CONTENTS STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Dickinson, Hon. William L., a Representative from Alabama, ranking minori- Page Spratt, Hon. John M., Jr., a Representative from South Carolina......... 1, 83, 131, 201 Canavan, Gregory H., Assistant Physics Division Leader, Los Alamos Nation- 231 SDI PROGRAM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DEFENSE POLICY PANEL, AND THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 26, 1987. The Defense Policy Panel and the Research and Development Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr., presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., A Mr. SPRATT. Good morning. The Defense Policy Panel and the Research and Development Subcommittee are meeting today in joint session to begin taking testimony on the relationship between the budget priorities of the Strategic Defense Initiative and the stated goal of population defense. Members of this committee have become increasingly concerned that the pressure for early deployment of SDI systems has diminished the prospects for eventually developing the more esoteric technologies that would be necessary to accomplish the President's admirable goal of making nuclear weapons obsolete. The hearings today are the first in a series planned by the committee to help us gather informed technical advice on the appropriate level and mix of funding for SDI. The hearing today is preliminary to our markup, but we are looking for longer term planning. This committee was largely organized through my efforts and the chairman has allowed me to take the lead in this matter for that reason. No one else that has succeeded me yet has showed up this morning. I would yield to anybody who asserts his authority, but for the time being I will chair the meeting. This morning we will first hear from Mr. Robert Hale, Assistant Director, National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office. His testimony will size up the SDI effort in relationship to other elements of the defense budget and highlight the changing priorities within the SDI program. The second witness will be Dr. Robert Cooper, who was Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at the time that President Reagan announced the creation of the SDI project. He will give us an overview of the major technical challenges facing the program and estimate the prospects of developing various SDI systems. (1) Finally this morning, we will hear from Lt. Gen. Glenn Kent, Senior Staff Member at The Rand Corporation. He will present his views on the appropriate strategic goals for the SDI. This afternoon, we will hear from two additional witnesses: Professor William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University and a member of the SDI's Scientific Advisory Committee, and Dr. Peter Zimmerman, also a physicist and a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I would like to thank each of the witnesses for appearing today. We hope the hearings today will help provide guidance to the committee in marking up the President's SDI request and provide a better understanding of strategic defense. This morning, I would ask each witness to make a brief oral statement of about 20 minutes and then we will open it up to questions from the panel. Mr. Hale, we will turn to you first. Thank you for coming this morning. You may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. HALE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY BONNIE DOMBEY, SENIOR ANALYST, STRATEGIC FORCES Mr. HALE. Thank you. I have with me Ms. Bonnie Dombey, who prepared the analysis I am going to present. For fiscal year 1988 the administration has requested $5.2 billion for SDI research. Over the next 5 years, that request totals about $37 billion. There are other moneys requested for research in other areas. My testimony describes the SDI request of the Department of Defense (DOD) and some important trends in funding. Those trends suggest that SDI will consume a sharply growing share of DOD research funds. There are also shifts in funds within the SDI budget that suggest growing emphasis on more mature technologies that could be used in near-term deployment. It is beyond the scope of my testimony to judge the desirability of those requests. I think you know SDI has far-reaching goals, and whether its budgets are appropriate depends on how you view those goals and the likelihood of reaching them as well as their effect on other defense research programs. Let me turn first-and I will summarize my overall statementto some budget trends for SDI as a whole. At $5.2 billion the 1988 request makes the SDI by far the largest single program within DOD's research budget. The next largest request for which data are publicly available is for the small ICBM at $2.2 billion. The 1988 budget exceeds that of any single procurement program and rivals the R&D budget for the U.S. Army. Over the next 5 years, requested SDI funds would grow at an average annual real rate of 14 percent to $9.8 billion by 1992. This rapid growth is not unusual for a research and development (R&D) program. The requested real growth is, however, sharply higher, as I think you are well aware, in 1988, at 56 percent, than the average growth over the next 5 years. |