Washington, D.C. – Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Ranking Member Michael Turner (R-Ohio) released the following prepared remarks for the subcommittee’s hearing on the Administration’s Space Posture Review and the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for national security space activities:
“Thank you Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming General Kehler, Mr. Butler, Ms. Sapp and Mr. Payton. Thank you for appearing before this subcommittee.
“I would like to start by highlighting the interim report on the Space Posture Review that the committee received in March. It describes today’s on-orbit and soon-to-be launched satellites, but doesn’t describe a future space posture.
“One could provide the same critique of the interim SPR as Ranking Member McKeon did of the QDR: ‘we find a QDR that basically reinforce[s] the status quo despite serious threats to our current capability. Thus, this QDR provides a force structure that is built for the wars we’re in today, when the purpose of the review is exactly the opposite—to prepare for the likely conflicts of tomorrow. One must ask: what’s new here?’
“I understand that the committee should receive the final Space Posture Review later this summer, after a new national space policy and strategy have been developed. I encourage the Administration to provide a forward-looking posture that will guide near-term and future investments in space.
“With respect to the budget request, major space acquisition programs such as AEHF, WGS, MUOS, GPS, and SBIRS appear funded consistent with previous plans, despite a 7-percent topline reduction. Finishing these acquisition programs and getting them on-orbit is important. Equally important are the investments in next-generation science and technology, and innovation and ingenuity that can lead to new—and sometimes revolutionary—capabilities. Yet these investments appear to be on the decline. How can our nation retain its leadership in space if our S&T investments are on the decline? Our committee required a Space Science and Technology Strategy in last year’s defense bill, and I look forward to receiving that.
“I would like to highlight a few other concerns that I hope our witnesses can address.
“First, I am deeply concerned about the industrial base for solid- and liquid-fueled rockets. Some defense officials have suggested that Air Force space launch costs could double in the outyears due to the termination of NASA’s Constellation program because all infrastructure costs currently shared by the Department of Defense (DoD) and NASA will be passed on to DoD. Exacerbating this issue is the apparent lack of any real new development effort to sustain the engineering and design talent, and a lack of funding to sustain unique production and manufacturing capabilities, particularly for ICBM solid rocket motors. What is the magnitude of this issue and how is the Department—and the interagency—approaching it?
“Second, the Defense Intelligence Agency recently issued guidance that restricts the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) from doing ‘original analysis’ in certain counterspace areas. I understand that many of your organizations have a long history of reliance on NASIC’s technical expertise and analysis. Limiting their ability to continue to provide such support cannot be in our best interest, especially with the Department’s increased emphasis on space situational awareness and space protection.
“Third, we saw a major change in the joint NPOESS weather satellite program. The committee was told that differences between DoD and NOAA/NASA could not be resolved, so the White House decided in February to restructure the program and allow each party to go its own way. However, neither DoD nor NOAA and NASA appear to have a clear way forward.
“It has been over a year since the Transformational Satellite Communications (TSAT) program was terminated, yet we still don’t have a plan for the way ahead in military satellite communications. I am concerned that we may see the pattern repeat itself with the way ahead after NPOESS. Any insight our witnesses can share on these activities is appreciated.
“Fourth, I hope our witnesses will discuss their views on Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). Later this year, an ORS satellite developed in response to a CENTCOM urgent need is planned for launch. Last December, General Chilton issued an urgent need request for options to augment the missile warning constellation. Is this the right role and focus for ORS?
“Lastly, we are fortunate to have witnesses that are also experts in the cyber domain. General Kehler and Mr. Butler, I am interested in your assessment of the Department’s cyberspace capabilities and challenges. What are the Department’s goals and does it have the policies, tools, people, and resources to achieve them?
“Thank you again for being with us today. You each possess a tremendous amount of expertise and insight on our nation’s space and cyber policy and capabilities, and our nation is better off as a result of your service. I look forward to your testimony.”
#####