• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie Opening Statement Hearing on Army Acquisition Programs and Strategy

April 10, 2008

"The Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on major Army acquisition programs. In addition, we will receive testimony about a recent DOD IG report on body armor contracting.

"The panel includes Lieutenant General Stephen Speakes, Deputy Army Chief of Staff, G-8; Lieutenant General N. Ross Thompson, the Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Janet St. Laurent, from the GAO; Paul Francis, also from the GAO, and Mary Ugone from the DOD Inspector General's office.

"In its fiscal year 2009 budget request, the Army has asked for $35.1 billion for procurement and development of new equipment, and the committee expects the 2009 supplemental budget request to include billions more.

"The charge of this subcommittee is to ensure that the requested funding is allocated in the most efficient and appropriate manner, based on its judgment of the Army's stated needs.

"While the Army's desire for some systems is a key issue, recognizing that desire is not where this subcommittee's responsibility to soldiers and the American people ends.

"Instead, this subcommittee has always taken an approach that focuses on ensuring that scarce tax dollars are not wasted on programs that are not performing as planned, are being poorly managed, or are simply a lower priority than other needs the Army may have.

"And right now, the needs of the Army are many.

"It is fighting two major wars, trying to complete a comprehensive reorganization program, improve the capability of the reserve forces, grow in size by 74,000 soldiers, implement the latest BRAC round, repair and upgrade its equipment damaged in combat, and fix serious readiness problems for some units.

"And, while doing all that, the Army is expected to maintain additional ready troops for other combat missions and domestic emergency response.

"Each of these efforts, even in peacetime, would be a major undertaking requiring many billions of dollars.

"The fact that the Army is trying to do all those things at once, during two major wars, requires this subcommittee and Congress to look at the big picture, not just the merits of any one particular program.

"Finding the proper balance between the many needs of the Army is an ongoing challenge, but has perhaps never been as difficult as the situation the Army now faces.

"And, in a situation like the one the Army finds itself today, leaders in the Army and in Congress have to have clear priorities so that informed and wise choices between many different options are possible.

"While Congress reviews one budget year at a time, choices made in any given year can have significant implications in the future.

"For example, by the end of fiscal year 2008, the Army will have spent $15 billion on the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, a program with potential in the future, but one that has yet to develop and field a single piece of operational combat equipment.

"Initial funding for FCS began in 2003, so it is reasonable to ask what else the Army could have spent that $15 billion on over the past six years?

"Perhaps the Army could have started to add combat brigades in 2003 so that troops in Iraq today would not have to stay as long or go to Iraq as often?

"Perhaps the Army could have instead invested in more rapid upgrades of current Army equipment, so that troops in combat today would have better versions of tanks and other equipment than is currently available?

"Perhaps the Army could have begun, years earlier, the ongoing effort to provide more, and better, equipment to the Army National Guard and Army Reserve?

"While members of this subcommittee have different priorities, they all share the same goal: an Army that is ready and properly equipped for all the missions the nation may ask it to accomplish.

"Obviously, a great deal rests upon the Army and Congress getting these assumptions about the future right. If the Army and Congress are wrong, the nation might either spend too little, or perhaps too much, on the Army and the other Armed Forces.

"Or, even worse, we may spend money on the wrong kinds of forces, even if we spend ever more money on defense.

"One example of a possible choice between what is desired versus what is truly necessary is the Army's current plan to field, maintain, and modernize four different types of Army combat brigades: infantry, Stryker, heavy, and FCS. The cost of maintaining one fleet of vehicles is not small, so it is questionable whether or not the Army will be able to afford to maintain four different types of brigades - three of which have different combat vehicles - over the next decade, given the Army's many other expensive initiatives.

"Many of the most expensive elements of the Army's plan to maintain these four types of brigades are not even in the Army's current five year budget plan.

"For example, the full cost of and funding for all FCS spin outs, upgrading Stryker vehicles, procuring the next generation M1 tank and M2 Bradley vehicle, and replacing the current wheeled vehicle fleet are simply not yet known and are not in the budget.

"In addition, the Army also has ambitious plans to continue to modernize its fleet of aircraft, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as major investments in new communications equipment - all of which are set to coincide in the next decade with plans to upgrade ground combat vehicles.

"As supplemental budgets may decline over the next four years, choices between these different efforts will be forced upon the Army and Congress, so it is imperative to begin to consider these issues now, rather than continue to put billions into programs that may be desirable, but are not realistic or affordable given the Army's many other needs in coming years.

"We also plan today to address the findings from a recent Department of Defense Inspector General report that determined there were deficiencies in some of the Army contract awards for body armor and states that we cannot be given assurances that body armor procured under these deficient contracts have met required performance specifications.

"The Army has acknowledged there were some 'documentation errors' but maintains that all body armor has been adequately tested and meets required performance specifications.

"This represents a major disagreement between the two parties and it gives me cause for concern. We need to understand the facts regarding this report, as well as the required test procedures used to qualify body armor systems. Then we can determine a way forward. It is my hope the witnesses today will be able to clarify this issue for us and the public."