Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, delivered the following opening remarks at a hearing on regional missile defense assets with a focus on assessing COCOM and Allied Demand for Capabilities as well as Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense.
Rep. Lamborn’s remarks as prepared for delivery:
Today we meet to receive testimony on regional missile defense capabilities. This includes the Patriot system, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense – or THAAD – system, and the Aegis weapons system.
Testifying before the subcommittee today are:
- Mr. John. D. Hill, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space and Missile Defense Policy;
- Major General Sean Gainey, the Director of the Army’s Management Office for Strategic Operations and Joint Fires Capabilities;
- Rear Admiral Doug Williams, the acting director of the Missile Defense Agency,
- and finally Brigadier General Clair Gill, the Joint Staff’s Deputy Director for Regional Operations and Force Management.
Thank you all for being with us.
As the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East continue to demonstrate, missile defense capabilities are becoming increasingly important on the modern battlefield. However, demand for these systems continues to outpace supply, and in recent years the force has experienced significant stress attempting to meet the needs of our combatant commanders. This suggests we are far below what will be needed in a conflict with a near-peer adversary. This issue will only get worse as the need to increase deterrence in the INDOPACOM theater becomes more urgent.
Over the last month, we’ve seen Iranian proxies attempt to sink U.S. military and civilian vessels transiting the Red Sea. These attacks by the Houthis, which were named a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the Trump administration, has only intensified over the past week. U.S. missile defense assets in the area, particularly those aboard the USS Carney were able to intercept some of the incoming missiles and UAVs. This quick action likely saved the lives of U.S. Navy sailors and commercial seamen.
We look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the Department manages these scarce assets, and whether additional capacity is necessary.
While not the subject of today’s hearing, I must express my concern about reports that the Department is considering early down-selects to a single contractor on several key missile defense programs. Maintaining multiple competing industry teams helps limit risk in developmental programs, and this subcommittee will closely scrutinize any decision to eliminate competition to ensure that a sufficient rationale exists.
I’m similarly concerned that the Department may be reconsidering a transfer of the Missile Defense Agency’s responsibilities for the THAAD program to the Army. The idea of transitioning mature missile defense programs from MDA to the services is not new. However, the Department’s longstanding and consistent position in the case of THAAD has been that doing so would be disruptive and unnecessarily add risk to the program. Based on this argument, last year’s defense authorization bill repealed a standing requirement for such a transfer.
If the Department’s view has now changed, I would expect that it would thoroughly consult this committee. The Department must explain why it is reopening this issue and considering changes that, per the Department, would put the THAAD program at risk.
The Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act has several key provisions on regional missile defense. Among other things, it includes additional THAAD interceptors and an acceleration of the Glide Phase Interceptor Program for hypersonic missile defense. I cannot emphasize enough how critical it is that we get the NDAA signed into law soonest.