management ranks of these major programs. And he is looking for longevity in those programs. And hopefully he is going to see that the program manager has the kind of authority he needs to make certain that those standard elements of cost growth ,primarily requirements creep, are within his control-that is the program manager's control-and he's not forced to add things that he doesn't think are essential to the mission.

SEN. REED: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, the directive of establishing the assistant secretary of Defense for intelligence oversight provides that that secretary shall review all allegations that raise questions of the legality or the propriety of intelligence activities in the Department of Defense. Also, he is supposed to report at least quarterly to the secretary of Defense on any DOD intelligence activities of questionable legality or propriety. Questions have been raised publicly about the Office of Special Plans. What is your relationship to the assistant secretary of Defense for intelligence oversight, and has he issued any reports with respect to the Office of Special Plans?

MR. CAMBONE: The assistant is just what his title implies, which is that he is in a direct-report status relative to the secretary of Defense. So he, that person, that office, does not report to my office; nor do I have any authority over that office. And we did that as a-we decided to do that. That was a positive decision, because in fact you do want to have an independent eye looking at that kind of question.

Secondly, he would not normally be asked to do that, because the-as Mr. Feith has I think testified before the Congress on a number of occasions, that office was not an intelligence function over the oversight of that office.

SEN. REED: It was not an intelligence function, but I think colloquially at least it was conducting intelligence activities. It was analyzing --

MR. CAMBONE: I don't think so, sir. What they did-I mean, every office within the department receives each day some package of intelligence materials, whether it's in the services or in the office of the secretary or down in the Joint Staff. And in the case of the policy community, each of the subordinate officers receives that information. And I think that you would agree that they would be remiss if they did not read, absorb, and do what they should with the intelligence that's provided to them; and that is to formulate the policy positions of the department relative to the issues of the day. And my understanding from Mr. Feith is that that was the office that that office played in the course of time it was in being.

SEN. REED: I find the answer less than satisfying, substantively and intellectually. Thank you.