Hearing of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee - FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense

Statement

U.S. Congressman Mike Turner (R-Ohio), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, released the following opening statement in conjunction with the subcommittee's hearing on the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for missile defense programs:

"Members have several issues they want to address today, so I will keep my remarks brief and would ask our witnesses to summarize their statements so we can spend the bulk of our time on questions and discussion.

"First, I am deeply concerned about the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system in Alaska and California. The back-to-back flight test failures this past year raise doubts about the reliability and effectiveness of this capability. I had the opportunity to talk with General O'Reilly yesterday, and I appreciate his efforts to establish a rigorous failure review and mitigation process. However, I question the Administration's long-term commitment to "getting it right.'

"While I understand there are some changes to the program this year, I have also observed the funding for GMD plummet over the past few years. In Fiscal Year 2010, the President's budget request slashed it by $445 million. Last year, we saw a restoration of some funds, but then again this year, the program is cut by $185 million. Furthermore, the outyear spending profile for GMD is $1 billion less than was projected a year ago. With these levels of cuts, it is clear that something will be broke or something won't get done. I worry that these test failures may be a harbinger of further setbacks if we don't make GMD a priority and devote the resources necessary to make it right. After all remember what is at stake: GMD is currently the only missile defense system that protects the United States homeland from long-range ballistic missile attacks. We have to get it right.

"Second, a year ago, I was highly critical of the Administration for the lack of information it was providing to Congress on the Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for missile defense in Europe. In the past several months, we have seen significant improvement in engagement with our committee, and I want to commend our witnesses for that.

"Last month while in Brussels, I had the opportunity to meet with Admiral Stavridis and other NATO and European Command officials to discuss progress in PAA implementation. I also met with NATO parliamentarians and was pleased to see how far the missile defense discussion in Europe had advanced from three years ago.

"No doubt, there is significant work ahead that I would ask our witnesses to discuss today. On the policy front, a near-term decision must be made on where to locate a forward-based X-band radar. Charting a path forward with Russia while also protecting our interests will continue to be challenging.

"On the programmatic front, there is a substantial amount of development and testing required to ensure new systems and technologies planned for PAA are "proven.' There are still considerable technology risk reduction activities that must be accomplished in the Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block 2-A and Block 2-B programs; both of which are key to protecting Europe and the U.S.

"Some of us also remain concerned about the Department's hedging strategy for defense of the homeland in case the long-range threat comes earlier or technical issues arise in the development of a new SM-3 interceptor. I came away from our PAA hearing last December believing that the Department's hedging strategy was hollow. Since then, I understand the Department has worked in earnest to develop the strategy, and I hope our witnesses can discuss some of this.

"Third, the budget request contains approximately $400 million in 2012 and another $400 million in 2013 for the Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS)-- a joint U.S., German and Italian missile defense system that the Department does not plan to continue beyond design and development due to cost and schedule overruns. I understand the government's contract termination obligations, but spending $800 million--in this budget environment--on a program that is not going forward into production makes no sense. These resources could be better spent on other missile defense priorities. Is the Department looking at options to lower this liability?

"Fourth, we need to continue to invest in innovative science and technology. Last year, our committee expressed bipartisan concern that the budget request for Directed Energy Research appeared insufficient to maintain the Airborne Laser Testbed aircraft, conduct flight experiments, and fund technology maturation of innovative directed energy concepts. This year, the budget request is less than last year's, which only heightens my concern that MDA, and the scientists and engineers it leverages, lack the resources to make major advancements in this technology area.

"On a final note, I would like to thank Dr. Roberts and General O'Reilly for their participation in the committee's "101' briefings. These sessions have provided members with a greater understanding of the complex issues and programs within our subcommittee's jurisdiction, and ultimately, they improve our ability to do effective oversight.

"Thank you again to all of our witnesses for their service and for being with us today. I look forward to your testimony."

Source