Letter to The Honorable Carl Levin, Chairman and The Honorable John McCain, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services

Letter

Cornyn Asks Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman To Support Full Funding For Army Future Combat Systems And Oppose House Attempts To Restrict The Program

Sends letter requesting Army's top modernization program receive full support

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, Ranking Member of the Airland Subcommittee, sent a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee leaders urging them to support full funding for the Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Army's top modernization program.

Specifically, the letter asks them to oppose cuts to FCS, which would occur under legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and would almost certainly result in FCS schedule delays and cost overruns. It also asks the Committee leaders to oppose an attempt by the House of Representatives to impose certain contract restrictions on the overall program. Chairman of the Airland Subcommittee Sen. Joe Lieberman also joined Sen. Cornyn in sending the letter.

Background
FCS consists of a family of manned vehicles, unmanned vehicles, and sensors connected by a network. FCS is designed to help our soldiers fight both current and future wars, and early FCS technologies are already being fielded to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

September 11, 2008

The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Armed Services
228 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Armed Services
228 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain:

As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Airland Subcommittee, we write today to bring to your attention a very troubling provision of the House-passed version of the fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (FY09 NDAA), concerning the Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Army's top modernization program.

For the past several years, our Airland Subcommittee, the Committee at large, and the full Senate have strongly supported the FCS program by consistently authorizing full funding at the level requested in the President's Budget and by opposing overly restrictive legislative provisions that might have hampered the progress of this vital Army program. Without question, our steadfast support of the Future Combat Systems has paid dividends for our warfighters. The FCS platforms will not only ensure our soldiers' superiority on the battlefields of tomorrow, but also in the theaters of conflict they fight in today.

Several of the systems developed by the program for the FCS Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) were recently demonstrated on Capitol Hill and are already being tested by the Army Evaluation Task Force at Fort Bliss, Texas. More importantly, technology from the FCS program is already being fielded to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing them with substantial new capabilities to accomplish their missions.

Despite this progress, FCS has been the target of budget cuts totaling more than $1 billion over the last four fiscal years. If the FY09 NDAA contains a $200 million cut in authorized funding - as the House-passed FY09 NDAA does - and the FY09 defense appropriations match that amount, the cumulative funding cuts to FCS will have exceeded $1.2 billion. Most alarmingly, the House's proposed cuts would almost certainly result in FCS schedule delays and cost overruns, which could prove detrimental to the future of the program.
Perhaps more troubling is Section 112 of the House-passed FY09 NDAA, titled "Restriction on Production Contract Awards for the Future Combat System." If this restriction is enacted into law, it will prohibit the Army from awarding a contract for low-rate initial production (LRIP) and full-rate production of major elements of the FCS program to any entity under contract as a lead systems integrator (LSI) for the FCS program.

We adamantly oppose this restriction, which would significantly increase program risk for both core and spin-out platforms and force the Army to take responsibility for the overall program, despite not having sufficient qualified acquisition personnel for such an immense task. The Army states that it would take at least two years to acquire and train the expanded workforce that would be required, resulting in a schedule delay that could be as long as four years.

In a July 10, 2007 letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, Assistant Secretary Claude Bolton, then-Army Acquisition Executive, stated that the Army required the assistance of the LSI for the spin-outs and for low-rate initial production of the first three FCS BCTs for three reasons: to prevent a break or costly drop in production between delivery of the IOT&E BCT and attainment of Full Operational Capability, ensure that full BCTs are delivered with the same configuration, and ensure that the LSI is accountable for all required corrective actions resulting from IOT&E.
In a follow-up letter, dated July 21, 2008, concerning the Section 112 provision of the House-passed FY09 NDAA, the current Army Acquisition Executive, Acting Assistant Secretary Dean Popps, reaffirmed that the Army needs the FCS LSI through the low-rate initial production phase of the program to successfully complete the "system of systems" verification after the IOT&E.

There is already a provision of law, Section 802 of the FY08 NDAA, which prohibits the Department of Defense from establishing new LSIs and allows new contracts for LSI functions in grandfathered programs, including FCS, only if the major system has not yet proceeded beyond LRIP, or if the Secretary of Defense determines in writing that it would not be practicable to carry out the acquisition without continuing to use an LSI, and that doing so is in the best interest of the Department. We believe that provision adequately addresses concerns about the use of LSIs. As such, Section 112 of the House-passed FY09 NDAA, in addition to putting the FCS program in extreme risk, is unnecessary.

We ask you to support the Army's position and strongly oppose in conference Section 112 of the House-passed FY09 NDAA. We appreciate your consideration on this issue and your continued leadership of the Committee on Armed Services.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN
United States Senators

Source