|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Plans II: Pentagon Argues Against Closer Reporting on Programs By David Ruppe In February, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld canceled some specific information collection, senior military oversight and congressional reporting requirements on major missile defense programs, as part of a controversial restructuring of the missile defense programs (see GSN, Feb. 19). In June, however, the U.S. Senate restored such reporting requirements in its version of the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill. The House version contained no similar provision, leaving the job of reconciliation to a House-Senate conference committee scheduled to meet after the August recess. Requiring the individual reports to Congress would have the effect of “distorting” information about U.S. missile defense efforts and require double reporting, the Pentagon said in a written appeal to Congress late last month. Rumsfeld’s changes, legislative critics have said, excessively limit Congress’ power to oversee, tailor or eliminate missile defense initiatives. The Senate Armed Services Committee, which first approved the language, wrote in a report explaining the bill that the Pentagon reporting is “critical to congressional understanding and oversight for missile defense programs, and are required for all other major defense acquisition programs.” Recently retired Pentagon Deputy Inspector General Robert Lieberman also recently supported keeping more stringent reporting requirements, telling Defense Week, “we should be worried about more effective auditing everywhere, not finding ways to exempt people from oversight.” Move to One System In February, the Pentagon reorganized its major missile defense programs into a single, national missile defense effort, and eliminated some specific information gathering and reporting requirements to senior Pentagon officials and Congress. Following that change, the Pentagon has urged that particular systems — such as the mid-course intercept systems, the airborne laser systems, the sea-based intercept systems, and a theater missile defense systems — no longer be viewed independently, but rather as various possible components of one comprehensive system. The new Senate requirements would be distorting, the Pentagon appeal said, because they “would require information associated with major defense acquisition programs individually, rather than as a part of the single Ballistic Missile Defense System.” Pentagon officials have said the changes were warranted because of the special nature of the national missile defense effort, which calls for developing “layers” of defenses capable of intercepting an enemy missile warhead at different points in its trajectory. The “special nature of missile defense development, operations, and support calls for nonstandard approaches to both acquisition and requirements generation,” said Rumsfeld in a January memorandum outlining the changes. Flexible Programs The new Pentagon approach for developing missile defense also differs from traditional programs in that it involves a more flexible concept of what the system would look like, what it would cost, and how long it would take to develop and build. The Pentagon’s appeal objected to laying out estimates on such specifics, as required by the reports. “The information sought by these provisions will be presented when the Department decides to procure and operate any element of the BMDS and it will be reported separately, by program, at that time,” it said. Concerns About Oversight Many legislators, however, have contended the Pentagon’s re-conceptualization of missile defense activities serves to thwart congressional oversight of the programs, and Congress’s ability to tailor funding to or cancel programs. The reports “are critical to congressional understanding and oversight for missile defense programs, and are required for all other major defense acquisition programs,” wrote the Senate Armed Services committee in a report that explained the legislation. It requested the reporting under the previous program names: the National Missile Defense, Navy Theater Wide, Airborne Laser, and Theater High-Altitude Area Defense systems. The committee wrote that Congress had not received such program progress information with the Bush administration’s fiscal 2002 and 2003 missile defense budget requests. It wrote further that senior military officers are no longer receiving sufficient information on the systems for deciding whether to deploy a preliminary missile defense capability. In the Pentagon’s appeal, officials said the reporting would distort understanding of the missile defense effort, as the independent missile defense programs cited in the bill not longer exist, and would require redundant information. They further argued the programs have undergone significant changes making previous program designations inapplicable. Certain aspects of the programs, “engineering and integration and battle management command and control” are now being “addressed at the BMDS level,” the appeal says.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
