Panel I of A Hearing of the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - Oversight of Missile Defense (Part Three): Questions for the Missile Defense Agency

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. BETTY MCCOLLUM (D-MN): I would like to yield to Mr. Van Hollen.

REP. TIERNEY: -- Mr. Van Hollen is recognized. I didn't see him over there.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): (Off mike.)

REP. TIERNEY: You're recognized for five minutes, Mr. Van Hollen. You're not ready.

Ms. McCollum you're recognized for five minutes after all.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I'm ready.

After the expert testimony from the first two hearings, I believe it made more sense to move the Missile Defense Agency to the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. (Scattered laughter.)

It's hard to believe, and it's impossible for me to explain to my constituents why we're spending $10 billion every year on a Cold War program that's based on a series of very questionable assumptions. And General, just from the last bit of the conversation -- between you and the chairman, I would have to ask you do you have any real fears that al Qaeda, who is our number one enemy, would ever be able to build or launch a nuclear-tipped missile at the United States?

GEN. OBERING: Ma'am, you put your finger on a very important concern, and that is while the number of countries have grown since --

REP. MCCOLLUM: I asked you about al Qaeda.

GEN. OBERING: I'm getting to that, ma'am.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Could you -- I only have five minutes. I asked you do you have a fear that al Qaeda could be in possession of --

GEN. OBERING: I have fear that as the access to these weapons have grown because of the lack of missile defenses, I do believe that organizations like al Qaeda have a likelihood of getting their hands on them and being able to launch these weapons.

REP. MCCOLLUM: In the near future?

GEN. OBERING: We've already seen states pass missiles to non- state actors in the Middle East. We've seen Iran and Syria handing over short-range missiles to Hezbollah to launch against Israel.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Our allies are the ones who possess the technology. Do you think al Qaeda is going to get this from our allies? You've assumed --

(Cross talk.)

GEN. OBERING: Ma'am, it's more than our allies that possess this --

REP. MCCOLLUM: So does Syria have this capability of giving this to al Qaeda?

GEN. OBERING: North Korea has the technology. The experts agree. There was an article in The Washington Post just this year on a --

REP. MCCOLLUM: General, I'm going to move on, because you and I disagree on this. I don't think al Qaeda has immediate capability on this.

Are there cheaper ways to strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction than long-range missiles? Yes or no?

GEN. OBERING: Well, first of all, ma'am, I think that it depends on a lot of different factors. Number one, would it be cheaper or easier? I'm not an expert in smuggling in weapons of mass destruction. What I can say is it was very cheap, relatively speaking, for us to launch a target off of a ship off the coast of --

(Cross talk.)

REP. MCCOLLUM: Sir, I asked you a question. I -- this is hard for me to do this, I want you to know. We were stationed at Wright- Patterson when my sister was born. This is with the utmost respect, but I only have five minutes, okay? Are there cheaper ways to strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction than with long- range missiles?

GEN. OBERING: Ma'am, I'm not an expert on other than the missile threat, so I can talk about the missile defenses to those threats.

REP. MCCOLLUM: So you're not aware that there are any more reliable or accurate ways at all than long-range missiles to attack the United States?

GEN. OBERING: I do know that by launching a missile from a ship off the coast, you control everything up to the launch of that missile and -- (inaudible) -- take over.

(Cross talk.)

REP. MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to focus then on costs in the next round, when I can go into it, serving on the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you for trying to answer my questions, General.

GEN. OBERING: Yes, ma'am.

REP. MCCOLLUM: For your attempt.

REP. TIERNEY: Thank you.

Mr. Van Hollen, would you like Mr. Welch to go, or do you want to -- I'm trying to accommodate your schedule.

Mr. Welch, you're recognized for five minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sir, I'm going to read from your testimony on page 17. Quote: "There is one real-world example of where missile defense did not play a role, and that provides an important lesson -- September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on our country. According to the Government Accountability Office, the direct cost of September 11th, 2001 attacks on New York City was $83 billion. That was an attack that did not involve weapons of mass destruction," end of quote. And I know you and I also reflect a great sadness at the loss of life on September 11th.

This is my dilemma. We need to have a comprehensive threat assessment across all sectors -- ballistic missile threat, smuggled nukes in cargo containers. So General, I want to find out. Have you been part of interdepartment conversations that involve both Defense and Homeland Security to try to figure out the right funding mix across this entire country? We have limited resources.

GEN. OBERING: Ma'am, my role in that is to provide what the cost would be to protect against a ballistic missile attack, both for our deployed forces, for short range, medium range, intermediate range and long range.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Do you believe, as a citizen, as a patriot of this country, as a person in your capacity, though, that funding decisions should be based on the overall threat assessment --

GEN. OBERING: Yes, ma'am, of course.

REP. MCCOLLUM: -- to all threats to the United States?

GEN. OBERING: Obviously.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Over the next five years, the Pentagon is requesting another $62.5 billion for missile defense. If Congress supports this spending on missile defense, by the end of 2013, $110 billion will have been spent since 2003. I want to say that again -- $110 billion will have been spent just since 2003. That's not counting the missile defense spending in the previous 10, 20, 40 years.

So I have a couple of questions that maybe you can help with me. As I pointed out, I also serve on the Appropriations Committee. How much money is it going to cost to complete the overall BMD system? And will the overall BMD system be complete? How much money will it cost to complete the ground-based GMD system? And when will the GMD system be complete?

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated for us that if the Missile Defense Agency continues its course, the taxpayers will spend an additional $213 (billion) to $277 billion between now and 2025. Do you agree with this assessment? And, if not, could you tell me, as specifically as you can, why you do not? I'd like to get down to the money, because there are other defense needs.

GEN. OBERING: Okay. If I go back to your first question, am I concerned or would I be interested in, as a citizen or patriot, in terms of the overall threat assessment, the answer is yes. Do I believe that we have the option or the freedom to pick and choose which one of those that we can ignore? No, ma'am, I don't, because --

REP. MCCOLLUM: General, I didn't say about ignoring. I just wanted --

GEN. OBERING: Okay, but I'm saying -- but let me, if I can answer, I think it's important that we cover all of those threats, because as soon as we announce that we're not going to cover a missile defense threat or the missile threat, that will be the avenue by which we're attacked, number one.

You asked me about what it will take to finish the program. If you can tell me what the threats are going to be in the next 10, 15 and 20 to 25 years, I can answer that. But nobody can.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Sir, did we not have a goal with stated objectives when we started this program of where we would be, and then --

GEN. OBERING: Yes, ma'am.

I can tell you that we're meeting our goals for the first phase of the ground-base midcourse system -- that's the way I describe it -- which is we are buying, with the 2009 budget, the last of the missiles that we would need for the installation in the United States -- 44 interceptors.

We've already paid for the sensors --

REP. MCCOLLUM: It's on track.

GEN. OBERING: Pardon me?

REP. MCCOLLUM: Everything's on track.

GEN. OBERING: It's on track for the ones that we have in place or that we have planned to place in the United States.

REP. MCCOLLUM: On track with no cost overruns.

GEN. OBERING: Ma'am, actually, that cost for the GMD contract, we're within right now 9 percent estimated completion of that cost, which is pretty good in terms of the department's standards.

And that's an effort that's been ongoing over 10 years now. It's about an eight to 10 year contract.

The next phase, if you want to call it that, will be the deployment to European site. We have costed that to be anywhere from 3.5 (billion dollars) to $4 billion. That includes the interceptors, the radars, the support for that, the communications and everything else.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Let me go back, then.

Do you agree with the Congressional Budget Office that we're going to spend an additional 213 --

GEN. OBERING: No, ma'am. I don't. I don't. I don't agree.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Can you submit to this committee why you disagree with the Congressional Budget Office?

GEN. OBERING: Yes, ma'am. I can. I will do so. I'll do that in writing.

I'll tell you why I would not agree with that, because they're making assumptions about what we continue, what we will not continue, that I don't think are accurate. So I'd like to do that in writing.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Well, sir, with all due respect, you just said that this program has no end, because you have to completely be reassessing.

GEN. OBERING: Yes, ma'am. But I'm talking about a matter of degree about which programs you carry in total.

Let me give an example: Do we need two boost-phase defense programs -- the kinetic energy interceptor and the airborne laser? The answer's no. If the airborne laser works and if we can make that operation affordable, then we would pursue that program.

So I believe what we're talking about is a matter of degree in terms of what we carry forward.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I realize my time is up, but I want to note that your budget of $10 billion is one-third of the total budget for homeland security. And that is the dilemma this Congress faces.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Source