tv Space Force 2020 Budget Proposal CSPAN April 2, 2019 1:23pm-2:01pm EDT
c-span opened the doors to washington policy making it for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrow casting. youtube stars are a thing. but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. it's funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television and on line, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. pentagon officials talked about the defense budget and the trump administration's plans for a space force. we'll hear from acting defense secretary patrick shanahan. but first assistant air force secretary william roper discusses space technology and
national security. good morning. thank you, todd, for the introduction. thank you, csis, for hosting these events. it's an important time to be talking about space. you know, throughout recorded history and likely even before then, humanity has been inextricably linked to information from space. the waxing and waning of sun paths and moon phases provided critical information about seasons and time, and the stars a way to navigate over great and treacherous distances. what was once a seasonal, monthly, perhaps daily connection is now nearly continuous. satellites furnished timed within nanoseconds and positioned to within meters. as well as 24/7 communications,
imagery, weather, entertainment and much more. many of us likely got here today because our lives are connected to space. the world space economy is currently valued at approximately $385 billion. at least 666 intelligent satellites from 38 countries monitor the globe. 790 communication satellites from 45 countries move critical data. 121 navigation satellites help us navigate from point a's to point b's. and 303 scientific satellites push the frontiers of learning in all manners of science. this accounts for 353, 391, 31 and 94, respectively. a 46% eagle's share, if you do the math. having experienced nearly 7%
annual growth for a decade, top investment firms predict over a trillion-dollar history by 2040 with some firms going even as high as 3 trillion. with space-based broadband, cheaper, reusable rockets and space tourism nearly here and energy mining and transportation looking increasingly possible, our national interests and treasure are increasingly migrating to space. and correspondingly, our national security concerns. countries like chain have already demonstrated their intention to escalate the the hostilities into force. first conducting a satellite test in 2007, china has conducted training with asat weapons which will be fully operational within a few years. having opened, high-powered
regrets. especially because when they make it uncomfortable, predi predictabl predictably. with so much riding on space, it is easy to assume that conflict will not reach escaped velocity. why use combat teams if you can beat the satellites with communication or weapons? why fight their military at all if their critical economic veins flow their space? we can look the other way from our terrestrial comfort zones. consequently, the air force is developing options and the training, manning and equipping to use them so that space is never our nation's achilles
heel, rather our strong shield protecting a new industrial revolution and all its exciting possibilities. this is the hope emerging from pandora's box. the air force has maintained the world's most cutting edge lethal force for over 70 years for syste systems. we have been pioneering for the world, monitoring space debris to keep the atmosphere safe. protecting the american people. now that our gloves have been forced off, we are combining our war fighting and space know-how to contend with the contestant space we know we will face. our fy-20 space budget request is 14 is .
but it isn't just larger, it's faster, too. fast contracting approaches and strategic unending partnerships. speed is not a tag line, it is a whetstone for keeping our cutting edge. while we join the discussion about how best to organize, our eyes are on the threat, our ears on our war fighter needs and our foot on the accelerator. let me share some highlights with you in three areas. our space war fighters, fast acquisitions and expanding our partnerships. everything we do -- our space budget is helping to develop multi-airmen in place. we must be fluent with every service, every adversary and
every contingency. this budget funds 19 weeks of space rider courses. a u.s. space plan to conduct operations and efforts for our u.s. space force. from our chief of staff to workers on the first floor. this budget's primary example is our advanced battle management system envisioned as a family of system replacement for the aging j-stars aircraft. this capability will jump all over the air force, as we trailblaze on how to define and build capabilities in the future. with so many new challenges driving over these capabilities, it is no wonder that a faster,
smarter, application services. restoring a competitive mindset to how we design, manufacturer and sustain world war capabilities has taken deep root in our space systems. they removed 78 and a half years of unnecessary schedule on our century quest to reach 100. and 28 and a half of this current currently. we ever acquisitional professionals that have been itching for this change. in the past year, we empowered them to perfect it. first, we reorganized the space and missile center, adding three new program executive officers.
our highest acquisition positions with delegated authority to speed decision velocity. they aggressively applied section a for authorities and tailored 5,000 approaches to our new satellite programs. missile warning is currently on track to deliver three and a half years ahead of schedule given planned reprogramming this year. tactical enterprise service is serving on p tactical meetings. and the latter received the department's top ak by significance a pardon for proposing a u.s. payload a n norwegian force. second, we added a pivot to software development. like our broadly based kessel run named for "star wars," we
now have noyu named for star trek's mission. they are handling space control with developers and operators working side by side, pushing to code war fighters after years, not months. we're excited to see more space programs shift to azure development. we're also glad that our naming convention is balanced between the "star wars" and "star trek" it visions. may our force live long and prosp prosper. third, we are focused on contracting reform. prototype contracting is down to 90 days, twice as fast as historical norms, and
contingency contracting to provide overhead support to california's battle against deadly wildfires was completed we must have purchasing speed when our nation needs it. fourth, to accelerate classified capabilities continue in the budget. partnered after the awesome office that managesly brings our space total up to five. five program executive officers in space. this increases our decision speed while developing new capabilities our future war fighters desperately need. fifth, we have expanded external partnerships with organizations like darfa and the strategic
capabilities office like low operations. lowering risk on high fidelity. where we see the potential for speed, lower cost and delivering for the war fighter. when expanding industrial prarn ships. while we stroll products r anteri anterior, we cannot get the joint force we need without a sustainable strategy for both sides of the company. we hope the sis or other similar brain power tifr ated heerl one step is.
there is protected tack ty kachld. leave behind a stronger industry base for future programs. this strategic thinking needs to be everywhere and all the time it an p zds -- we must bear our programs for future fruit. we need to build our defense programs when defense and commercial align. they launched a new commercial base that can also meet our commercial requirements. we're also beginning a collaboration with industry on how truly an operative space launch might work. these examples are encouraging but they need to be more
commonplace. with so many services appearing to move to space, the trend to build these partnerships should continue to expand, and i expect it to. a third step is significantly accelerating how we do business with space start-ups and commercial tech providers. currently, awarding a contract in months is a flash for the government. but for start-ups living hand to mouth, it's an opportunity. as a result, we are chbt competing for the best space ideas. our challenge to reach an escape velocity should be rewarding and hopefully a bit cool. instead they start up an amusement park sign when they begin the government. you must be this tall to ride the ride. i am glass to say we are finally taking steps to take it done.
we invited small businesses. our team had vess ta maufr in the paradigm. we awarded 242 small business awards, many of which were space related. we saw companies building satellites to provide down-link hot spots in space. others were applying ai to the ability to find objects and space-based imagery. others were turning that imagery into 3-d maps with all sorts of applications. cool ideas that ought to be connected to our air force. and now they are. we can ill afford the next
generation of space and tech companies to grow. we must be able to work with the entire industry base to compete and win over time. with $660 million each year in our small business innoly. our resource is significant, our payment speed now lightning, and our mission and people nothing less than inspiring. with the pitch day authority now delegated to the field, including our space shops, the next events are also in planning an air event.
in our business with commercial outreach and commercial industry, we expect big things with our business dollars in the future. what about worries? despite our optimism, there are things keeping us up at night. return of continuing resolutions, budget control caps and delayed refreddie mprogramm name a few. we can't go fast without funding. we can't predict what we'll be doing next year and the next year without stability of coupl couples. this is like a road trip without the appropriate fuel. if they need political funding if they're going to build up competition.
and the next mission needs planned reprogramming to finish what they already started. aside from delivering on time for general hiden, the top priority, these efforts expand our industry base so we are anxious to keep them fully funded. to conclude, this budget request is a first step towards dealing with the future challenges we face. with pandora's box now open in space, the air force has moved out on designing defendable space, accelerating how we buy it and training to use it in future conflicts. the future is a deck of wild cards where hands are difficult to predict. so to compete and win, we have to be fast, he have to be affordable and we have to have a few aces up our sleeves and we
must follow it with more. we are committed to space. and like them we must defend it to keep our futures bright. thank you very much for listening. >> all right. thank you for those great remarks, dr. roper. next i want to welcome to the stage representative jim cooper. he is -- represents tennessee fifth's congressional district. he served in that seat, i think, since 2003. he is the chairman of the house armed services subcommittee which oversees united states' strategic weapons, missile defense space programs and department of energy national security programs. representative cooper also serves on the committee on oversight and reform as well as
the budget committee. please join me in welcoming representative cooper. [ applause ] >> thank you for joining us. a lot of interesting things going on in space right now. i want to give you an opportunity to share your initial thoughts before we go into q & a. i remind everybody if you want to submit a question, go to the website. we'll be watching. >> thank you, tom, for welcoming me back. i try to be bipartisan, but i appreciate it if the chairman before me help keep things on a bipartisan basis. i was inspired by bill roper's talk. i thought that was a new energy and vision for the air force.
some of the developments, like who wouldn't want to be funded in three minutes? that's pretty powerful. i have some kids who wouldn't mind that. this is such an important topic and you and csis have been a real leader in helping the nation focus on this. sadly, we neglected some of this for some time. and i appreciate bill's positivity, but a lot of these issues have been lurking for 10, 20 years, and now we're finally paying attention. i'm proud of the house's role in this because two years ago, mike rogers and i proposed a space corps to try to refocus the air force on some of these important issues. that met with a mixed reception from the air force and from some of our friends on the senate side, but then, of course, when president trump weighed in with his space force proposal, which i thought was over the top, that did help break some ice within the air force and possibly within the u.s. senate to create a more open-minded approach on emphasizing our space needs.
so i think we're in a magic moment right now for our country when we're refocusing on what's really important. i'm thankful that it's not a sputnik moment where we haven't already visibly proven we're terribly behind. but invisibly, we are probably behind. i try to stress the positive as well as the negative. the world should be so thankful that we've given it things like gps where anybody for free on the planet can find out exactly where they are. position navigation and timing are essential services for virtually everything, as bill alluded to in his remarks. and also things like space traffic control. it's an extraordinarily helpful service when there is so much junk in space, and even a tiny particle can take out a satellite. so that air traffic control function is sometimes overlooked but it's invaluable for these sometimes billion-dollar assets that are above our heads. i think the world should be
grateful for that because the united states has been a very benevolent power in supplying the services. and the goal is to keep them safe for everybody on the planet and to keep every nation satellite safe. i see this as a very positive focus. we need to protect our own and we need to protect everybody's. it's a global commons and we need to treat it that way so it's good for the planet. i appreciate seeing your leadership role in this. a lot of good things are happening and i'm excited about that. a new opportunity for us. >> you mentioned, you and representative rogers two years ago put forth a proposal to create a new military sfervice and space corps that would be under the department. what got you and general rogers
so interested in this issue that brought you to that moment two years ago? you were on the leading edge of this before it was cool. what made you push out on this particular issue? >> i'd like to say that we were just "star trek" or "star wars" fans, but that's not as true as it should be. mike had his first term and some of that in security. his second term was spent on trying to make sure our nuclear facilities were upgraded, because sadly, many of them had fallen almost apart from the '40s and '50s when they were initially built. space was the next priority. it's obvious if you attend any of the briefings that we're a little bit behind. and it's not just the 2007 chinese asat test which, sadly, really for the whole planet created 14,000 pieces of junk in space, and when they're traveling at 17,000 miles an
hour, that's a true hazard. nobody really knows how to clean that up yet. so why are we positilluting som the essential orbits in space? that shouldn't be happening? but it's really more the maligning intent that you see in our rivals. why are they spending precious money when their nation is poor to do this? that should create doubt and suspicion. now, we don't want to assume the worst, but they're expending these precious assets to do these things that really help none of their citizens. so i think, ideally, we would have taken space on earlier. ly we tried to give the air force the benefit of the doubt. we looked at their promotion roles and saw year after year it was mainly it the jackets that
got attention. we've got to pay attention to technology and be up to speed and not have a nation be in any way behind when, in fact, we need a huge and safe margin. >> and so you said that trump's initial space force proposal was over the top. what are your views on the le legislative proposal that was just submitted to congress a few weeks ago? >> i think it's way more modest. in fact, it's about as close to our original house proposal as you can get. i think it uses some pentagon terminology that i'm more comfortable with as space command, a space development agency, apparently much like the missile development agency. but what really matters is not the bureaucracy but the substance. we need to be able to acquire state of the art technology and put it on orbit in record time. and i don't mean air force
record time. i mean faster than the nro, i mean faster than -- because what matters is -- in a threat-based environment, what matters meeting the nation's needs. and any obstacle that stands in the way has to be taken out, especially if it's our own bureaucracy. i was interested in bill's comments. i'm worried about congress more than he is. we need to clean up our own house, but need to be sure that the bureaucracy that's the pentagon can function efficiently. better talent recruitment, better talent retention, those things are essential for any vibrant cutting-edge organization, as the air force is showing signs of doing, a bit more in that direction.
so a couple questions that are related, ask them together, so chairman -- has chairman adam smith, the armed services committee has said what they intend to do is write a spate proposal that is different. you have your proposal from two years ago. how do you think you can merge those ideas or what changes would you want to make to what the administration proposed? >> well, my guess is, from the administration standpoint, they mainly care that we call it a space force, whatever we are doing. okay, i knew that. the house proposal, if you didn't keep up with the committee vote, was passed out committee 60-1. 60-1. that very rarely happens. now, we didn't succeed as we would have liked in conference, but the seeds were planted. most everybody i talked to has
been to the briefing are like totally on board. you can quibble about this element of bureaucracy and that, but the key principles i think are there. we've got to have an unrivals space capability, and i think we're on track to make that happen. >> and so a beginning question for many people here in the audience, if you had to put odds it, what do you think the odds are of some sort of a space force initiative getting through the house this year on the ndaa, and also getting through the senate? >> um, the trouble about the future is it's hard to predict. this one, after the 60-1 vote a couple years ago, overwhelming floor passage, i think the prospects could hardly be brighter. now, the first is unforeseeable. there could be some glitch, but i think we're on a path here to achieve everyone's goals, which
first, you know, greater capability for our country. >> all right. now, dr. roper talked about the air force's emphasis on speeded in acsises. we have heard that from other senior leaders. this is a big shift from about a decade ago when you had secretary bob gates talking about we need to do things cheaper. we don't need the 99% exquisite solution when the 80% solution will work. how do you view that shift and emphasis on the acquisitions to prioritize speed, which may come at the expense of cost? >> well, for the historians in the audience, i think every year people have tried to r pentagon acquisitions all the way back to the eisenhower administration. i'm not sure that anyone has succeeded. if you noticed in bill's remarks, he made a glancing
reference tos, what, accelerated 5,000 procedures? good luck with that one. socom and others have used different authorities to try to get around the 5,000. so you ask yourself why do we still have the 5,000 procedures? but there's sort itseria. this is one of the most difficult bureaucratic problems on the planet, and there's a lot of equities that different interests have and different elements of the status quo, but that should never stop us from fielding promptly superior capability. i was interested, because in the, you know, pentagon proposal by 2024, we will have a fully fielded space force. so in the time it took us to start and win world war ii, or to respond to pearl harbor and win world war ii, we will finally be able to field one
service. that's faster than usual, but it's still not what we should be expecting. so i look forward to working with everybody in congress, both parties, and with the pentagon, and with our industrial community, to try to figure out a way to return to speed and quality, because nobody wants speed for speed's sake. you also want affordable prices. there are ways to do this. this is the most engenius country that's ever been. let's tapped into the ingenuity in a more constructive way. >> another question from the audience here, one of the things that chairman smith has said publicly in recent days is that within the space force proposal, i think there were three four-star positions enumerated. he thinking that's too many. what's your view, and how can you remedy that? >> well, adam milt is a great
chairman, extremely knowledgeable, and i think he's fair on these issues. it's no secret that the military habits top heifery in vi-- has been top heavy in hierarchy. but right now if you make any comparison to a prior point, we're vastly top heavy. you need to give young people promotion studenopportunities, there's got to be better ways to do that. to me, the number of excessive generals is interesting. it's also important how long you are on post at whatever your m.o.s. is, and do you really know your job. i prefer the navy model where you're on six, eight years, you have total responsibility, you know what you're talking about,
as opposed to the in or out two or three-year thing, by the time you're an expert, you're out of there. i want various assignments, i have humane treatment of our personnel, but there's nothing like real expertise, owning the project, seeing it through to the end, making sure it's first rate. i don't want to dwell on some of the negative things, but there have been some horrendous problems. while some of the air force is proud still the b-52 will be flying when it's 100 years old, i worry about that. no matter how thoroughly it's been rebuilt. i appreciate the efforts, but where are the new, the superb, where are the excellent? and we've kind of been lacking in that for a few years. >> next question here from the audience is about the cost of the space force, and so pentagon
proposal pegs that cost over five years at about $2 billion, and then the steady state cost of the additional management and overhead would be about half a billion after that. since you are obviously in support of some sort of a space corps, space force, new service, but many of your colleagues have questioned the cost, including chairman smith, among others. what do you think the right level of overhead is that could be sufficient for the new service, but also would not be so much that it would, you know, cause it to lose support from your colleagues? >> well, first, think what a vast improvement the $2 billion number is over the $13 billion number that the secretary of the air force put out there. both mike rogers and i thought it was a bit of a gold-plated proposal, but we're already headed in the right direction.
when mike and i originally proposed this, we thought there should be little if any additional cost. it's more of an organizational issue, when you have 60 people empowered to say no, but no one has the ability to say yes, that's an issue. but that's the way bureaucracy tends to work. we'll be getting into the numbers. the budget is late as you know, and i'm not going to fault anybody over that, but we will do our best in the ndaa to have the 58th and 59th consecutive year of house and senate passage of that bill. if there's any element of congress that still works, it's probably the house and senate armed services committees. remember, when you're talking about budgeting in this space, i would say the only part of the federal budget that we don't get to set. it's entirely threat-based. we have to be able to respond to meet and beat whatever is coming
at us. so we will do what it takes. we must do what it takes. the numbers you were mentioning, a budget that's $750 billion or so, even though that i amfully this is chicken field for what was described as absolutely a vital national capability. not just talking about the war fighter, but for all of our civilization. i know some people whoic play golf without satellites. they need to know the distance to the green. so this is a very important thing. we're well within the ballpark of reasonable compromise here. >> speaking of the budget, you mentioned the oko part of the