Opening Statement Rep. Curt Weldon Chairman, Military Research and Development Subcommittee The subcommittee will come to order. This morning, the Military Research and Development Subcommittee meets in open session to receive testimony on the ballistic missile defense programs of the Department of Defense. I want to welcome my colleague and good friend Owen Pickett, the ranking member of the R&D subcommittee. I also want to note that we have invited all members of the Procurement subcommittee to our hearing today, and I welcome Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Procurement Subcommittee and ranking member Norm Sisisky, and all my friends from the Procurement Subcommittee. [We are also honored to have Mr. Floyd Spence, Chairman of the full committee, with us today, and our good friend and ranking member, Mr. Ike Skelton.] We also welcome today's witnesses, Dr. Jacques Gansler, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Lt. Gen. Les Lyles, US Air Force, Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, and Lt. Gen. Gregory "Speedy" Martin, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. The Administration has made much of its proposal to add $12 billion to the fiscal year 2000 budget. Many on this committee have noted that much of that increase is based on calculated savings from lower inflation and fuel costs that may or not may not materialize. Others have noted that much of the increase goes toward the military pay raise, which, as important as it is, does nothing to address the military's growing modernization challenges. The Administration has also made much of the fact that the fiscal year 2000 budget includes a $4 billion increase for military procurement to enhance modernization. But I will point out now that the Administration also decreased R&D funding by $3 billion, a more than eight percent decrease compared to last year's budget. Procurement is an important part of modernization. But so is research and development. And R&D is continually being starved for funds, apparently to meet other needs. The situation in the Department's ballistic missile defense programs reflects this larger budget reality. I am pleased with some of the recent Administration BMD pronouncements. But this year's budget proposal reveals that fiscal constraints have driven key programmatic decisions which undermine our ability to meet the already existing ballistic missile threat. And that threat continues to surprise the military and intelligence communities with the speed at which it is increasing. am encouraged by the Administration's announcement that an additional $6.6 billion has been identified for a national missile defense that might be deployed. But I am concerned that the Administration has not committed to deploying this system. This failure to commit to deploying a system for which funding has been programmed seems inconsistent at best. It gives rise to the natural suspicion that the Administration is not really behind the program, and the funds identified for NMD could turn into a bank to be raided to pay for other needs. Indeed, the suggestion that NMD funds identified by the Administration may be used to implement the Wye River Middle East peace accords, to be restored to NMD only by the next Administration, just reinforces this impression. |