Defense Procurement Process

Floor Speech

DEFENSE PROCUREMENT PROCESS -- (Senate - May 06, 2009)

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there is no question that our country's defense procurement process is broken. At a time when the American people are tightening their personal budgets, making sacrifices, and focusing on essentials, our defense acquisition program continues to run up huge bills.

Just this year, the GAO reported that the major defense procurement program is $296 billion over budget. Not only are they over budget, they are behind schedule. In fact, 95 percent of DOD's largest acquisition programs are now an average of 2 years behind schedule. Every extra day, every additional dollar spent on these systems is a step backward for our Nation's other priorities.

As we tackle the big challenges by getting our economy back on track or our health care system working again for all Americans or establishing a clean energy future, it is time that we focused on trimming the fat in our defense budget.

I applaud our Armed Services chairman, Senator Levin, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, for introducing the bold plan that is now before the Senate, which will bring about reform. Their bill recognizes that making changes to acquisition starts at the beginning of the process, with the proper testing and the cost calculating and development procedures. It also returns discipline to the process by making sure the rules limiting cost are enforced. Those and other badly needed steps are going to help reform our system and return Federal dollars to meet the challenges we have on the horizon.

Mr. President, that should be only the first step because the truth is that, while today's debate has been delayed for far too long, there is another hard conversation surrounding procurement that we have not yet even started, and that is the conversation about the future of the men and women who produce our tanks, our planes, and our boats. The skilled workforce our military depends on is a workforce that is disappearing today before our eyes.

Our Government depends on our highly skilled industries, our manufacturers, our engineers, our researchers, and our development and science base to keep the U.S. military stocked with the best and most advanced equipment and tools available. Whether it is scientists who are designing the next generation of military satellites or engineers who are improving our radar system or machinists who are assembling warplanes, these industries and their workers are one of our greatest strategic assets today. What if those weren't available? What if we made budgetary and policy decisions without talking about the future needs of our domestic workforce? It is not impossible. It is not even unthinkable. It is actually what is happening.

We need to have a real dialog about the ramifications of these decisions before we lose the capability to provide our military with the tools and equipment they need because once our plants shut down, once our skilled workforce and workers move to other fields, and once that infrastructure is gone, it is not going to be rebuilt overnight if we need it.

As a Senator from the State of Washington, representing five major military bases and many military contractors, I am very aware of the important relationship between our military and the producers that keep them protected with the latest technological advances. I have also seen the ramifications of the Pentagon's decisions on communities, workers, and families. As many here know, I have been sounding the alarm about a declining domestic aerospace industry for years.

This isn't just about one company or one State or one industry. This is about our Nation's economic stability. It is about our skill base. It is about our future military capability. We have watched as the domestic base has shrunk. We have watched as competition has disappeared and as our military has looked overseas for the products that we have the capability to produce right here at home.

Many in the Senate have spent a lot of time talking about how many American jobs are being shipped overseas in search of cheaper labor. But we haven't focused nearly enough attention on the high-wage, high-skilled careers being lost to the realities of our procurement system. That is why, today, I am going to be introducing an amendment that will require the Pentagon to explain to us in Congress and to the American people how their decisions affect good-paying jobs and the long-term strength of our industrial base.

My amendment will help to ensure that our industrial base is capable of meeting our national security objectives. It took us a very long time to build our industrial base. We have machinists who have past experience and know-how down the ranks for more than 50 years. We have engineers who know our mission, know the needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We have a reputation for delivering for our military. But once those plants shut down, those industries are gone. We not only lose the jobs, but we lose the skills and the potential ability to provide our military with the equipment to defend our Nation and project our might worldwide. Preserving a healthy domestic base also breeds competition. That is good for innovation and, ultimately, for our taxpayers.

So today, as we begin this very serious and necessary conversation on procurement reform, we cannot afford to forget the needs of our industrial base. We have to consider how we achieve reform while continuing to support the development of our industrial base here at home.

It calls for thoughtful planning and projection about who our future enemies might possibly be and how they might possibly try to defeat us in this Nation. It is critical that our country and our military maintain a nimble and dynamic base. Once a new threat is identified, a solution has to be close at hand.

The discussion we are having on procurement reform in the Senate is happening as our country faces two difficult but not unrelated challenges: winning an international war on terror and rebuilding a faltering economy. It would be irresponsible not to include the needs of our industrial base as we move forward because unless we begin to address this issue now, we are not only going to continue to lose some of our best paying American jobs, we are going to lose the backbone of our military might.

I will be offering this amendment, and I would love to have the support of our colleagues to make sure we have a strong nation in the future.

Source