Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Saxton Statement for Subcommittee Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
Washington D.C. --- Today, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces marked up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, legislation authorizing budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs within the Department of Energy. Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Ranking Republican on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, released the following opening statement:
“Mr. Chairman, first I’d like to thank you and your subcommittee staff for your continued professionalism and all the hard work that has taken place behind the scenes to get this mark done. This is not an easy process and I know that the legislation before us reflects many difficult decisions. Our portion of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 maintains our objectives of trying to balance the health and capability of the current force with the needs of future capability. As I have said on many occasions, this subcommittee has a long tradition of focusing on those issues that most impact and help our brave men and women in uniform. And I know the chairman is very dedicated to taking care of our military and he takes it very serious.
“As in years past, this committee holds to a belief that a strong and healthy airlift fleet is a basic requirement for national security. The Department of Defense relies on our organic airlift as a key enabler to global response. The increases in Army and Marine Corps end strength, as well as the increased reliance on C-17s to provide airlift for our troops inside the theater of operations, are clear indicators to this committee that we need more C-17s. I’d like to thank the Chairman for all his hard work in ensuring that the nation continues to strengthen this key national security enabler.
“While I said this was a balanced mark, I didn’t say it was a perfect mark. There are several programs that take cuts and I want to address the subcommittee’s reasoning behind these reductions; particularly in regards to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. There is no doubt that every member of this committee wants to ensure we have an Army that is ready today and prepared to meet the challenges of the future. However, there are some who believe that the Army can’t afford to simultaneously fight the Global War on Terror, reset its force, grow that force, and modernization all at the same time. Some of these same people have suggested that the Army’s FCS program should be scaled back in order to fund these other near-term priorities.
“I believe the prudent path forward is to increase the defense top-line. This is necessary to ensure not only the Army, but all the services, have what they need to do what this nation is relying on them to do in the near-term and well into the future. The Army’s funding crisis cannot be solved by continuing to cut funding for the FCS program or any other modernization program. The Army must be allowed to invest in technologies and equipment that enable our most important asset—the soldier—to remain more effective than our adversaries.
“When I look at the Air Force, Navy, and Marines I think of the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter and the V-22. These are all revolutionary systems. The Army on the other hand continues to make evolutionary changes or upgrades to existing weapon systems such as the Abrams tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. FCS is the Army’s revolutionary system.
“I would like to note, as the Chairman knows, this committee has been asking the hard questions in regards to FCS all the way back to 2004. Last year the Chairman and I spent the better part of a day at the Pentagon with senior Army leaders learning more about FCS. This year, the Chairman, Mr. Reyes and I took a trip to Fort Bliss, Texas, to see for ourselves some of the progress the Army has made in regards to FCS. And by the way, Fort Bliss is a wonderful military community and they are very fortunate to have Mr. Reyes representing them.
“Trips such as the one to El Paso, and the many briefings and hearings we've held are part of the close oversight the Congress—and specifically this committee—has exercised over the FCS program since its inception. Consequently, the Army has made some positive changes to the program as a result of our oversight activities and direction. However, if this year’s recommended cut stands, it will be the fourth consecutive year of funding cuts to the FCS program.
“I can understand how some can look at a $3.6 billion dollar program and conclude that a funding cut of approximately 5 to 10 percent ten percent might have little impact to the program. But you can’t look at the issue in a vacuum. In other words, you can’t just look at it from a one year perspective. You have to look at it from a cumulative perspective. One year of cuts might trim around the edges and not severely impact the program at this stage of development, but four consecutive years of cuts are bound to slice off some of the meat and even possibly nick a bone. This leads to my last point on the FCS program.
“The General Accountability Office (GAO), at our direction, does a detailed report on FCS every year. I think we would all agree that the GAO does very good work, and over the years they have highlighted many issues and concerns with the FCS program which we have taken into consideration in the form of legislation.
“The title of this years report is: ‘2009 Review of Future Combat System Is Critical to Program's Direction.’ They chose this title because in 2007 this committee wrote and the President signed into law a provision that directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a ‘Go, No-Go’ review of the FCS program following its Preliminary Design Review in 2009. We directed that at the end of the 2009 review the Secretary of Defense must decide to continue the FCS program as planned, restructure the program, or terminate the program.
“At some point Congress must give the Army the opportunity to demonstrate whether the system can perform. Let’s give the Army one year of stable funding in order to let the Secretary of Defense and the Army decide the fate of the FCS program in 2009. I believe that if this year’s cut stands, the cumulative impact of four consecutive years of cuts will lead to GAO calling next year’s report: ‘2010 Review of Future Combat System Is Critical to Program's Direction.’
“The chairman’s mark reflects many difficult decisions. And I absolutely agree that the National Guard and Reserve need additional funds. This year’s unfunded requirements list provided by the Army is about $4 billion dollars and is primarily for the National Guard and Reserve. But I don’t understand why modernization accounts in the base budget have to be cut when we should be fully funding the Guard and Reserve shortages in the supplemental. I remember two years ago the Army came to us and told us they urgently needed $18 billion added to the supplemental for reset for both the Active and Reserve Components. And both Chairman Hunter, at the time, and Mr. Skelton both pushed to get those funds added to the supplemental. I don’t understand why we can’t take that same route in this case.
“Thank you Mr. Chairman.”
###