• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
APPENDIX
3
TESTIMONYFROMTHESENATEHEARINGREGARDINGTHEV-22OSPREY
T
HIS IS THE RECORD OF DR. L. DEAN SIMMONS'S
and Dr. David Chu's testimony about thestrengths and weaknesses of IDA's study and several prominent Senators' reactions toDoD's insistence on canceling the V-22 program. Dr. Simmons led the Institute for De-fense Analyses study that we used at the end of many chapters in the text to illustrate theExecutiveDecision-MakingFramework.Dr.Chu,theDirectorofProgramAnalysisandEvalu-ation of the Office of the Secretary of Defense testified after Dr. Simmons. Dr. Chu presentedSecretary of Defense Cheney's position that the V-22 was not affordable. He received a heatedreaction from several Senators. This is a rare example of two senior analysts placing opposingviews on the record. This hearing also underscores the importance of supporting DoD leaderswith high-quality rational analysis, captures the essence of the often fiery V-22 debate, and itshows the spirited nature Congressional inquiry can take when major defense programs affect jobs in members' districts.INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES STUDY OFTHE V-22 OSPREYTHURSDAY, JULY 19,1990U.S. SENATE,SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE.COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, DC.
Thesubcommitteemetat9a.m.,inroomSD-192,DirksenSenateOfficeBuilding,Hon.DanielK. Inouye (chairman) presiding.Present: Senators Inouye, Bumpers, Lautenberg, Stevens, Garn, Kasten, D'Amato, Specter, andGramm.
 
INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSESSTATEMENT OF DR. L. DEAN SIMMONS, RESEARCH STAFF, SYSTEM EVALUATIONDIVISION, INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSESACCOMPANIED BY DR. DAVID L. RANDALL, DIRECTOR, SYSTEM EVALUATIONDIVISION, INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSESOPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR INOUYESenator INOUYE. The subcommittee meets this morning to discuss the future of MarineCorpsaviationduringatimeofincreasingfiscalconstraintsondefensespending.Today'shear-ing focuses on the V-22 tilt rotor aircraft, a program which has been killed by the Secretary of Defense but resurrected by Congress.It is an understatement to say that the Secretary's decision to terminate the V-22 has beencontroversial. The issues are complex and the decisions Congress will make on the in-vestmentor savings amount to billions of dollars. The V-22 proponents say that the aircraft represents arevolutionary technology, a technology with military and civilian aviation bene-fits, which jus-tify the program costs. Opponents suggest that these benefits are not commensurate with theamount of scarce resources the V-22 would divert from the other higher priority defense pro-grams.The Marine Corps clearly wants the V-22 despite its official position to support the Presi-dent's budget. The Defense Secretary is just as adamant in his position to terminate the pro-gram. So we are holding this hearing this morning to shed some light on both sides of thisdebate. The witnesses today are the Honorable David Chu, Assistant Secretary of Defense forProgramAnalysisandEvaluation,andDr.L.DeanSimmonsoftheInstituteforDefenseAnaly-ses. Dr. Simmons was the project leader for an IDA special study entitled "Assessment of Alter-nativesfortheV-22Assault Aircraft Program." Gentlemen,welookforwardto yourtestimony.After any opening remarks by members of this subcommittee we shall first hear from Dr.Simmons. Dr. Chu will testify after that. Senator Specter.STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTERSenator SPECTER. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. To begin with, Mr. Chairman, Ithank you for convening this special hearing. I believe it to be necessary as the testimony pre-sented by the military has very forcefully supported the V-22 Osprey. General Gray, head of theMarine Corps, testified as to some of the objections and called them totally ridiculous.AnindependentreportbytheInstituteforDefenseAnalyseshascategoricallystatedthattheV-22 Osprey is vastly superior to any alternative, and it is well within the budget constraints.The Department of Defense early opposed the Osprey, and has candidly maintained this posi-tion despite an overwhelming case in its favor.The central point of our inquiry here today is to focus on the facts. What can the Osprey do?
 A–3–2Executive Decision Making 
 
Mr.Chairman,Iwouldsuggestthatthereisaveryimportantsubsidiaryquestionintermsof procedures and, really, the good faith of the Department of Defense in terms of opening thisprocess to Congress.Last year, both houses of Congress mandated an independent study: a study to deter-minefacts. As the process has gone forward, there have been reports of a preliminary conclusion notmade available to Congress. There were meetings on April 16 with no congressional participa-tion. There was strong insistence in the Congress on getting access to the re-port which was fi-nally made available under strong pressure by this Senator, talking to Dr. Chu and finally to theSecretary of Defense, on Friday when we left for the Fourth of July recess, which has the unmis-takable imprint of trying to delay it as long as possible until 535 Members of Congress have lefttown.The central question here is the quality of the plane. I think that there is absolutely no basisfor any contention that this is a parochial issue. Obviously, Senators from Pennsylvania andTexasaregoingtotakeaspeciallookbecauseourstatesaresoheavilyinvolved,butthisisamat-ter of national defense. The very distinguished chairman of this subcommittee has been very forceful on this issue, and all it can do is fly to Hawaii.The ranking member of this subcommittee said last year that he would not vote for anappropriations bill that did not contain the V-22 Osprey. Now what is a Pennsylvania Sena-tor supposed to do? Absent himself from these proceedings? This is not a matter of Pennsyl-vania or Texas or parochialism. This is a matter of national defense. We know that we arenow going into an era in which B-2s and long-range missiles are less important. We knowwe have problems in Panama. We know we have problems in the Persian Gulf. We know weneed flexibility.I reviewed the matter again yesterday afternoon with General Pittman, who originally op-posed the V-22. Now he calls it absolutely indispensable. He says we can document that had wehad the V-22 in Panama, we would have saved lives. Why save lives? Because the V-22 can landlike a helicopter after flying long distances as a fixed-wing plane. You do not have to jump peo-ple on parachutes. There is nothing more important than saving lives when we ask our military personnel to take action in the national interest.If I sound just a little bit perturbed, Mr. Chairman, it is because I am. I think it is really im-portanttohaveDr.ChuandDr.Simmonsheadtoheadaddressingthefacts.Allwewantarethefactsandletthechipsfallwheretheymay.Iamsatisfiedafterreviewinga1,200-pagereportthatthefactsareoverwhelminglyinsupportoftheV-22,andthatanyfair-mindedinterpretationorconclusion will support the V-22.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Senator Specter.Now, Dr. Simmons.SYNOPSIS OF STATEMENTDr.SIMMONS.Mr.Chairman,membersofthecommittee,Iamquitepleasedtoappearbe-fore you this morning in connection with IDA's assessment of alternatives for the V-22 assaultaircraftprogram.TheInstituteisoneofourfederallyfundedresearchanddevelopmentcenters.
 Appendix 3A–3–3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...