Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a commonsense, cost-saving amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015.

Specifically, my amendment prohibits the Federal Government from wasting more money on storage for eight patrol boats which have cost taxpayers $3 million, have never been used, and have been sitting in storage for almost 4 years.

Recent media reports and an inspector general's report brought this issue to my attention, and the wasteful spending involved is deplorable.

In 2010, the Federal Government spent more than $3 million on patrol
boats for the Afghan National Police that were never shipped to landlocked Afghanistan. Even more troubling, the cost of each patrol boat was more than $265,000. The Washington Post has reported that similar patrol boats can be purchased in the United States for approximately $50,000 each.
The Office of the Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, also known as SIGAR, was so concerned about this waste of taxpayer money that it conducted an investigation and recently released a report. The report includes a letter dated April 24, 2014, from the inspector general to the commanding general of the Combined Security Transition Command for Afghanistan.

I would like to share a few excerpts from letter:

I am writing to request information on a $3 million procurement of patrol boats for the Afghan National Police initiated by the Combined Security Transition Command for Afghanistan in 2010.

My focus is on the operational requirements that initiated the procurement of the patrol boats for the Afghan National Police and the reasons for the cancelation 9 months later.

Additionally, I am also interested in the requirement for the United States Government to pay for the storage and related expenses for these boats for the last 3 years, boats that apparently have no planned use.

According to official at the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the patrol boats were manufactured and delivered to the Navy in 2011 and have been in storage at the Naval Weapons Station/Cheatham Annex, Yorktown, Virginia, ever since.

The full report goes on to detail some other troubling findings, which include missing storage records, missing expenditure authorizations and justifications, and missing documents which should detail the reason for canceling the procurement order.

The inspector general's June 6, 2014, letter is even more harsh as it stated:

I continue to have concerns because the Combined Security Transition Command for Afghanistan was unable to answer a significant number of my questions regarding the patrol boats. The list of unanswered questions is particularly troubling.

Further, the Combined Security Transition Command for Afghanistan's response indicates that its Security Assistance office led a review board that determined that the boats do not fill a valid requirement for Afghanistan.

To help the inspector general better understand how these decisions were made and to help us prepare lessons learned reports intended to avert the waste of U.S. taxpayer funds in the future, please provide a detailed accounting of all the elements of the Security Assistance office review boat's proceedings which led to that decision, including transcripts, testimony, and exhibits.

By letter today, I have also requested the Department of the Navy to provide their plans for disposition of the boats.

I wholeheartedly agree with the inspector general, and not another penny of Federal taxpayer money should be spent on these boats that cost $3 million to produce, were never utilized, and have been sitting in storage since 2011.

These boats either need to be put in the water or resold, per Federal law. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support passage of my commonsense amendment that will ensure better use of taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense, cost-saving amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015.

It has been brought to my attention from numerous sources within my district that in 2009 the Department of Army fully phased out the CWU-27/P Army aviation flight uniform and moved to the Army Aircrew Combat Uniform, also known as the A2CU.

Constituents of mine, many of whom are Active Duty, retired, or friends and family of military personnel, have expressed a strong desire for the Army to go back to the CWU-27/P model uniform.

There are multiple reasons to switch back to the CWU model uniform. The most important reasons to switch back to the CWU model are safety and efficiency. But to sweeten the deal, when making the pitch to me, my constituents explained that moving back to the CWU model would also save the Department millions of dollars a year in procurement costs. Talk about hitting two birds with one stone.

First and foremost, let's touch on CWU model's proven track record of safety and practicality. The CWU model is still authorized for Army Special Operations aviators, all of the aviators in other service branches of the U.S. military, and most air forces and navies around the world. Yes, these points are a testament to the safety and efficiency of the CWU model.

And these safety aspects are of paramount importance to our Army aviators, because the chances of a fire in an aviation crash are very high. The CWU model flight suits have antistatic fiber woven in them to prevent sparks, which, for obvious reasons, are not desirable when operating an aircraft with thousands of pounds of highly volatile jet fuel on board.

The one-piece design of the CWU model is also extremely important as it does not, in the event of a fire, leave any opportunities for exposed skin. Being that the A2CU is a two-piece model exactly like ground troop uniforms, it cannot offer the same amount or types of protection. Moreover, the A2CU is also cut to a looser standard than the CWU-27/P, creating the potential for more items of clothing to snag on controls in the cockpit.

Speaking to the cost savings, the A2CU model costs an average of 56 percent more than the CWU model, and the A2CU has proven to wear out faster than the CWU. Further, every time the Army decides to change the camouflage pattern of the duty uniform, they have to spend millions more purchasing the new flight uniform. The CWU model, to my knowledge, is usually only one color per uniform.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that this amendment does not score as it is written; but being that the intent is to move back to the CWU model, the effects of the policy should actually net some cost savings. Conservative estimates show that the Army could save around $5 million a year in procurement costs if it were to move back to the CWU model. Further, it should not cost anything to reintroduce the CWU model back into the supply system, as the rest of service branches still use them. In other words, there is no need to reboot the supply chain.

Further, the Army could replace the A2CU's with CWU's as they are exchanged by soldiers without the upfront cost of re-outfitting each soldier. The cost savings are tantalizing for someone like me who was sent to this town to rein in spending. More importantly, I listen to these Army aviators and flight operators. They tell me it is safer, and being that they are the ones doing the training and fighting, I will take them at their word.
Given the safety and practicality applications, and given that the United States is not exactly running a budget surplus right now, saving a few million here and there in the name of safety and practicality is something we should all strive to achieve.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment which cuts costs and improves safety.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source