Hearing National Defense Authorization Act For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
i [H.A.S.C. No. 116–35] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS HEARING HELD MAY 1, 2019 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37–511 WASHINGTON : 2020 SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey, Chairman JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut PAUL COOK, California RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona MATT GAETZ, Florida SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DON BACON, Nebraska ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JIM BANKS, Indiana FILEMON VELA, Texas PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico, MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Vice Chair DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia KATIE HILL, California JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine CARLA ZEPPIERI, Professional Staff Member JESSE TOLLESON, Professional Staff Member CAROLINE KEHRLI, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking Member, Sub- committee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ...................................................... 3 Norcross, Hon. Donald, a Representative from New Jersey, Chairman, Sub- committee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ...................................................... 1 WITNESSES Jette, Hon. Bruce D., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logis- tics and Technology, Department of the Army .................................................. 5 Ludwigson, Jon R., Acting Director, Contracting and National Security Acqui- sitions, Government Accountability Office ......................................................... 8 Murray, GEN John M., USA, Commander, Army Futures Command, Depart- ment of the Army ................................................................................................. 6 Pasquarette, LTG James F., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, Army (Programs), Department of the Army ..................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX PREPARED STATEMENTS: Jette, Hon. Bruce D., joint with GEN John M. Murray and LTG James F. Pasquarette ............................................................................................... 44 Ludwigson, Jon R. ............................................................................................ 56 Norcross, Hon. Donald ..................................................................................... 41 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: [There were no Documents submitted.] WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 77 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: Mr. Cook ............................................................................................................ 83 Mr. Gallego ........................................................................................................ 85 Mrs. Hartzler .................................................................................................... 82 Mr. Norcross ..................................................................................................... 81 Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 85 (III) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, May 1, 2019. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:37 p.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Norcross (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD NORCROSS, A REPRE- SENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMIT- TEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES Mr. NORCROSS. The hearing will come to order. The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today to review the Depart- ment of the Army’s modernization programs for the fiscal 2020 budget request. The Army has made significant changes, and that is an under- statement, and some very tough choices with regards to the 2020 request to fund future capabilities without asking for an increase to their budget top line. Our subcommittee intends to examine the rationale behind each choice with the senior Army leaders that we have with us today. I would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. Dr. Bruce Jette, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition and Logistics and Technology. General John Murray, Commanding General, Army Futures Command. And I would like to thank both of you for meeting us up at Pica- tinny and spending the day with us, very informative and very helpful. Also joining us is Lieutenant General James Pasquarette, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, G–8, and Mr. Jon Ludwigson, Director of Contracts and National Security Acquisitions, Government Ac- countability Office [GAO]. Thank you for joining us today. I know we are all looking forward to your testimony and this is something that has been very much on top of everybody’s mind be- cause of the scrubbing that the Army has done over the course of the last year. The subcommittee will review a broad portfolio of Army ground, aviation, ammunition, and air and missile defense, and soldier indi- vidual equipment programs. The Army’s fiscal 2020 modernization request, research and de- velopment acquisition programs, totals $34 billion, essentially in (1) 2 line with last year’s enacted amount. Though the Army’s mod- ernization top line did not change, the programs funded under these accounts certainly did. The subcommittee wants to learn about these changes, the reasoning behind it, and the associated risk that was taken or improved. To fund the future modernization priorities, the Army leadership conducted a yearlong examination of all research and development procurement programs, weighing the cost and benefits of each against the Army’s current needs and with the anticipated future threats in support of the new National Defense Strategy. Some 180 programs were deemed less relevant, that is certainly a relative term, to our strategy and were not as capable as a re- placement, therefore not worth the expense. They were cut from the fiscal 2020 request. One of the subcommittee goals today is to better understand the context, the analysis behind those decisions. One significant program reduction involves an upgrade to the CH–47F Chinook helicopter. Despite having invested significant funds to develop the Block 2 aircraft with greater lift, increased range capabilities, the Army deferred the program indefinitely, using the assumption that the aviation community would absorb the risk to the heavy-lift mission, and the industrial base will somehow weather this loss. The subcommittee expects to hear more about the Army—how you reached these conclusions and how the service intends to man- age this risk going forward. Army modernization has had a rocky road. The Army leaders with us today are familiar with that and the history and are com- mitted to a new way of planning and managing modernization. Most important, the Army leaders have [reorganized] for the fu- ture, standing up the Army Futures Command, General Murray’s new command, and creating of the cross-functional teams to iden- tify and develop solutions to serve the top six modernization prior- ities. They are long-range precision fire; next-generation combat vehi- cles; future vertical lift; Army network; air and missile defense; and soldier legality—lethality, excuse me. The committee expects to hear how the fiscal 2020 request will address these modernization priorities and align acquisition with the National Defense Strategy. We also want to know what will be different this time, and we have had this conversation so many times we have gone through this and somehow expecting that we change. Many are describing that this feels different, and certainly we want to make sure that, A, it is sustainable and it is working the way that it is designed. What new processes or internal oversight will ensure that the Army gets its money’s worth in this wide-reaching modernization endeavor? We are interested in the distribution of responsibility, the authority, as well as the relationship of Dr. Jette’s organiza- tion, ASA(ALT) [Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Lo- gistics and Technology)] and the Army’s Future Command and the Army staff, how will these three organizations work together and prioritize and come out with one correct decision. 3 Given congressional and DOD [Department of Defense] interest in improved acquisition, the Army has enthusiastically embraced rapid prototyping authorities granted by Congress to speed innova- tion and shorten development cycles for those key technologies. While the subcommittee supports the use of the so-called transfer authorities and other transaction authority, we also want to be sure that these rapid prototyping approaches are used in the spirit of good acquisition processes and practices that yield real measur- able results. Buying too many of the same design prototype while in the test and evaluation phase might not be the best use of taxpayers’ money. The committee will conduct oversight in these areas to as- sure that prototype-related funding is programmed