Hunter Statement for Contingency Contracting Hearing

Apr 9, 2008
Press Release

Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988 

Hunter Statement for Contingency Contracting Hearing 

Washington D.C. – House Armed Services Committee Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter (R-CA) released the following opening statement for the committee’s hearing on contingency contracting reforms and the recommendations of the Gansler Commission: 

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning gentlemen.  We appreciate your being with us today and I am extremely pleased that we were able to schedule a hearing on the Gansler Commission’s recommendations.  I believe that one of the best services we can provide our warfighters—to improve their readiness today and to improve the way we fight in the future—is to capture the lessons learned we’ve learned about how to rapidly and ethically provide goods and services to our fighting men and women.  During ever major conflict in our nation’s history, the United States has learned to rapidly procure the equipment and supplies needed by our warfighters.  The price we have paid for these lessons is heavy—it’s often paid in the blood of our sons and daughters.  And every time the conflict is over, the capabilities we’ve gained atrophy or are subsumed by the peacetime bureaucracy.  We cannot allow this to happen again.  That’s why I believe that contracting is at the very heart of our ability to effectively win wars and defend this nation. 

“When the Gansler Commission’s report was released last November, I have to admit that I read it with mixed emotions.  First and foremost, I was pleased to see that an independent body validated many of my concerns and the recommendations made by this committee.  However, I continue to lament the circumstances that led Secretary Geren to authorize the commission and the time and money we’ve wasted getting here.  I also continue to fear that Department of Defense will only take partial steps to implement Dr. Gansler’s recommendations. 

“In any major military operation, there will be individuals who see conflict as an opportunity for personal gain, rather than a call to duty.  It’s unfortunate, but it’s to be expected to a certain degree.  But, gentlemen, I am afraid that inaction on the part of the Department has, in large measure, allowed corruption to take root where it otherwise would not. 

 “In May 2005, this committee voted to require the Secretary of Defense to establish a contingency contracting corps.  Let me read to you briefly from the report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, ‘This corps would be directed by a senior commissioned officer with appropriate acquisition experience and qualifications who, when deployed, would report directly to the combatant commander in an area of operations requiring contingency contracting support….In addition, this section would attempt to leverage contingency contracting assets in both deployed and non-deployed locations to efficiently carry out the mission of the contingency contracting corps.  Training of the corps would take into account all relevant laws, regulations and polices related to contingency contracting and would be required even when the corps is not deployed.  The committee intends that the commander of the contingency contracting corps be appointed at a grade senior enough to interact effectively with a combatant commander. The committee believes that an officer in the rank of Lieutenant General, or Vice Admiral for the Navy, is appropriate for this responsibility.  The committee intends that the contingency contracting corps maintains a sufficient level of readiness in peacetime to be able to rapidly deploy to emerging contingency operations.  The commander of the contingency contracting corps should consider the development of a standardized contingency contracting handbook which summarizes all relevant laws, directives and regulations related to contingency contracting to assist the day-to-day operations of the contingency contracting workforce.  Finally, the committee urges that contingency contracting corps utilize an integrated contracting and financial management system to ensure that contracting operations are not hindered by technological limitations that can be easily avoided through the use of readily available systems.’ 

“Sounds an awful lot like the recommendations of the Gansler Commission.  But, the Department fought it and when it came time to negotiate with the Senate, we were forced to compromise on a joint policy on contingency contracting.  In reading your testimony, I see that the development of that policy has had paid dividends.  Nevertheless, I have to wonder where we might be today if the Department had been more responsive.  Or, forget about 2005.  Where would we be today if the Department had at any time in the intervening years, implemented these changes on its own?  

“All the same, ‘we-told-you-so’s’ are not particularly helpful in assisting you to move forward.  We want you to be successful.  I look forward to hearing more about the actions you have already taken and those that are in the works.  For example, I understand that the Army has created four contracting support brigades that will deploy during contingency operations.  But right now, each of those ‘brigades’ is staffed with only 19 officers and NCOs.  How is the Army planning to increase the size of those brigades, ensure they train with operational forces, and maintain their contingency contracting competencies during peacetime?  I also understand that the Army plans to place a two-star in charge of the recently formed Army Contracting Command, now led by Mr. Parsons.  But if the Army has no general officers with experience in contracting, how does the Army plan to fill that billet in the near term? 

 “I would also like to explore more fully with Dr. Gansler and Mr. Young, the commission’s recommendations regarding the increase in the number of general officer billets and billets at the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).  Dr. Gansler, why do you believe that 5 Army and 5 joint general officer billets represent the right balance?  Mr. Young, in your testimony, you allude to alternative approaches to the 583 additional billets for DCMA that Dr. Gansler’s commission recommended.  Are you at liberty to expand upon that statement? 

“Finally, I’ll leave you with a parting recommendation.  I know that the report required by last year’s defense bill, regarding the implementation of the Gansler Commission recommendations, is due at the end of May.  It was supposed to be due earlier, but the veto delay pushed the final due date to the right.  Here is my recommendation—if you wait until the end of May to submit the report, it will be too late for us to assist you.  If the Department needs legislative relief to fix these problems and if you wait until the end of May to tell us, it will be a sign to me that Department is still not taking these matters seriously.  Please do everything in your power to do the right thing now and in time to allow us to assist you.  It is unacceptable to punt to next year or to the next administration.  This committee will not allow that to happen on the backs of our soldiers and Marines.”

### 

https://Republicans.ArmedServices.House.Gov/