Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
FDCH Political Transcripts
May 9, 2000, Tuesday
TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING
LENGTH: 5164 words
HEADLINE:
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON (R-PA) HOLDS MILITARY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
MARKUP; MILITARY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, HOUSE
ARMED
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
CURT WELDON (R-PA), CHAIRMAN
BODY:
HOUSE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
HOLDS FY 2001 RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT MARKUP
MAY 9, 2000
SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON (R-PA), CHAIRMAN
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROSCOE G. BARTLETT (R-MD)
U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DON
SHERWOOD (R-PA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN R. KASICH (R-OH)
U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE HERBERT H. BATEMAN (R-VA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOEL HEFLEY
(R-CO)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN M. MCHUGH (R-NY)
U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD P. "BUCK" MCKEON (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN
N. HOSTETTLER (R-IN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE VAN HILLEARY (R-TN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOE
SCARBOROUGH (R-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER B. JONES (R-NC), VICE
CHAIR
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB RILEY (R-AL)
U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE OWEN B. PICKETT (D-VA), RANKING MEMBER
U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE TAYLOR (D-MS)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN T. MEEHAN
(D-MA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK J. KENNEDY (D-RI)
U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE SILVESTRE REYES (D-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS H.
ALLEN (D-ME)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE VIC SNYDER (D-AR)
U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM TURNER (D-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LORETTA SANCHEZ
(D-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ (D-TX)
U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT E. ANDREWS (D-NJ)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BARON P.
HILL (D-IN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN B. LARSON (D-CT)
*
WELDON: The subcommittee will come to order. Since we're going to have
series of votes shortly, I'm going to try to get through as much as we can. We
have a record for speediness, but we have to have a quorum to vote. And since
this is the last day for a couple of our colleagues, we want to take a little
bit longer, and ruin our record as the R&D Subcommittee with the quickest
possible time for markup.
That being said, I want to thank my good
friend, and ranking member, Owen Pickett, and all of our colleagues for joining
us today, to conduct a markup of the R&D Subcommittee portion of the fiscal
year 2000 defense bill. During preparation for the markup, I'm pleased to state
that we've received nothing but the strongest of bipartisan support from the
members of the full committee, and in particular, this subcommittee, as we've
worked our way through some difficult issues.
Throughout this
markup, we were able to stay the course in our goal to further defense research,
development and pursuit of advanced technologies for the future modernization of
our armed forces. I appreciate the support of all of our members, and look
forward to your solid support as we move through the remainder of this
legislative year.
Before we begin consideration of the bill, I want
to say a few words of behalf of two of our valued leaders on the subcommittee,
Mr. Owen Pickett, and chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Herb Bateman,
both who have announced their retirement after this year.
Owen is an
outstanding American. He is a strong bipartisan leader, with the full respect of
Democrats and Republicans, in support of both me, as the chairman, and he's
always demonstrated the highest of standards in fighting for strong RDT&E
budget for defense. Owen has never been afraid to speak out for what was right
in terms of the undermining of our R&D account lines, and the 25 percent cut
that we saw occur over the past several years, in terms of our R&D, and
science and technology funding.
Mr. Pickett has been a personal
champion of missile defense, of strong science and technology investment for the
future modernization, the acquisition process and its reform, and certainly the
Navy and its many programs. Mr. Pickett has fully supported the chairman, and
the committee staff, and assisted in building an impressive bipartisan R&D
subcommittee, has successfully fought for important increases in defense
funding, and yet challenged those increases not found in our military
requirements, and stated service needs. Owen has consistently been someone who
wanted to make sure that what we were doing was right for the military, and not
what was right for individual members' interests in terms of their parochial
needs in their districts.
I've had the pleasure of traveling with
Owen on a number of occasions, to Russia and throughout the world. He's a
gentleman, and he's probably the best example of what a member of Congress
should and could be: someone who does his homework, works very hard in a
diligent manner, and is there to work for the best interests of our country.
Owen, for that I say thank you.
My good friend, Herb Bateman, who
has chaired the Readiness Subcommittee, is another outstanding and dynamic
member of the full Armed Services Committee, and a champion on both readiness,
research, development, and really any area of the defense budget. Herb Bateman
has left his mark. He is truly the legislator that you would want to be there,
if you had a district that certainly had a strong presence of the military. But
beyond that, Herb Bateman has just been a fantastic member of Congress.
In the 14 years I've been here, I've always looked up to Herb
Bateman, as not just a senior member to me, but as someone who I consider to be
a role model. He's a Republican, and his Republican credentials have always
seemed to take us on the same course, in terms of where we're going. But he's
always been someone who stands up for what's right, speaks out for -- even when
our party is, perhaps, not doing the right thing, and stands up for what is in
the best interests of our military.
Herb and Owen have been kind a
team from Virginia. And I'll tell you, those poor folks in Virginia are really
going to be at a loss, because they have lost -- they are losing the dynamic
duo, because the Herb and Owen team is a team that probably sets an example for
bipartisan defense cooperation and leadership in the Congress. They are two
outstanding individuals, two outstanding members of this committee, two
outstanding members of Congress, and two outstanding Americans.
I
would ask my colleagues to join with me in a round of applause for our good
friends, Herb Bateman and Owen Pickett.
(APPLAUSE)
There's only one reason why I would let our subcommittee not have
the continued reputation of the shortest mark, and that is because of the time I
want to allow our colleagues to pay tribute to these two fine members. So at
this point in time, in mu opening statement, are there any members who would
like to make any additional comments in regard to either Mr. Pickett, or Mr.
Bateman, or both?
Mr. Bartlett?
BARTLETT: Mr. Chairman?
WELDON: I yield to Mr. Bartlett.
BARTLETT: Chairman,
when I came to the committee, I was pleased to find some other members who were
not quite my age, but roughly that age. It gave me some confidence that if they
were contributing, I could contribute. So I want to thank you both very much for
demonstrating that you can be even more effective in contributing to this
committee when you're a little beyond junior age.
You know, young
people today are very bright and very intelligent, but there's something that
you only acquire with age, and that is wisdom. And thank you both very much for
the wisdom that you have brought to this committee.
WELDON: How
about gray hair? You get that with age too, do you not, Roscoe?
BARTLETT: Well, I don't have gray hair yet, and I hope not to get
it. Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
WELDON: Roscoe, what's your
secret?
BARTLETT: I chose good parents.
WELDON: OK. Not
those 10 children you have?
BARTLETT: No, they didn't give me any
gray hairs -- 10 children, and not a single gray hair from them.
WELDON: Are there any other members who wish to be recognized at
this point in time, before we proceed to the markup?
TAYLOR: Mr.
Chairman?
WELDON: Mr. Taylor?
TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, last
Friday, I had the opportunity to visit the Red Cloud, which is the Army's newest
pre-positioned ship, down in Charleston. And it was a ship that, by everyone's
estimation, is only in the budget because of the work of the former Seapower
Subcommittee. And two of the most active members of that committee were Mr.
Pickett and Mr. Bateman.
So on behalf of the shipbuilding Mafia
members who are not present, we would like to say how very much they're going to
be missed. And I would hope that -- I'll make one final request of them, is that
we hope that they will try to bring their follow-ons up to speed on the
importance of sealift, and the importance of a strong Navy, and just say, on
behalf of all of us, they're really going to be missed.
WELDON:
Well, Gene, we appreciate those comments. And knowing of your leadership in the
Seapower Mafia, we're going to -- they're going to -- you're going to sorely
miss their support in your efforts on shipbuilding.
Are there any
other members who wished to be recognized?
Mr. Sherwood?
SHERWOOD: Mr. Chairman, it's a lot of fun for me to be able to say
something nice about these two gentlemen, because, being here a very short time,
and I came in and got to know Herb and Owen, and served on committee with them,
and I found myself, when I'd have a real tough vote, looking up to see how Herb
Bateman and Owen Pickett voted. And I always thought, if I could vote with them,
I was in good company. And so, gentlemen, congratulations and thank you.
WELDON: Thank you, Mr. Sherwood.
Are they any other
members who wish to be recognized?
With that, we'll proceed to the
markup of the R&D portion of the defense request. Members, you have before
you a package that includes copies of directed report language, and bill
language containing Title 2, and a list of program-increase highlights that are
reflected in the chairman's mark.
The fiscal year 2001 budget
request includes the first increase in R&D over previous Department of
Defense requests in five years. While the official statements from the
department represent this DOD request as sufficient to address all high-priority
needs of the services and other defense agencies, the committee noted large
numbers of high-priority unfunded R&D requirements among the $15 billion in
modernization shortfalls identified by the service chiefs.
The
committee also notes that the list of the four service chiefs do not address any
of the important unfunded and under-funded programs under BMDO, Special
Operations Command and other defense-wide agencies. The R&D Subcommittee,
with the strong support and substantial allocation provided by Chairman Floyd
Spence, recommended authorization for fiscal year 2001, Title 2 R&D funding
at $39.3 billion. This represents an increase of $1.4 billion to the president's
request.
This important increase has been worked in full cooperation
with Chairman Duncan Hunter and the Procurement Subcommittee, responsible for
oversight of the EMD portion of Title 2, and both subcommittees have made every
effort to focus the much needed additional funds on the services' unfunded
requirements.
The highlights before you show that the R&D
Subcommittee areas of jurisdiction represents $988 million of the total
increase, including a portion of the intelligence budget, and the Procurement
Subcommittee was responsible for $420 million. The R&D Subcommittee made
every effort to address these critical unfunded and under-funded areas, and
dedicated over 76 percent of all additional funds under its jurisdiction to
restore many of these unfunded priorities.
Other important
priorities supported by the services were also increased where they were found
to be executable. Other important areas of the R&D Subcommittee include --
we identify new technology areas, not addressed by the services' near-term, and
legacy system improvement R&D investments, and direct funding to those areas
where the services or agencies were structuring executable programs and could
identify validated or emerging requirements.
We strengthen the DOD
and service science and technology programs. One of our major priorities has
been to increase what has been a continuing decline in science and technology
accounts. We have supported bipartisan initiatives, to include counterterrorism,
cyberwarfare, defense against weapons of mass destruction, and theater and
national missile defense. Each of these initiatives, we plussed up funding above
and beyond the president's request.
In fact, I am very pleased with
the outcome of our effort. And I am pleased with the fact that we've been able
to, I think, have a significant impact on the way that we're going to allocate
our R&D portion of the defense dollar in this fiscal year.
This
subcommittee has led this country, for the past six years, in focusing on
information dominance and cyberterrorism. We have focused on what -- responding
to weapons of mass destruction. And we have led the effort, consistently, in
plussing up the missile defense account lines. None of that could have happened
without the bipartisan support of colleagues.
I also want to
acknowledge that we have made a commitment to work with individual members, on
other areas not fully addressed here. I told Mr. Hilleary, who is here today,
we're going to work with him on some priorities in his district.
Mr.
Vitter (ph) is not here. He has legislation dealing with a shortfall in our
capability for theater missile defense systems, where the current programs, and
the limitations I think artificially imposed by the demarcation negotiations,
allow for a segment of the threat, especially that being developed by the
Iranians, with their Shahab-4 system, that we have to meet. Mr. Vitter (ph) will
be offering language, either at the full committee, or on the floor, which I
will work with him on, to address that shortfall and highlight that need.
In addition, Mr. Andrews has taken a leadership role on the issue of
information dominance. I am working with him on legislation he's developed to
address that concern. And I expect that he'll be offering that amendment, either
at the full committee, or on the floor of the House.
Other members
have other initiatives. Mr. Bateman and Mr. Pickett raise an issue involving
noise caused by aircraft. We are addressing that issue, and have a place holder
in our mark for that.
In addition, Mr. Bateman and Mr. Pickett have
expressed concerns about future funding for submarine conversion, and we are
working on a bipartisan compromise in that area, allowing us to make sure that
we are not going to spend money in a wasteful way, and that what we are doing
is, in fact, allowing for choices to be made, that in fact are treaty-compliant
choices, in a future administration, but at the same time not wasting dollars on
systems that may not be the best use of very tight money.
With all
of those statements, and all of those efforts by my colleagues, I want to now
turn to my distinguished ranking member, Mr. Pickett, for any opening comments
he'd like to make.
PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
particularly want to thank you for the overly generous remarks that you made at
the beginning of the meeting here. They're probably undeserved, but always much
appreciated when someone says nice things about you, as you know. And I want to
thank you for your leadership on the committee, and also for what you have done
to develop this bill, that I think very well meets the needs of the military
research and development community.
As you have already observed,
there's an additional approximately $1.4 billion over the administration's
request, in this bill that will help expand the reach of the research and
development program during the upcoming year. Many of the unfunded priorities
reported by the service chiefs have been met, and this subcommittee has
continued its traditional position as a force of staunch support for science and
technology initiatives.
With additional resources provided for each
of the services, and the various defense-wide accounts, this subcommittee, in my
estimation, can proudly claim that we are one step closer to fielding a lighter,
leaner, stealthier, more mobile, more precise and more lethal military
capability. The actions proposed in this mark will mean that leap-ahead
technologies will be fielded sooner, and that the investment strategy embraced
will enable our nation to field a robust force, with a better chance of avoiding
technological surprise.
Let me particularly commend you, Mr.
Chairman, for including additional resources for Apache upgrades, Navy
theater-wide accounts and a precision-guided miniature munitions capability for
future air- to-ground missions. These initiatives will leverage other programs
funded at the levels requested by the administration. I am, of course, speaking
of programs such as DD-21, Joint Strike Fighter, F- 22,
Chinook, Comanche and LOSAT, just to name a few.
I'm a strong supporter of efforts to fully meet the Navy's
requirement for attack submarines. This mark includes $38.8 million requested by
the administration to facilitate initial design work for the potential
conversion of four SSBN submarines to a conventional strike, or SSGN platform
variation.
While I understand that proponents cite this initiative
as an effective means for meeting the Navy's SSN requirements, I question the
wisdom of essentially creating a new class of four boats, at a time when the
projected shipbuilding accounts are already under considerable strain in the out
years. This mark includes report language requiring the administration to
provide to congress an approved acquisition strategy for this initiative, and I
hope that Navy officials will be quick to assist the committee in this regard.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, I'm proud of this mark before us today. And I
look forward to working with you to secure its final passage. Thank you.
WELDON: Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, and for your leadership and
support as well.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Hostettler for the
purposes of a motion.
HOSTETTLER: I thank the chair. I would like
116 and 9A to be closed forum (inaudible) be authorized to close today's markup
for reasons of national security.
WELDON: I thank the gentleman
for that motion. And I would acknowledge to the members we are not closing the
session, but we have to authorize the ability to close if a member wants to get
into classified information.
So this vote is not about not actually
closing it, it's about giving us the authorization in case staff tells us that a
topic that you wish to discuss needs to be discussed in a classified setting.
So with that, the House and committee rules require a roll call
vote. The clerk will call the roll.
CLERK: Mr. Weldon?
WELDON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Weldon votes aye.
Mr. Pickett?
PICKETT: Aye.
CLERK: Mr.
Pickett votes aye.
Mr. Bartlett?
BARTLETT: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Bartlett votes aye.
Mr. Taylor?
TAYLOR: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Taylor votes aye.
Mr. Kuykendall?
Mr. Meehan?
Mr. Sherwood?
SHERWOOD: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Sherwood votes aye.
Mr. Kennedy?
KENNEDY: Aye.
CLERK: Mr.
Kennedy votes aye.
Mr. Kasich?
KASICH: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Kasich votes aye.
Mr. Reyes?
REYES: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Reyes votes aye.
Mr.
Bateman?
BATEMAN: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Bateman votes aye.
Mr. Allen?
ALLEN: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Allen
votes aye.
Mr. Hefley?
HEFLEY: Aye.
CLERK:
Mr. Hefley votes aye.
Mr. Snyder?
SNYDER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Snyder votes aye.
Mr. McHugh?
Mr.
Turner?
Mr. McKeon?
Ms. Sanchez?
Mr.
Hostettler?
HOSTETTLER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Hostettler votes
aye.
Mr. Rodriguez?
RODRIGUEZ: Aye.
CLERK: Mr.
Rodriguez votes aye.
Mr. Chambliss?
CHAMBLISS: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Chambliss votes aye.
Mr. Andrews?
ANDREWS: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Andrews votes aye.
Mr. Hilleary?
HILLEARY: Aye.
CLERK: Mr.
Hilleary votes aye.
Mr. Hill?
HILL: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Hill votes aye.
Mr. Scarborough?
Mr. Larson?
LARSON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Larson
votes aye.
Mr. Jones?
Mr. Riley?
RILEY: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Riley votes aye.
Mr. Kuykendall?
Mr. Meehan?
Mr. McHugh?
Mr. Turner?
Mr. McKeon?
Ms. Sanchez?
Mr. Scarborough?
Mr. Jones?
On that vote Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20;
the nays are zero and the motion is agreed to.
WELDON: The motion is
agreed to so the authorization is given for the subcommittee to close if we need
to close it.
Is there any discussion or questions on the chairman's
mark?
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Weldon, if I could just...
WELDON:
(inaudible).
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a couple
of brief comments. I just in conversations with Mr. Spratt earlier today, I
realizes that there are some -- he has some concerns and some questions out
there about the air-borne laser being moved over to BMDO. And I just wondered if
you had -- could talk about that a bit, give us an explanation for what your
thinking is.
WELDON: The whole issue -- in fact many of you may have
seen a letter that was sent by the Air Force at the 11th hour on this issue.
Many of us in fact are concerned about the ABL program and want to continue to
see that program progress forward. The thought that BMDO has had, which I
support, is that BMDO in fact can in fact be a better manager of this program
than perhaps the Air Force has been.
Let me just hit a couple of
points. The Air Force cut the program by $92 million in fiscal year '01, to $148
million which was a major negative on the program. The Air Force cut the FYDP
the five- year program by 50 percent which was a major impact on our ability to
move the program forward. The Air Force did not inform the BMDO director of this
decision to cut and delay the program. They did it unilaterally, even though the
requirement is that the Air Force use the ABL program as an integral part of
BMDO's requirements to meet their multi-layered capability.
And in
fact in a letter that the Air Force sent out, they discussed that priority. Yet
in fact, when they cut the program, they didn't even informed the BMDO director.
So for these reasons, our concern is that we allow the SBL program
to be -- or the ABL program to be the kind of visible program that it needs to
be with the full support and visibility that the -- that BMDO can provide. The
Air Force will still be a major player in it, but for those reasons the
recommendation from BMDO, which I agreed to, was to move it.
This is
a topic we can have further discussion on, and I told Mr. Spratt I would be
happy to do that. But I, at this time, think it's the right direction.
I want to ask staff if you have any additional comments on what I've
made in terms of that decision. Mr. Ansley or Mr. Green (ph)?
PICKETT
(?): Mr. Chairman, I believe we have a vote on and we're getting very near the
limit.
WELDON: We have five minutes. Do you want to go over and vote
now?
Why don't we take a recess. We'll go over and then come back
and Mr. Ansley and Mr. Green (ph), if you could be prepared to respond to that
when we come back.
PICKETT (?): And we won't count this against your
timing record.
(LAUGHTER)
(RECESS)
WELDON:
The subcommittee will reconvene.
We had left with the discussion of
the move of the air-borne laser program from the Air Force to BMDO, and correct
me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that the Air Force will continue to
execute the program.
STEVE ANSLEY, STAFF: Yes. That's correct, Mr.
Chairman. That's the only comment I was going to make. Specifically, the bill
provision does not take the program away from the Air Force. It takes the
unilateral acquisition decision...
WELDON: Right...
ANSLEY: ... and places that with BMDO. The program itself would
still be operated by the -- the program management would be done by the Air
Force as well as operating the system in field by the Air Force.
WELDON: Right. I think there's confusion that somehow we were doing
it and that is not the case. It is simply to make sure that there is a
consistent to the program and not an up or down level of commitment that has
been obviously evidenced by some of the actions I outlined before I left.
Did you want to add anything else?
PICKETT (?): Yes, Mr.
Chairman. If would like, if possible, if Brian Green (ph) has a few of the
specific program impacts of the Air Force's cut, which we thought would be worth
the members understanding.
WELDON: Absolutely.
BRIAN
GREEN (ph), STAFF: Mr. Chairman, I'll just go over a few of the factual matters
here. The program continues to be on schedule, and on cost, and meeting
technical milestones. The program is scheduled for first -- or was scheduled for
first intercept in fiscal year 2003, for initial operational capability in 2007,
and for full operational capability in 2009.
What the Air Force did was
cut the program by $92.4 million in fiscal year '01. The programmatic impact of
that would to delay the first intercept by approximately two years. They reduced
the five- year defense projection by approximately $900 million, from $1.7
million to about $800 million. The programmatic impact of that cut would be to
delay full operational capability by from five to seven years and to increase
the overall program costs by about $1 billion.
The other point I
want to make is that, to my understanding, BMDO has made no specific request to
manage this program. But BMDO officials have testified before the committee and
have informed committee staff that the air-borne laser is an integral part of
the BMD architecture, and that it does impact in a very significant way other
programmatic requirements for which BMDO is responsible.
WELDON:
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Mr. Allen?
ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I just wasn't -- my brain
wasn't fully engaged when Mr. Ansley started speaking and I want to clarify or
ask him to clarify what he was saying. He was saying that the program would not
be moved to BMDO but -- and I didn't quite catch the rest of it.
ANSLEY: The acquisition management, the control of the dollars, the
decision on whether or not you would cut the program by $1 billion and stretch
it by seven years would no longer reside unilaterally with the Air Force.
ALLEN: It would be joint with the Air Force and BMDO? Is that what
you're saying?
ANSLEY: It would not be joint. The -- as many other
programs, BMDO would be in essence the executive agent. The Air Force would
execute the program management and operate the fielded system. They would not
make the acquisition decisions.
ALLEN: OK, fine. Thank you.
I appreciate the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
WELDON: The gentleman...
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, I just
wanted to make just a comment about the letter from General Ryan.
And I understand, I think you referred to it coming at the 11th
hour. But the comment -- just two comments. First all, I'm not sure when my
office first heard about what was in the chairman's -- in the mark. I think it
was Friday. The letter comes out Monday.
And I don't know if that's
an unreasonable length of time. Maybe the Air Force has known about this a lot
longer than we have, but I'm sure when this draft was first circulated amongst
folks.
The second thing is I think this committee has always
encouraged candor on the part of the top-ranking military officials, and if its
11th hour, or 11.5 hour, or the 23rd hour, I hope they will continue to express
their opinion of things that they think are important even if it's the day
before -- the day before the mark.
Thank you.
WELDON:
And I thank the gentleman and I agree with him wholeheartedly. My point was that
the -- as the gentleman would note from attending our hearings for the past
several years, we've expressed serious concerns on this subcommittee about
whether or not the Air Force is seriously committed to this program. And we've
raised these serious concerns and a number of our colleagues have attended these
hearings because of the erratic support that the Air Force has given to the
air-borne laser program.
When you make the kind of massive cuts that
the Air Force has made in the program over the past (inaudible) and stretch out
the program, without consideration of consultation with BMDO, it calls into
question whether or not the Air Force is serious.
I welcomed Mr.
Ryan's comments to us, and I would welcome him to come back in and testify
again, as they've done in the past when we've asked these questions. But the
reason that this action was taken is specifically because of the Air Force's
management of the program over the past several years, which has been a
continuing focus of this subcommittee.
Do any other members wish to
discuss -- Mr. Pickett?
PICKETT: Mr. Chairman, you've already
alluded to the issue concerning the noise factor with tactical aircraft and some
of the problems that's generated by this matter, and that the bill will have
language in it that needs to be tweaked just a little bit that will focus some
attention on this.
And I do want to thank the chairman for being
sensitive to this issue, because it's a matter that, in my view, has very
long-term impacts for the Air Force and for the Navy.
WELDON: Mr.
Pickett, you raised the issue, and Mr. Bateman support that effort, and because
of the joint work of the two of you, there will be specific language in the bill
which is being worked on right now dealing with this issue.
So we
thank you for your leadership in that area.
PICKETT: Thank you.
WELDON: Other issue that members -- or any other amendments -- are
there any amendments that members would like to offer?
Then the
chair would recognize Mr. Hostettler for the purpose of a motion.
HOSTETTLER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the subcommittee adopt the
chairman's mark and report the same favorably to the full committee.
WELDON: The question now occurs on the motion of Hostettler. So many
as are in favor will say aye.
MEMBERS: Aye.
WELDON:
Those opposed.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to without
objection. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
There
being no further legislative business before the subcommittee, the meeting is
adjourned.
Thank you.
END
NOTES:
Unknown - Indicates speaker unknown.
Inaudible - Could not make out what was being said.
off mike -
Indicates could not make out what was being said.
PERSON: CURT WELDON (94%); OWEN
BRADFORD PICKETT (91%); ROSCOE G BARTLETT (57%); JOHN R
KASICH (56%); DON SHERWOOD (56%); HERBERT H
BATEMAN (56%); CHRIS JOHN (55%); JOEL
HEFLEY (55%); JOHN N HOSTETTLER (54%); SAXBY
CHAMBLISS (54%); WALTER B JONES (53%); JOE
SCARBOROUGH (53%); VAN HILLEARY (53%); GENE
TAYLOR (52%); MARTIN T MEEHAN (51%); PATRICK J
KENNEDY (51%); WILLIAM M THOMAS (50%); SILVESTRE
REYES (50%); VICTOR (VIC) SNYDER (50%);
LOAD-DATE: May 12, 2000 
