Today, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, made the following opening statement on the hearing, "Acquisition Efficiency and the Future Navy Force:"
"Today the subcommittee meets to discuss Navy shipbuilding plans and to discuss opportunities to procure the platforms we need at lower costs to the Department and the American taxpayer.
Our panel today includes two distinguished experts: • Mr. Ronald O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Services • Dr. Eric Labs of the Congressional Budget Office
Distinguished guests, thank you for being with us today and thank you for the invaluable support you have provided to this subcommittee over the years.
In April 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall wrote a memo to the defense acquisition workforce about how to achieve 'better buying power.' In this memo, he indicated that 'the first responsibility of the acquisition workforce is to think'. When I read this memo the first time, I must admit that I laughed a little. I couldn’t believe that the Department of Defense’s senior acquisition official was reminding the workforce to think. However, reflecting on this memo now, I think he may have been on to something. And I hope that our hearing today can stimulate some fresh thinking about how we pay for our national defense.
Looking at the Armed Services’ acquisition reform efforts to date, it seems to me that they have been focused primarily on structural efficiencies within the Department of Defense. I believe that there is a significant amount of work to do in this area and I applaud Chairman Thornberry for his leadership and his efforts.
At the same time, I think it is equally plausible that we can achieve more efficiencies and savings if all of us in Congress work with the Department to use the legislative tools that are already available in our toolbox.
Those tools include the authority to execute multiyear procurement contracts and incremental funding. These authorities provide contract stability for the industrial base and allow the government customer to achieve economies of scale. On the programs within this subcommittee’s jurisdiction I believe that we may be able to achieve savings of 10 percent just by changing the way we go about buying our ships.
10% may not sound like a lot, but if applied to something like the Ohio Replacement Program, which is projected to cost around $100 billion, that 10% would equate to savings of $10 billion dollars over the course of the program.
Looking at all the pressures and demands on the shipbuilding budget, that kind of money really matters, especially as the Ohio Replacement Program ramps up.
That is why my Mr. Courtney and I have worked to grant those authorities to the National Sea-Based Deterrent Fund.
I think it is time for Department to take Secretary Kendall’s direction to heart and 'think' hard about what acquisition vehicles will provide the most savings to the Department.
As to the broader, 30-year shipbuilding plan, I still fear that the existing plan is predicated on 'pixie dust' and highly optimistic. While the Navy’s plan purports to achieve a 308 ship Navy by 2022, it assumes that there will be a significant expansion in the funding for shipbuilding beyond what we have seen in recent history. I think a more plausible alternative is to increase the overall Department of Defense topline and ensure that a credible Navy build plan is accommodated within this higher top line. I think that CBO’s assessment of the 30 year shipbuilding plan seeks to provide some budget reality to the 'pixie dust' and I look forward to hearing your testimony on this issue.
Ultimately, at the end of this hearing I hope to have a clearer picture of both the challenges that we face in funding our Navy and of the opportunities that Congress can exploit to turn Navy requirements into a shipbuilding reality."
