After opening remarks from our witnesses, we will observe the five minute rule while conducting questioning today. Dr. Gansler, Lt. Gen. Lyles, Lt. Gen. Martin, the FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JACQUES S. GANSLER BEFORE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEES ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FY 2000 BUDGET FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE FEBRUARY 25, 1999 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and staff, It is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss the Administration's strategy to protect both our warfighters and our homeland from the growing threat posed by weapons of mass destruction delivered by ballistic missiles. General Lyles, General Martin, and I will review with you the architecture we envision to provide that protection, and the programs we are currently pursuing within that architecture. I have a formal statement that I have submitted for the record, but I would prefer instead to brief a few charts on the history and status of the ballistic missile defense program. Before I do so, however, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for the strong support it has given to missile defense, to include the recent authorization and appropriation of additional funds for the program. THE THREAT Our defense strategy for the 21st century seeks to shape the international security environment in ways favorable to U.S. interests, to prepare for an uncertain future, and to respond to the full spectrum of threats--from whatever the source. A series of very dramatic and terrifying world events this past year has made us painfully aware of the vast, complex geopolitical, economic, and technological upheaval that is taking place in the world. We no longer need to be reminded that we face a very real--and present--set of new threats from a variety of asymmetric forces capable of being directed against us from all parts of the world. I need not tell the members of the committee that recent terrorist bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo, the North Korean and Iranian ballistic missile launches, the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan, the growing proliferation of low-cost cruise and ballistic missiles, and the sophisticated cyber attacks on the U.S. Department of Defense computer systems have brought home to all of us the very real nature of the present and growing threats to our national security. Today, more than 20 countries possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction. More than 20 nations have theater ballistic missiles or cruise missiles to deliver them. Some of these countries are developing much longer-range ballistic missiles. Theater-range missiles already in hostile hands pose an immediate and increasing threat to U.S. interests, military forces, and allies. More countries are acquiring ballistic missiles with ranges up to 1,000 km, and more importantly, with ranges between 1,000 km and 3,000 km. Iran's flight test of its Shahab 3 medium-range missile demonstrates that we are no longer dealing with a hypothetical threat. We are dealing with a real threat that is with us now. With a range of 1,300 km, the Shahab 3 significantly alters the military equation in the Middle East by giving Tehran the capability to strike targets in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and most of Turkey. Among those countries seeking longer-range missiles, North Korea is the most advanced: a judgement underscored by the recent launch of the Taepo Dong-1. The U.S. missile defense program underscores the urgency of meeting this immediate threat. A missile defense system reduces the likelihood that a ballistic missile attack could achieve its intended objectives. Equally important, missile defenses contribute to the reduction and prevention of missile proliferation and strengthen regional stability, both critical for shaping the international security environment. THE ADMINISTRATION'S STRATEGY Our current missile defense program is affordable and can be successfully executed. It is well matched to the missile threats we will face. In addition, we have increased funding in the FY 2000 President's Budget for the National Missile Defense and Navy Theater Wide programs. As we began our deliberations in support of the FY 2000 President's Budget submission, we were faced with making a number of decisions affecting both the ballistic missile defense mission and other missions of the Department, as well as decisions on how to proceed with programs within the ballistic missile defense arena: when to provide the funding to deploy our National Missile Defense program, how best to field an upper-tier Theater Missile Defense system quickly and affordably, what quantities of our lower-tier systems we should buy, and how quickly to proceed with our Airborne and Space Based Laser efforts. We also had to align the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) components to make the best use of our existing missile warning assets as well meet the needs of our missile defense mission, taking into account both resource and technology constraints and their impact on setting realistic launch dates. The decisions we made were based on the Department's fundamental priorities concerning our missile defense program. These priorities have not changed over the past year. We must defend U.S. troops against the threat posed by theater ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Within the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) mission area, we must first field systems to defend against the existing short-to-medium-range missiles--our lower-tier systems. Next we must proceed to add upper-tier systems for defenses over wide areas against longer-range theater ballistic missiles as that threat emerges and as our technology |