Sen. Strom Thurmond, Chair, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ballistic Missile Defense Program Review
6 March 1996 - Senate Armed Services Committee
The Committee meets today to receive testimony from Dr. Paul G. Kaminski, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, regarding the Department of Defense's recent ballistic missile defense program review.
Dr. Kaminski, we thank you for your willingness to appear before the Committee on such short notice. As you know, the Committee is extremely interested in the Department's approach to ballistic missile defense policy and programming, and we anxiously await your testimony.
In the Committee's letter of invitation we asked that you address the assumptions, requirements, and methodology that you employed in conducting the BMD program review. Since Committee members have a significant number of questions on these issues and related matters, I urge you to summarize your opening statement so that we can get to questions as soon as possible.
Before I recognize the Ranking Minority Member for his opening statement, let me make a few brief observations based on what I know about the Department's BMD program review.
First, I am very concerned that, at a time when Congress is so clearly indicating its support for accelerating critical theater and national defense programs, the Department is promoting a status quo approach and, in key instances, actually reducing the level of effort and priority. I am particularly troubled by what appears to be a decision to downgrade the priority given to the upper tier theater missile defense programs -- the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system and the Navy Upper Tier system.
If we learned nothing else from Operation Desert Storm, we certainly learned that the defense of population centers and other wide-area targets from ballistic missile attack is a critical requirement of coalition warfare. But now, five years after the Gulf War, the Administration seems willing to put off deployment of such capabilities for another decade.
Although the BMD program review recommended a modest increase in funding for National Missile Defense, the Administration's NMD program remains fundamentally a go-slow, wait-and-see program. Additional resources will almost certainly be required if we are to attain a capability to defend the United States against a limited ballistic missile attack by the year 2003, as advocated by Congress.My second concern is that the results of the BMD program review appear to violate the spirit and letter of Public Law 104106, the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 234 of that Act clearly requires, as a matter of law, that the Department include the Navy Upper Tier system in the Core TMD Program and that all Core TMD systems be set on an accelerated schedule.
From what I can see, the Department disregarded the law, and assumed positions that would take us in the opposite direction. For example, Navy Upper Tier has been explicitly excluded from the Core TMD Program. THAAD and Navy Upper Tier have been decelerated not accelerated. Even programs that have received additional funding, as a result of the BMD Program Review, such as Patriot Advanced Capability- 3 have experienced schedule slips beyond the deployment dates identified in law.
My third concern is that there appears to be no change in requirements or threat to justify the significant BMD budget reductions advocated by the Department. From what I have been able to discern, dire budget constraints, and little else, produced the results of this BMD budget review. How else can we justify a $2 billion reduction to the THAAD five year budget.
After listening to Admiral Owens and other military experts, I now know the full scale of the Department's procurement crisis, but this simply does not justify such dramatic cuts in critical BMD programs. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Department has just produced the most recent in a series of arbitrary, budget-driven cuts to the BMD program.
I have several other issues and concerns that I will get to during the question period, and I certainly look forward to hearing from Dr. Kaminski on those I have raised so far. In the interest of time, however, let me now turn to the Ranking Minority Member for any opening statement he may have.
ATTACHMENT
ARMED SERVICES CHAIRMAN CALLS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Will Convene Hearing to Receive DoD Testimony
WASHINGTON, MARCH 4, 1996 -- Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), today called for a hearing of the committee to receive testimony from Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology), Paul G. Kaminski, concerning the 1996 Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Update Review recently conducted by the Department of Defense.
The review, recently undertaken by the department, recommended that BMD funding could be significantly reduced and that deployment of upper tier Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems could be delayed. "This review completely disregards the critical need to provide protection to our forces in the field and ignores the overwhelming view in Congress that deployment of upper tier TMD systems should be accelerated. It also violates a requirement contained in the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act that deployment of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system and the Navy Upper Tier system take place shortly after the turn of the century," said Chairman Thurmond.
"Regarding National Missile Defense, President Clinton recently vetoed the FY 96 Defense Authorization Bill, citing the Ballistic Missile Defense provision as one of the reasons for the veto. Shortly after that, the Department of Defense released findings of the 1996 Ballistic Missile Defense Update Review which continue the go-slow approach to NMD. I strongly disagree with the President and the Department of Defense. I deeply believe that all Americans should be protected from the threat of long-range ballistic missiles. Despite the decline of the Soviet Union, that threat remains very real today," Thurmond concluded.
The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 6, 1996; and will be held at 9:30 a.m. in Room SDG-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
ARMED SERVICES CHAIRMAN CALLS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Will Convene Hearing to Receive DoD Testimony
WASHINGTON, MARCH 4, 1996 -- Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), today called for a hearing of the committee to receive testimony from Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology), Paul G. Kaminski, concerning the 1996 Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Update Review recently conducted by the Department of Defense.
The review, recently undertaken by the department, recommended that BMD funding could be significantly reduced and that deployment of upper tier Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems could be delayed. "This review completely disregards the critical need to provide protection to our forces in the field and ignores the overwhelming view in Congress that deployment of upper tier TMD systems should be accelerated. It also violates a requirement contained in the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act that deployment of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system and the Navy Upper Tier system take place shortly after the turn of the century," said Chairman Thurmond.
"Regarding National Missile Defense, President Clinton recently vetoed the FY 96 Defense Authorization Bill, citing the Ballistic Missile Defense provision as one of the reasons for the veto. Shortly after that, the Department of Defense released findings of the 1996 Ballistic Missile Defense Update Review which continue the go-slow approach to NMD. I strongly disagree with the President and the Department of Defense. I deeply believe that all Americans should be protected from the threat of long-range ballistic missiles. Despite the decline of the Soviet Union, that threat remains very real today," Thurmond concluded.
The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 6, 1996; and will be held at 9:30 a.m. in Room SDG-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
