Floor Statements
|
|
|
Print this page |
AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY: SENATOR McCAIN’S OPENING STATEMENT AT THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING
December 14, 2010
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following opening statement at today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing regarding the testimony on Littoral Combat Ship acquisition in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2011 and the Future Years Defense Program:
“Mr. Chairman, our schedule is quite full and I want to thank you for taking the time to hold this hearing. And let me thank our witnesses for agreeing to testify on such short notice.
“Just a little more than a month ago, the Navy first proposed that Congress let them deviate from the competition for Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and buy twenty seaframes from both bidders – as opposed to ten from one bidder, as it was authorized to do under our bill last year. The Navy’s proposal, however, failed to provide Congress with basic information about cost and capability that it needs to determine whether it should approve the Navy’s request – because that information remains sensitive to the competition.
“However, the General Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have raised important questions that Congress should have answers to before it considers approving the proposal.
“Those questions include: How much more (or less) would it cost for the Navy to buy, and operate and maintain, LCS ships under its proposal, as compared to the current down-select strategy? Given that all of the deficiencies affecting LCS’ lead ships have not been identified and fully resolved, how confident can we be that the Navy will be able to stay within budgeted limits and deliver promised capability on schedule? Has the combined capability of the LCS seaframes with their mission modules been sufficiently demonstrated so that increasing the Navy’s commitment to seaframes at this time would be appropriate? Why would operating and maintaining two different combat systems, that is, sensors, weapons and software, that are unique to each LCS version, not offset the Navy’s savings estimate or ultimately prove to be wasteful and unsupportable? How consistent is the Navy’s buy-both-designs plan with the GAO’s recommendations for the program?
“That having been said let me be clear: at this hearing, my intention is not to focus on the merits of the Navy’s proposal. In my view, GAO, CRS and CBO’s substantive observations on the merits of the proposal actually go to the overarching issue of whether we should approve the Navy’s proposal under the circumstances we are now in, that is, at the 11th hour, during a lame-duck session, outside of the congressional budget-review period, and without specific information or the opportunity for full and open debate by all interested Members. These issues clearly lead me to believe that we need more time. From today’s testimony, I am hopeful that this will be apparent.
“Mr. Chairman, I ask that the GAO, CRS and CBO’s analyses, as well as the exchange of letters between me and the CNO and a letter from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to you and me, be included in today’s record.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I thank the witnesses for their participation. I look forward to hearing their testimony.”
###
|