Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Saxton Statement on Army Acquisition Programs
Washington D.C. --- Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), senior Republican on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, today released the following opening statement for the subcommittee’s hearing on Army acquisition programs:
“To our witnesses, thank you for being here. We are very fortunate to have each of you serving our country, and we are very fortunate to have you here today. Lieutenant General Thompson, nice to see you again. Lieutenant General Speakes, I guess the twelve hours we spent together last Friday going to Fort Bliss wasn’t enough punishment for you. Now, you’re back in front of this distinguished committee for some more quality time with us. Thank you again for taking us out to Fort Bliss to see what the Army is doing.
“And, thanks to my great friend Mr. Reyes for also escorting us on that trip to make sure we didn’t get lost. What a great Army post and community. And I think all of us who were on that trip would agree that we learned a lot and quite frankly, anytime we get the opportunity to talk to soldiers in their home station communities is a good thing. In my experience, the ‘talking points’ and ‘bumper stickers’ rarely make it down to the level of the soldier. Plus, they never have a problem telling us what they think.
“To our GAO witnesses, thank you as well. Mr. Francis and Ms. St. Laurent, you are not strangers to this subcommittee and thank you for the work you do. And, Ms. Ugone from the Department of Defense Inspector Generals (IG) office, thank you for being here. I know it was short notice so I appreciate you taking the time to come before our committee to discuss the very important issue of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) procurement policy for body armor.
“Given the overall national fiscal realities, the challenges of simultaneously funding the Global War on Terrorism and resetting our current forces, the question has been in the past and is still valid today: ‘How do we reduce the risk in developing complex weapons programs, such as the Future Combat System, so that we can afford to provide the necessary funding without sacrificing the capability of our current forces?’
“And just because we ask hard questions does not mean that we have a fundamental objection to modernization requirements. We ask hard questions because it is our responsibility to provide oversight of DoD programs and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent productively.
“Today we are here to discuss many important Army programs. However, there are two areas I would like to briefly mention. The first is in regards to the DoD Inspector General’s report on body armor. It should be no surprise to anyone that anytime this committee learns about potential issues with force protection we immediately engage. Nothing is more important to us than the force protection of our soldiers and Marines.
“Now I am not the expert; that is why our witnesses are here. But from what I have been told, it appears that the Army and the IG had or have a difference of opinion in terms of what constitutes proper testing in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. In addition, and I don’t believe the Army questions this, the Army failed to provide certain documentation. It is also my understanding that the Army and IG are continuing to work this issue in terms of the Army providing the proper documentation.
“Here’s my problem, given the sensitivity of this subject, why is this dialogue taking place after the final report has been released? Shouldn’t it have happened before the report was published? Surely both organizations have a review process and while I know that hundreds of reports are always in play, given the nature of this subject, shouldn’t have both organizations worked out these issues before it was published? Shouldn’t this have happened before it found its way into the press and possibility planted doubt in the minds of our soldiers and their loved ones that we are not providing the best body armor?
“The second area I’d like to briefly mention is in reference to the Future Combat System. In years past, the House Armed Services Committee legislative provisions and funding reductions in regards to the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) were meant to provide better oversight of the program and to steer the program in the right direction. For example, the committee highlighted three years ago that the Army had traded-off too much survivability in order to try to fit one vehicle into a C-130 aircraft. Consequently, the Army has added more survivability back into the vehicles and the current requirement is to put three on a C-17. In addition, the Committee was concerned that the program entered the systems development phase too early, with immature technologies and undefined requirements and thus directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct a ‘Go, No-Go’ review of the FCS program following its Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in 2009.
“I believe this congressionally-mandated review in 2009 will be a critical event for the program and the Army. I would like to hear assurances from both our Army and GAO witnesses that the Army is setting the conditions to successfully complete this review and if they have any additional thoughts about this review.”
###