View From the Hill
GIF 2009 Volume: 7 Issue: 6 (November/December)
I am serving my second term as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s Technical and Tactical Subcommittee— we call it T&T—which conducts oversight of satellites, SIGINT and military intelligence. I am also proud to say that I am the first member of the Intelligence Committee to actually be able to represent the National Security Agency, because it is in my district.
I also sit on the Appropriations Committee and serve on the Commerce, Justice and Science, and Homeland Security subcommittees. I tackle issues involving satellites and other important infrastructure every day.
I just want to acknowledge everyone in this room who works in the geospatial intelligence community. You contribute to the safety of our nation. I want to thank all of you for your efforts, from those that design the systems, to those that analyze the images, to those that build the equipment or launch it.
America is one of the strongest countries in the world because we have a unique partnership between the business sector and government. America is also the most powerful country in the world, in part because we dominate the skies.
More than 50 years ago, the Soviet Union rocked our world by launching Sputnik into space. The United States responded with a swift investment in space technology, a reinvigorated spirit of innovation and unprecedented emphasis on science, research and education.
In less than 12 years, those efforts culminated with a man landing on the moon, a robust American space infrastructure and every kid on Earth wanting to be Neil Armstrong. Being an astronaut was as cool as being an NFL player. National morale was at an all-time high.
LAUNCH INDUSTRY STRAINS
Unfortunately, America is in danger of losing its preeminence in space. One example is our launch industry. Our launch industry is highly strained to meet our needs, whereas other countries, like France, are moving ahead.
A once-robust partnership between the U.S. government and the American space industry has been weakened by years of demanding space programs, the complexity of technology and an inattention to acquisition discipline.
We are facing a challenge left by a decade of failed acquisitions that has left potential holes in our satellite system known as overhead architecture. This could leave us without the ability to secure the intelligence we need to prepare for potential attacks or track suspected terrorists around the world.
Now we have the potential to fall behind on systems that provide services like global positioning, weather monitoring and missile warning. The consequences of any satellite system that is less than robust are potentially catastrophic.
Satellites keep us safe. We use satellites for reconnaissance and to support our combat forces. We use them to map the front lines, find where al-Qaida is hiding and communicate with our troops. The departments of defense, homeland security and state, as well as the CIA, are all major consumers of satellite imagery.
Together with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, we set out last year to find out how the flaws in our space program happened and how we can create a roadmap to move forward.
My subcommittee convened a series of roundtable hearings with staff from the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, NSA and commercial satellite companies.
We put together a comprehensive report that is now in the hands of President Obama. Here is what we found:
• America needs to reform current export regulations that hinder the space industry, specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR).
• Funding for research and development must be increased and happen before manufacturing starts.
• Commercial imagery must be considered under certain circumstances to utilize the latest in technology while also keeping costs down.
• America needs a comprehensive plan or roadmap for overhead architecture, including imagery, signals and communications.
• We need to reinvigorate science and technology education to rebuild our space work force.
ITAR ISSUES
While it had good intentions, ITAR is severely hurting the industry. As we all know, ITAR was intended to protect sensitive technologies and information from being transferred to nations that are a potential security risk.
But over time, the policies under ITAR meant to protect us and make us stronger are having the opposite effect. We are actually hampering national security as key vendors in the technology sector are going out of business because they can’t export, while foreign competitors fill in the gaps.
ITAR is providing the motivation for European countries to simply copy the technology that we created and perfected. Their companies are getting stronger as ours get weaker. The ITAR process is cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive.
Ultimately, we don’t have justification for why some components are on the list of banned exports for American companies, when foreign companies sell the same components freely using the technology we created and they simply copied. Twenty years ago, American companies controlled more than 70 percent of the commercial satellite industry, but because of ITAR that number has now dropped to about 27 percent.
I am pleased to report that we are making steady progress on this issue. Language in the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2010 was approved by the House Intelligence Committee this June. It required the director of national intelligence to review the ITAR regulations and determine what satellites and components could safely be taken off the list subject to regulations.
I also worked closely with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman to get similar provisions inserted in both the Foreign Relations and Defense Authorization Acts for 2010. Both bills passed the House, and we are lobbying the Senate.
As I alluded to earlier, we found in our report that a lot of these problems were largely due to unproven technologies within the acquisition process. We are entering into acquisition with premature technologies, and putting the cart before the horse.
By the time a project gets to the manufacturing stage, everything should be an exact science. We need to invest a lot more in research and development [R&D]. Some companies that participated in our round table discussions said only 3 percent to 4 percent of the overall project budget is getting spent on research and development. They suggested that, as a goal, 10 percent should be devoted to it. A more practical goal may be 8 percent.
I understand that it is challenging to fund space R&D while the country is recovering from past space failures and also fighting two wars. But the purpose of R&D is to show a path to the future and to allow mistakes to be made prior to entering pre-acquisition or development. It is too costly to encourage mistakes to be made once a program has committed to moving into development.
Frankly, I am concerned that we are continuing to go down the path of not conducting enough R&D with existing contracts. If this happens, we are doomed for more projects that are over-budget and overdue.
COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS
We also have to take a closer look at commercial, when appropriate. The government can avoid buying large and expensive satellites by purchasing the photos rather than the camera.
We use this approach in everyday life. I have to wear a suit to work every day, and my dry-cleaning bill adds up, especially in this economy. But never would I consider actually purchasing a full-scale dry-cleaning system. It just doesn’t make practical sense. It’s too expensive.
Likewise with space, we can simply contract for the services needed, usually at a greatly reduced price that will allow us to funnel savings to other programs. Our European allies are doing this well. The British Paradigm program is pursuing a commercial approach to providing protected, secure communications for their military.
They signed a contract in 2003 and, in May 2007, launched the first of the Skynet 5 telecommunications satellites to boost communication for troops deployed in Afghanistan. The services contract—in which the private company owns and operates the system—calls for three or four identical models. They didn’t have the money we have, so they implemented this approach, and it’s working well.
The mistakes of the past prove that we shouldn’t put all of our eggs in the government satellite basket, so to speak. We must take a balanced approach with a comprehensive roadmap.
Other than the president’s current recommendation, there is no comprehensive space architecture or strategic plan that accommodates current and future national security priorities or Department of Defense and intelligence community capability requirements. This should include imagery, signals and communication.
We also need to clearly determine who has decision-making and funding authority, especially for joint-funded satellite programs, so that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and DoD are working together.
I am in a unique position as T&T chairman and also a member of the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the NASA and NOAA budgets. I see every day that there is just not enough money to go around, and we need a lot more collaboration between agencies like DoD, the intelligence community and NASA to prevent redundancy.
It will help us save money and, again, apply it to other areas of the space program. For example, if NASA is looking at building a new launch, then it can be shared with DoD and intelligence agencies.
My committee is working closely with President Obama, DNI Dennis Blair and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper on a plan. Without getting into specifics, for the first time, I see a see a roadmap for the future being developed.
Much of the leadership, who I respect but have been resistant to commercial in the past, are now considering it. I applaud that, and I am excited to see this recommendation in our report coming closer to realization.
I will say that I advocate always having a back-up plan. I see so many projects taking a huge leap of faith. Here’s how I see it: If Tarzan is swinging on vines in the jungle, he won’t let go of the vine in one hand until another is in his other hand. Otherwise, he crashes to the ground. We can’t afford that anymore. We have to take a scientific approach.
EDUCATION IMPERATIVE
I am worried that American students are slipping behind our international counterparts in math and science education. Recent trends show that too few students are choosing to pursue science, technology, engineering and math degrees.
In many technical fields, more than half the degrees are awarded to students who are in the United States on temporary visas, according to the National Science Foundation. China, with about four times as many people as the United States, produces nearly seven times as many engineers. In the most recent comparisons, China awarded more than 440,000 degrees in engineering compared to 65,000 in the U.S.
Programs take too long and trips back and forth to the space station no longer capture the public’s interest. We need to rekindle the patriotism we felt when Neil Armstrong placed that flag on the moon. Americans have fallen out of love with space. Maybe another project will help. Any way we do it, we have to get young people excited about science, technology, engineering and math. Commercializing space in certain circumstances unleashes the creative energy of the free market. It promotes innovation and will keep the United States competitive in the global space marketplace.
Commercialization equals innovation. Innovation equals excitement. Excitement equals inspired students. I am working hard to make sure we have sufficient funds directed toward science education programs.
I believe by creating a robust space industry now, or even coming up with a new, high-profile program, we can get young Americans to choose a career in space later.
I have addressed both the positive and negative of our space program. I’ve talked about our successes and our failures, and we’ve had both. We need to learn from them so we can create a stronger space program.
Congress is taking on some difficult issues like health care, but in our field, we have to keep our eye on the ball. I know we can find the time and energy to get this done. National security is not a Democratic or Republican issue, and we need to all come together to set aside our partisan differences and reprioritize space.
I look forward to working with all of our private sector partners in maintaining our space dominance. I’d like to thank you all for your innovation, ingenuity and dedication to your industry. ♦
