“The subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on the Army’s acquisition and modernization budget request for fiscal year 2010.

 “Although the President’s budget request was finally delivered to Congress on May 11th, the full details on several major programs remain unclear pending further analysis by the Army. Nonetheless, the Air and Land Forces subcommittee markup of the FY 2010 budget request is just 21 days from today.

 “This extremely tight timeline means that the witnesses need to provide answers to members today, not at some point in the future.

 “To facilitate these answers, the subcommittee specifically requested that the Army witnesses bring with them subject matter experts on all the major programs facing changes in the budget, so members should not hesitate to ask detailed questions.

 “While the Army’s FY 2010 budget does include significant changes to many programs, it is still, overall, a solid request that will provide the Army with what it needs.

 “The total of $41.1 billion for Procurement and Research & Development demonstrates a commitment to adequately fund the Army’s needs, while also being prudent about where the money is allocated.

 “Put in context, this total amount of $41.1 billion exceeds the entire budget request for the Department of State, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Homeland Security.  It is just below of the total discretionary funding request for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Education.

 “However, despite this large amount of funding, the Army remains under significant pressure to support overseas operations.  To do so, the readiness of most non-deployed units has been severely compromised.

 “While equipment stocks are not the only reason many units are not ready for combat, it is a major reason in many cases.

 “There is also a large unknown requirement for repair of equipment coming out of Iraq as the size of the U.S. force there declines.  The extent of this unknown cost hangs over all of the Army’s modernization plans, which may be significantly changed as the full cost of the war in Iraq becomes clear.

 “With regard to specific programs, the proposed changes to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program will have the most impact on the Army’s near term budget needs and long-term modernization plans.

 “The House Armed Services Committee, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, has expressed serious doubts about the technical feasibility, affordability, and wisdom of some aspects of this complex and expensive program.

 “Unfortunately, Army leadership simply waited too long to address the fundamental contradictions in its own plans for FCS and how they related to plans to modernize the rest of the Army.

 “The Army now faces dramatic changes imposed on FCS by the Secretary of Defense that will require months of additional analysis, contract negotiations, and leadership reviews to straighten out – all while trying to explain why the program still needs $2.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2010.

 “However, the decision by Secretary Gates to terminate the manned ground vehicle portions of the FCS program, although long overdue, is clearly the right decision, although he may not have gone far enough.

 “While many questions remain, some aspects proposed for the reorganization of the FCS program appear to be good ones.  Such as:

• Rapid phase out of the ‘Lead Systems Integrator’ to manage the program.
• New contracts with reasonable fee structures to replace the current fee arrangement that featured hundreds of millions a year in fees with very few tools for Army program managers to hold contractors to account.
• Breaking up the program into separate elements for the vehicles, communications network, and spin outs to the current force, so that the Army can properly manage each of these major efforts.

 “However, many questions about the way forward with FCS remain, some of which will hopefully be answered today.

 “For example, in what remains of the FCS program in the budget, there is a $415 million cost increase in FY 2010 for software development costs.

 “So, it appears that even without the manned vehicles, the FCS program could face continued cost overruns in the future, as has been predicted by GAO and other analysts many times.

 “But, there is one critical issue regarding FCS that I want to emphasize today: trying to go too fast, with immature technologies and optimistic cost estimates is how FCS got in trouble in the first place.

 “It is imperative that the Army not repeat all these same mistakes as it starts up its new manned ground vehicle program.

 “Taking the time to get the requirements, costs estimates, and technology right is absolutely essential to make sure that the Army can proceed with a new vehicle program that has the support of Congress, and actually succeeds.

 “Beyond FCS, the 2010 budget request also includes major changes to the Joint Cargo Aircraft program.

 “The subcommittee needs to better understand the rationale and impact of the proposed changes to this important program.

 “The 2010 budget request is also the first Army budget request since 2003 that does not include funds for Stryker vehicles.

 “Members need information regarding the future of the Stryker program, including whether or not the Army is ready to commit to a fleet-wide Stryker upgrade program.

 “The Army’s tactical wheeled vehicle fleet also faces many challenges including,

• the future of the MRAP vehicle in the Army’s fleet,
• modernization plans for the Army’s huge inventory of Humvees,
• adequately resourcing the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, and
• addressing critical shortfalls in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve medium and heavy truck fleets.

 “There are also significant issues that need to be addressed regarding the Army’s fleet of helicopters and UAVs.  Recent reprogrammings and the fiscal year 2009 supplemental request by the Army to fund the upgrade of the Apache and Kiowa Warrior helicopters appears to satisfy near term requirements and address the cancellation of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter. 

 “Longer term, there needs to be considerable analysis completed to determine the proper mix of helicopters and UAVs and the required capabilities to meet warfighter needs.

 “Finally, members also need to fully understand the Army’s path forward on body armor.

 "Media reports have indicated that in Afghanistan soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 lbs for a three day mission.  We have previously received testimony that personnel can only wear so much armor, beyond which their operational effectiveness is inhibited, which in turn increases their risk of being injured.  

 “We expect to receive updates on immediate efforts to lighten the load of the soldier, without sacrificing their safety.

 “In addition, the Army recently implemented a new policy decision requiring all body armor tests be conducted ‘in-house’ at a government laboratory, the Army Test Center.  Historically the Army has contracted to independent National Institute of Justice certified laboratories for first article tests and lot acceptance tests.

 “The independent laboratories and industry have expressed serious concerns over this policy decision and are indicating this decision could create delays in fielding body armor to the warfighter. 

 “At the request of this subcommittee, and before the testing policy decision was even made by the Army, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was already observing and reviewing the most recent body armor tests being conducted at the Army Test Center.  The GAO is in the process of completing their review and we are waiting to review their findings.

 “In the meantime I would strongly encourage the Army and the Department of Defense to standardize test procedures and protocols.

 “We look forward to our witnesses’ opening remarks.”