“Good morning and welcome.  Today we meet in open session to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budget request for shipbuilding programs.  Appearing before us today are the chief acquisition officer of the Navy, the Honorable Sean Stackley, and the chief requirements officer of the Navy, Vice Admiral Barry McCullough.   Admiral, you are well known to this committee, welcome back.  Secretary Stackley, while many of us know you and have worked with you in the past I believe this is your first time in testimony to this committee, welcome also to you. 

 “The good news is that we will not be interrupted by votes because the House stands in recess.  It is my hope that will allow us to have a frank and detailed discussion on where we are and where we need to go with our shipbuilding programs.  I thank the Members in attendance for staying to participate in this very important hearing. 

 “In previous years, at this very hearing, I have commented that the budget request and the accompanying 30 year shipbuilding plans were unachievable.  In fact, I have stated that the long range plan was ‘pure fantasy.’ It now appears the Navy has learned how to deflect criticism of the shipbuilding plan: don’t submit one.  Although required by title 10 of the United States Code, all plans for future year’s ship procurement are being withheld from the Congress.  This obviously makes it very difficult for the Members of this Congress to fulfill their Article I responsibilities to ‘provide and maintain a Navy.’ 

 “I realize the two witnesses sitting before this committee today did not make that decision, and I will not continue to dwell upon it here.  But I state for the public record that the failure of the Department to describe the future shipbuilding plan will not prevent this subcommittee from the due diligence required in recommending to the full committee and the full House a shipbuilding plan which will restore the Navy to an acceptable number of ships and which will preserve the domestic industrial capability for construction of warships.

 “In the limited time this subcommittee has had to review this year’s budget request it appears to be somewhat better than previous years.  The Department is requesting authorization for the procurement of eight new ships, and is requesting advance procurement funds for the procurement of at least seven more next year, including two submarines. If you take into account that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the Joint High Speed Vessel program do not require advance procurement then the potential exists for a 12 ship request next year. 

 “I have the following concerns which I trust that the witnesses will address today.  None of these should come as a surprise, particularly to the two witnesses, since I have expressed these concerns either publicly or directly to them.

 “I am concerned about the EMALS program for the next aircraft carrier.  As the Secretary knows well, I recently visited the production facility and was favorably impressed; however, failure of this one system to deliver on its promises means we are building the world’s largest helicopter carrier.  I would like the Secretary to address what additional oversight and continuity of oversight he envisions for this program.

 “I remain very concerned about the LCS program.  I am not happy with the cost and schedule performance.  In January I spoke with the Captain of the first ship – he loved it, he was very happy, but the fact remains that the ship was delivered over 18 months late and 2 ½ times over the cost the contractor promised. 

 “No one, either the Navy or the contractor, should be patting themselves on the back for this ship or the first aluminum ship, which has still not delivered.  I am not convinced that the costs are being driven out of this program.  These ships are too expensive.  We need to drive the cost down.  Or, we need to see who else can build these ships for a fair price. 

 “I think it is important to note that everything about this program is different from other shipbuilding programs – the Navy does not contract with the shipyards building the ship, they have agreements with two ‘prime contractors.’ The ship’s propulsion systems, combat systems, and C4I systems were not specified by the Navy, they were chosen by the prime contractors to meet ‘performance specifications.’

 “Because of this, there is very little common equipment between the two types of ships.  Lack of commonality costs money now, it will increase training costs for Sailors and it will increase overall life cycle costs.  I request that the Admiral and the Secretary address this issue of a lack of commonality today.

 “Turning to the destroyer controversy.  It is no secret that this committee last year supported the CNO’s desire to return to the construction of the DDG 51 destroyer.  Not everyone is happy with the final decision, but we seem to now have a final decision from the Secretary of Defense on the way forward, and an agreement between the two shipyards which will level the load on the industrial base.  I request the Secretary explain the agreements and I request the Admiral give us some sense on how he will use both of the two very different destroyers.

 “I would also like an explanation this morning to some fairly significant funding requests in the research and development accounts.  The Secretary of Defense has testified that future procurement decisions will be based on the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and has stated that as the reason to not request funds to alleviate shortfalls in validated requirements gaps such as the current strike fighter shortfall of F/A 18s.  

 “Yet the Department is requesting half a billion dollars for development efforts on a replacement to the Ohio class submarine before the QDR validates the requirement.  Make no mistake, this subcommittee has been the strongest proponent over the last three years in submarine construction and the preservation of the submarine industrial design base.  The subcommittee has been supportive of ‘pulling forward’ the design of the next generation submarine to ensure we do not lose our skilled design workforce.  Yet this request goes far beyond that goal. 

 “I would ask the witnesses to please explain why this subcommittee should recommend this full request for a non-validated requirement when there are very real shortfalls in other, validated, requirements today.

 “These are just a few of the concerns I have; I am sure that we will discuss others, but now I wish to call on my friend from Missouri for any remarks he may wish to make.”