tv Acting Defense Secretary on Space Force 2020 Budget Proposal CSPAN March 24, 2019 6:17am-6:59am EDT
becomes a suitable subject for an earmark. that is wrong. that is a misuse of taxpayer money. peopleodes support for paying their taxes. the pressure is growing. as people find difficulty passing bills they want to buy votes in congress. this is wrong this is not the way things should be done. i don't want to be too much of a boy scout, but let's have arguments on the merit and have the best argument win, not the person with the most money. this is a challenging moment for the legislative branch. i'm hopeful we will be able to resist this temptation. our time is up. please take a coffee break and we will start back a.
thank you. [applause] [applause] >> good morning. it is good to be here. i want to make broad comments. thank you. todd harrison, thank you for the invitation. john henry is not here. csis can we have these dialogues which are important for these critical issues would be think about what does the future look like? i one thing i would ask for all of you to do tonight, a little
bit of help, say a prayer for our men and women in the military. they do remarkable work on our behalf. learnedword that i have -- i've learned a lot of words since working at the department of defense, but one i have come to appreciate his devotion. -- is devotion. they are devoted to their mission and do a remarkable job. i will talk about my story and then the space force. the story is about making change and modernizing in the largest bureaucracy in the world. sometimes people say the department is not bold or fast enough. but in 18 months we went from a phone call with two bipartisan members of congress to a proposal establishing a new
branch of the armed services, the space force. i want to talk to you about that proposal today. representatives coopers and rogers got us started on this path and want to thank them for their leadership and vision. also want to acknowledge the important role president trump played in instilling a sense of urgency in the department. or what secretary mattis would call moving at the speed of relevance in establishing the space force as the sixth branch of the military. you only get this kind of action if there is a compelling need to move quickly. this was true for our challenges in space. michael and the to -- my goal and the department's goal is to grow what we call our margin of dominance in space. this margin is now contested and our legacy systems as you well know are not designed to operate
in this environment. china and russia already treat space as a war fighting domain. china is moving fast to grow their presence in space. last year, their government put 38 rockets into orbit. this is more than double the 17 that our government launched. what's more, the space industry is undergoing a seismic transition fueled by the convergence of commercial and military capabilities. decreasing launch costs and an entrepreneurial driven innovation. innovation that impacts the entire space ecosystem from the hardware in the sky to the application of space-based communications, sensing and precision, navigation and timing data on the earth.
during this state of evolution, we can't afford to lose our margin of dominance. what is vital is that we protect a $19 trillion economy and the systems are military runs on. as representative cooper said, if our satellites were attacked we would be blind, deaf and impotent before we even knew what hit us. everything from atm machines to paralyzed.would be if you are faced with threats like this, you say yes to change. so we make a strategic choice to organize to ensure american dominance in space for decades. this choice to restructure has 3 parts. the military service, combatant command, and a development agency. let's talk about part one. the u.s. space force.
to move forward effectively space needs an advocate. that advocate will be the space force. the space force will operate like other branches of the armed services, organizing, training, and equipping the force with title x authorities. it will have formalized leadership including a new undersecretary for space, and a chief of staff of the space force. to focus on developing space war fighting doctrine and culture. the organization will also focus on professional development, developing skills within the force and creating a pipeline of space experts. it won't be very large, between 15,000 and 20,000 people. and and it will have a budget the size of socom. let me spend a moment and talk
about the u.s. space command which is the second part of our restructuring. space command will change the mission is based from a support function to a leading role. this is not new. this is this is a bit of back to the future. since we previously had space command, but gave it up after 9/11 for north come. the commander will wake up every morning thinking two things. how a going to win in space? and, how will space helped the joint force win in the land, sea, air and cyber domain? i'll touch on the space development agency, which is the third part, and in my view, the pacing element. our space presence will be enabled by new capabilities delivered by the space development agency. there are roughly 2500 active satellites on orbit today. american companies alone
project they will add 15,000 satellites in the next decade or so. the proliferation is primarily happening in leo, focus on mostly communications and isr. but the low cost of lunch is expanding access to all orbits. additionally, in the next decade we expect to see commercially available, persistent surveillance of the globe from space. we need to leverage this commercial space investment and tap into the advancements to help solve the next generation of war fighting challenges. there are different models for the department to follow. we can acquire commercial off-the-shelf. we can tailor commercial solutions. we can develop new technologies or some hybrid of the aforementioned. and in parallel, we need our war fighters to experiment with new space-based applications.
there are 3 points are really want to underscore here. the first, the unifying factor is the need for advanced systems engineering as we design for artificial intelligence, as we design to enable low latency movement of data, as we design to connect sensor to shooter, and as we design to enhance exquisite capabilities. second, if we do nothing, i'll just say this again. if we do nothing and maintain our legacy approach, at least 10 dod organizations working on space-based capabilities and architecture will continue to develop the focused solutions. and third, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to recapitalize the departments space architecture and integrate
it to deliver new solutions at scale. our rules are not adapted enough to leverage this. we need one organization in the lead to enable a department solution. so let me conclude with a few short comments. these reorganizations all tied to our national defense strategy and the overarching need to posture for great power competition in space. but beyond this reorganization, the president's defense budget request also includes a 15% increase in our investment in space-based capabilities. the space development agency roadmap in the 1601 report has 8 increments of capability. it provides a path for buying down risk and delivering capabilities so that we can scale and take action. the roadmap starts with hyper sonics, tracking and warning for
defense against adversary hypersonic missiles. with the next step to provide targeting for our hypersonic missiles. the roadmap delivers an alternate pnt so we can operate the gps jammed environment. these are just a few of the investments in our 2020 budget request. the institutional changes and money increase demonstrates our resolve to move out and find a solution. 18 months ago was a phone call. 14 months ago it was a rollout of the national defense strategy. nine months ago we received presidential guidance. last month it was a space force proposal. this month it is a budget. this is what it means to compete. the space force is critical part of ensuring we dominate in an era of great power competition.
thank you. [applause] todd: thank you for joining us here, secretary shanahan, for your remarks. sec. shanahan: how did i do? todd: thumbs up. now for the hard part. can you hear me? there we go. anybody hear me now? now they can hear you on the web. this isn't the hard part. this is a fun part, right? you haven't heard my questions yet. my first question, and i'll
remind folks here in the audience and watch it online if you want you can go to the web address you see, aerospace that submit your question and i'll get it appear on the tablet but as the moderate i get to go first with my question. the first question is, when the president came out with this space force proposal almost a year ago now, he talked about it initially as a separate department. what you guys settled on is a separate service within the department of the air force. can you tell me a little bit about how the idea evolved and how you settled on this particular construct? sec. shanahan: that's a good way to start out today. you can imagine if someone said create a new branch or a new department. as you all recognize we have lots of processes in the pentagon, but they didn't have the start the new debarment process. so a lot of this is homegrown and you to think about what is the best organization constructs
so you can go the fastest? and a department allows you to have complete autonomy. on one end of the spectrum you can have full autonomy. on the other end of the spectrum you can say let's maintain the status quo. we started with those bookends and we said given the need for speed and then how much time you might spend just reorganizing, we landed in the place that said draw off the synergy of the air force. and we have significant learning from the marine corps about how to have a service when the -- within a department. the biggest thing we have been working to do with the space force is focused on delivering capability faster, and it's very easy in government to think about equities. we didn't want to start with, what are the equities? what are the structures? how do we draw a path to
deliver maintaining that margin of dominance? and it really was all based on standing up these -- i'll call it critical time-based capabilities. developing, doing the development. space development agency is about developing. it's not about acquisition agency. it's a space development. we said that's what's most important. you can put it any place but given most of the resources that are going to be a component or an element of the space development agency, keep it as close to that as possible. space command was easier. todd: what do you say to folks, critics of creating separate military service that say well, if you're grading united states space command, why can't that be enough? why do you also need a military service? can't can we make space command
like special operations command and get some service-like authorities? sec. shanahan: we can do anything, right? i mean, this is -- in terms of working on something, this has been a really great experience because we've got this big piece of clay that we get to work with. and a lot of the critics, so you have people that are at the subatomic level and they get into, you know, let's move this little piece of the clay, you know, from here to there. i go back to when it came into the department, they said space is really important. secretary rumsfeld back in the early 2000 try to move the ball. we're talking a moving the ball. that's the most important piece. going back to the essence of your question. todd: so space command. why is it sufficient?
sec. shanahan: well the space , command will only get after dealing the space but not any new tools. the big change is we woke up one day and space was contested. everything that we designed for was no longer as capable as we thought. you know, imagine being able to walk director neighborhood and never having to lock your door. one to all of a sudden you to lock your door and things around on orbit aren't capable of that. so you say $19 trillion economy, that's just ours but everybody runs off of space so how do we protect ourselves? the space command just gets that we want somebody everyday to think about are we defending the economy, and do we have someone focused on making sure that the military systems are protected. the most important thing is now how do you replace that critical
infrastructure so that it is resilient, redundant, survivable, and has new capabilities because it really is contested? that is the most critical and pacing item. this is about retiring risk. the structures are interesting. there's lots of ways to go about it but it is mostly we put together a roadmap, and the roadmap was about how do we leverage space to reduce threats to the united states. so the first element on the roadmap is, how do we counter hypersonics that are a risk to our men and women and to the homeland? space is a fantastic place so you're not geographically limited. we've built a space plan around the things we need in order to compete and win against china and russia. todd: so just last week chairman , smith and house armed services
committee, he said that they will take a look at the space force proposal but they're going to come up with something different on their own within the committee. have you had discussions about what kind of changes they would like to see? or do you have any indications on specific parts of the proposal they are not happy with? sec. shanahan: i haven't walked through the proposal with chairman smith, but a lot of my interactions on the hill have gone this way. in terms of how we view the threat and the changes we need to make, pretty universal about being more aggressive, leveraging, commercial innovation, removing red tape, doing things for less cost. the feedback i received is
worried about adding -- building bigger government. that part has been universal, and i don't blame them. i think we all want the same thing. we want a lean and a very thoughtful use of resources but that's generally been the feedback. the conversations have been like this. explain to us how you have come up with your costs, or help us to understand why this isn't a redundant effort. todd: in terms of the bureaucratic politics within the building, so this is something that is basically been in your lap since you came to the pentagon. you've been working on it from beginning to end. how have you seen the bureaucratic politics evolve during this timeframe? -- time period? when a space corps proposal came out from congress in 2017, the air force very publicly opposed it and now dod is submitting a
proposal that is somewhat similar to that. how has that process been and what are your experiences ending -- in dealing with with the internal bureaucracy throughout this? sec. shanahan: well, the experience has been, like every experience i've had where change is involved, you know, it's human nature anytime someone proposes something different, and until you understand the why and how there's a lot of questions you have to work your way through. but human nature is perpetuate the status quo, something that is a significant change represents uncertainty. i think when we started on this journey there wasn't a lot of definition. there was a lot of top-down direction. and as we have moved along and talk about the problems we want to solve and how we want to solve them, there's been less pushed back -- push back. the push back now comes in the flavor of, well, why not do this
other way or this might be a better approach. but if you step back and think about what we're trying to do in the department is, we haven't modernized in 30 years. the muscles we have are not for modernization. i mean this is about doing something very different. and so the first reaction is, well, that's not what we're doing or we are not resourced to do this. i think this is characteristic of the changes we will see as we continue to evolve things when it comes to hypersonics or cyber. a lot of these domains. this is our 30-year window. every 30 years you decide you're going to make a change, and it
takes people -- you've got the fence sitters, the people who really want to drive it, and there are some folks who never want to do it. i think now you're starting to see momentum because we've been resourced, because we've been consistent with our strategy and because people really do recognize the security environment. todd: question from the audience here. the house is probably going to be the easier chamber to get this proposal through in some respects since they have consider this in the past and voted on it. but the senate is largely unknown what they would do. they haven't actually debated a proposal like this in the past like the house house. -- like the house has . we invited senator inhofe. unfortunately he couldn't be a today, but what is your message to senator inhofe, senator fischer and others on the senate armed services committee on why they should support this? they have been somewhat skeptical in the past. what's your elevator speech for them on why they should get on board and why this is necessary
right now? sec. shanahan: i will give you the elevator speech in a second. what i have found with congress as a whole is a willingness to be persuaded. people have lots of positions. what i've found in my short time here is that when we spent our time talking about interests, that's when people are open-minded to being persuaded. i think the compelling piece here is that $19 trillion economy and the military run on space. we need to have confidence that we are really protecting that. then we start to talk about how ?o we develop the capability when we sit at and talk about we can develop it this way or we
can develop this other way, that becomes the selling point. it gets a little bit technocratic and i think most people what they want to do is have their staffs educated that this isn't -- that we are not falling into some acquisition trap. i think if i was to characterize the difference on our approach here is that, what we should spend our time talking about is how does this tie back to space command? if you think about what we've been doing for the last 30 years, it's really more acquisition or kind of running our process. this is getting back how do we do development? it is new muscle movement. we can't do acquisition. we have to do development. you have a small
window -- we don't have ten years to do this. the money is not always going to be there so we have when the time in which are going to do something. you fundamental have to ask the question, do we reorganize over five years and resolve all of our acquisition inefficiencies and figure out how to leverage the industrial base? or would we look at this through the lens of general schieffer would look at this and say get people who have technical chops, who have a history with acquisition, that understand a clear threat, and let them do their job? what i found is at -- what i found at the department is one we've enabled people to do that we wonderful results. my comment about ten different architectural studies going on, why would we want to do that? i know what's going to happen. we're going to come up with six or seven and then we will end up morphing them over time and will
end up spending more money. we'll argue in the near term about some bureaucratic costs, but the real cost of development is the area want to keep our eye on. speaking of cost, another question from the audience here is in this budget proposal, it lays out the cost of $2 billion over five years for standing at -- up the space force. that's the new cost of standing it up. some in congress and outside of congress have said no, the actually think it will end up being more than that. what is your confidence in the cost estimate and how does it differ from the $13 billion estimate we got from the air force back in september? sec. shanahan: i think the air force estimate had just different assumptions. and i think over time it had a growth factored into it. i'd say our $2 billion number is
a good parametric estimate. it's really more of a top-down number that it is a bottoms-up number. for the purposes of moving at speed, you parametrically generate a number. but in the department we recorded a bottoms up approach to cost. cost grows if you don't limit it. to me it would be like we need to cap it. if we do the top-down approach in terms of normal equities, a traditional structures, i think it will probably grow. that's what normally happens. i think we have to be very thoughtful. remember, this is much smaller. one somebody says we're going to start a new service, you start to think about the army with half a million people. we are talking 15,000 to 20,000
people defending $19 trillion. when we make a mistake in development we are talking billions. part of this is, and a very sensitive, we need to be very mindful about creating your -- bureaucracy because it dours for a long time. i think get the cost right. we've got to get the development tracking sooner and more quickly. todd: the next question here is, when standing up a space force, obviously most of the unclassified military space assets belong in the air force. but the navy and the army has some substantial space capabilities as well. so is the intent that you would move over those navy and army space capabilities, and what with the timeline for that be? sec. shanahan: this is the normal part of change where
people worry about -- because when we talk about organizing, what's going to happen to me? does my home office change? do i -- and my out of a job? does my job move? the way we had really been looking at going more quickly is against the roadmap we put in the 1601 report. so i would, at a high level, say in the short-term legacy is legacy. so why would we burn a lot of calories moving things that are working today into some new organization? at some point there's some realignment that just makes sense, but it really is how with new authority, getting after the threat, how do we organize for that? what i would argue is, within
the resources we have today, there are whole bunch of people if we said, would you like to join this team, they will kick the door down and say can i , join? and again, remember, we're not talking huge numbers. we're talking about making a huge difference that has a a huge impact on the economy that we are protecting. todd: next question. sec. shanahan: you guys all looked serious. this is a good day, right? todd: best sec. shanahan: this is such a good subject. this is about the future, do you know what i mean? we are working on the future. todd: next question is, the differences between this new space development agency and existing acquisition organizations like the space and missile systems center within the air force. how do you view in the near term kind of the division of responsibility between these organizations?
sec. shanahan: we talked about it maybe at the macro level. we're still working through the details. the -- when i talked to general thompson, who again -- what we don't want to do is disrupt the work they are doing today and general thompson has been going through a transformation program called smc 2.0, the team down there continue to take costs and risks and shorten flow times. hats off to them. i would say there it's -- whether it's a carveout of some of the capability that they have, whether it's a drawing on the resources, they are an element of the space development
agency. i think everybody here in this room should recognize is the talent and capability in the smc is unbelievable. and as you go around the department, the technology and the talent is extraordinary. this is about how do we harnessed it in this short term. i back to what would general schriever do? that's just the task at hand. there's a scope of work that we have to undertake. we need to preserve the capabilities that are in place. i think when people hear about the proposal, they think we're going to drop the existing structures, run away from them in a freefall. that is not the case. this is not a carveout so we can go faster against hypersonics.
this is a carveout so we can do more in missile-defense more quickly. this is a carveout so that we can draw -- the ndaa's, when you read them, it's two things that are more innovative. happen to the industrial base. cut red tape of the dod 5000. we are not going to do the whole space mission, but there are segments now if we leverage less red tape and the huge investment that's been made in commercial space, we can go a lot further for less, more quickly. todd: another question here. i'm getting several from the audience basically relating to the interaction between the space force proposal and nas and -- nasa and human spaceflight. and so i know from reading the proposal nasa is not part of it,
may not be part of the space force. there would be no human spaceflight in it but can you elaborate on that, that there is this distinction and with this -- and would this change it in anyway? sec. shanahan: it's part of the change calculus. so if you said let's pick up nasa, let's do all the intel organizations. let's see legacy we would be , dead on arrival. this is later on as we are successful, people are going to want to hitch a ride. if we are not -- i prefer to stand on our success. we've had wonderful conversations with intelligence organizations. they go like this. let's technically be aligned. let's make sure when we think about architectures,
organization -- that happens later. it's always complicated. let's make sure in terms of the capability we're going to harnessed together later, we layed the pipe and we provisioned for those things. that outline is in place. the arguments we are going to have about lines and boxes on charts, we've try to push off for another day. not because they are unimportant. we don't need to have those discussions right now. we have to move out against some of these threats, and we can independent of those discussions, but with an eye towards how these pieces come together later. success will bring those other pieces together. and because -- five years from now because of what we can do with data and these new environment, these organizations are going to naturally change. so it's about putting that in place. the other part will follow. i mean, just look around the world. every place when people start up
-- start to have better information their organizations , change. instead of having that debate, do the work and that will naturally occur. todd: speaking more broadly about innovation within the department of defense, the high-tech companies have shown a reluctance to work with dod, to work with the military. do you see that as a lingering problem, something that the department needs to address? sec. shanahan: i do. we are real hard to work with. i don't know if you guys think that, but you know, it's not just hard. it's expensive. for a lot of good reasons we ask people to reduce certain information or use certain processes, but all those things at costs. if you are somebody using their own money or investors money, you have opportunity to pursue something commercially or with
the government, it causes, it really does cause pause. i would say -- secretary lord understands this. it's how did we make it easy to do business with the government. i've heard of this from investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners. they are very clear. we have great stuff for you to use, but it's just really hard to work with you and it takes too long. todd: last question for you. how are you adjusting to the new job as acting secretary? and what kind of surprises have you seen so far in this new position? sec. shanahan: i've seen a lot of surprises.
when i think about the job in -- and what is really important right now is continuity and being able to stick to the national defense strategy. i would say it was a year ago we rolled out the strategy, but we really have been working to the strategy for about 18 months. and we have been resource to the strategy. what i think you would find really encouraging is that there's a tremendous amount of alignment within the department. i think it's not like the biggest surprise, the thing that gets me up in the morning, makes me really excited is we can win this game. i mean we have people and we have the resources. as everyone knows, you pick up a
newspaper there's a lot going on , around the world and especially in this town. i really encouraged by the am talent and the opportunity to have in front of us. we will push through all the challenges. that's just life in a very complicated world. but i think the biggest surprise for me is the commitment and the unwavering dedication to the implementation of the national defense strategy. todd: secretary, i know our time is up. i want to thank you for joining us here at csis. folks, please keep your seats until the secretary has had a chance to exit. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] congress is in recess until monday. nancy pelosi has announced next week the house will vote on an override of the president's veto of it resolution terminating his
national emergency declaration on border security. that vote is scheduled for tuesday. on thursday, the house votes on a measure rejecting president trump's ban on transgender people serving openly in the military. whenever the house is in session, you can see it with on c-span -- live on c-span. when the senate is in session, they will continue to base on judicial nominations. senators will take up a -- of support for the green new deal. live coverage on c-span2. once tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service call pvs -- pbs. small network world at a big idea. let viewers decide what was important to them. c-span opened the doors for all to